Joint dynamics of rear- and fore-foot unplanned sidestepping

Donnelly, Cyril J.; Chinnasee, Chamnan; Weir, Gillian; Sasimontonkul, Siriporn; Alderson, Jacqueline

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2016.06.002

Cited by 40 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are similar to those reported by Kristianslund and Krosshaug [22], who showed peak knee abduction moments were approximately six times greater during sidestep cutting when compared to double-support landing. Peak knee moments measured during UnSS were also in agreement with values reported pre- viously in the literature [10,11,13]. With increased mechanical demand placed on the knee during UnSS when compared to the single-leg landing tasks, results also show UnSS may be a better matched sporting task for knee injury/rehabilitation related research questions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…When comparing the ankle joint kinematics between the single-leg landing and UnSS tasks, plantar flexion angles were almost three times greater during SDL, SCMJ, and SJL. Previous literature has shown that adopting a fore-foot fall pattern (i. e., plantar flexion) during running [16,34] and sidestepping [11] is an effective technique modification for redistributing mechanical load from the knee to the ankle joint. It is therefore likely that the elevated ankle plantar flexion joint angles displayed during single-leg landing tasks relative to the UnSS task was one reason the mechanical loading of the lower limb was concentrated towards the ankle joint during the single-leg landing tasks (i. e., SDL, SCMJ, and SJL) and towards the knee, and to a less degree the hip during UnSS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Biomechanical Comparison of Single-Leg Landing and Unplanned Sidestepping

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unplanned sidestepping and single-leg landing have both been used to screen athletes for injury risk in sport. The aim of this study was to directly compare the lower limb mechanics of three single-leg landing tasks and an unplanned sidestepping task. Thirteen elite female team sport athletes completed a series of non-contact single-leg drop landings, single-leg countermovement jumps, single-leg jump landings and unplanned sidestepping in a randomized counterbalanced design. Three dimensional kinematics (250 Hz) and ground reaction force (2,000 Hz) data with a participant specific lower limb skeletal model were used to calculate and compare hip, knee and ankle joint kinematics, peak joint moments, instantaneous joint power and joint work during the weight acceptance phase of each sporting task (α=0.05). Peak knee joint moments and relevant injury risk thresholds were used to classify each athlete's anterior cruciate ligament injury risk during unplanned sidestepping and single-leg jump landing. Results showed that peak joint moments, power and work were greater during the single-leg jump landing task when compared to the single-leg drop landings and single-leg countermovement jumps tasks. Peak frontal and sagittal plane knee joint moments, knee joint power, as well as hip and knee joint work were greater during unplanned sidestepping when compared to the landing tasks. Peak ankle joint moments, power and work were greater during the landing tasks when compared to unplanned sidestepping. For 4 of the 13 athletes tested, their anterior cruciate ligament injury risk classification changed depending on whether they performed an unplanned sidestepping or single-leg jump landing testing procedure. To summarize, a single-leg jump landing testing procedure places a larger mechanical on the ankle joint when compared to single-leg drop landings, single-leg countermovement jumps and unplanned sidestepping. An unplanned sidestepping testing procedure places a larger mechanical demand on the knee joint when compared to single-leg landing tasks. Both unplanned sidestepping and single-leg jump landing testing procedures are recommended for classifying an athlete's anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in sport.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Biomechanical Comparison of Single-Leg Landing and Unplanned Sidestepping

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From a sports injury perspective, rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) can be one of the most serious for the community and professional athlete [12], with up to a reported 80 % incidence rate being non-contact in nature, and 80 % of these events occurring during a sidestep or singleleg landing maneuver [13], [14]. Studies cite elevated knee joint moments (KJMs) as a primary indicator of ACL injury risk [15], [16], and given that the most common approach to estimating KJMs is via inverse dynamics methods that require GRF/Ms input, data of these type are an obvious candidate for further investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Athlete Ground Reaction Forces and Moments From Spatio-Temporal Driven CNN Models

Johnson

Alderson

Lloyd

et al. 2019

IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accurate prediction of 3D ground reaction forces and moments (GRF/Ms) outside the laboratory setting would represent a watershed for on-field biomechanical analysis. To extricate the biomechanist's reliance on ground embedded force plates, this study sought to improve on an earlier Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach by using deep learning to predict 3D GRF/Ms from legacy marker-based motion capture sidestepping trials, ranking multivariate regression of GRF/Ms from five convolutional neural network (CNN) models. In a possible first for biomechanics, tactical feature engineering techniques were used to compress space-time and facilitate fine-tuning from three pre-trained CNNs, from which a model derivative of ImageNet called 'CaffeNet' achieved the strongest average correlation to ground truth GRF/Ms r(Fmean) 0.9881 and r(Mmean) 0.9715 (rRMSE 4.31 and 7.04 %). These results demonstrate the power of CNN models to facilitate real-world multivariate regression with practical application for spatio-temporal sports analytics.

show abstract

“…Ankle joint kinematics also appear to play a role in ACL loading and injury risk [21,22,23]. A more dorsiflexed ankle at initial landing contact (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A more dorsiflexed ankle at initial landing contact (i.e. rearfoot landing) increases the load placed on the knee and ACL during dynamic tasks [21][22][23]. Further, ankle eversion is proposed to contribute to 'dynamic valgus,' [24] a posture linked with ACL injuries [25,26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can athletes jump high while landing safely? Relationships between lower limb landing biomechanics and jump performance during a jump-landing task

Fox¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid jump-landing is an important performance determinant across sports. While the jump is important for performance, the preceding landing may expose athletes to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. ‘Safe’ landing techniques are promoted to minimise injury risk, however it is important that these are not detrimental to subsequent jumping performance. This study determined whether there is a relationship between biomechanical factors associated with ACL loading or injury risk and jump performance during a bilateral drop vertical jump. Thirty-two female sub-elite netball players had three-dimensional (3D) data recorded from a bilateral drop vertical jump task. 3D hip, knee and ankle joint rotations, 3D knee joint moments, and 3D ground reaction forces (GRFs) were extracted from the landing phase of the task. Jump height, ground contact time and peak power output were extracted from the jumping phase of the task. One-dimensional statistical parametric mapping (p < 0.0011) was used to investigate the relationship between the landing and jumping phases. Greater knee internal rotation moments and higher GRFs during landing were associated with reduced jump height. Greater hip and knee flexion, reduced hip internal rotation and knee abduction, and a more dorsiflexed/less plantarflexed ankle position at initial contact during landing were associated with longer ground contact times. Certain biomechanical factors commonly targeted within ACL injury prevention programs were associated with both poorer and better jump performance. The links between landing technique and jumping performance suggest jump performance training should be considered in parallel with landing injury prevention programs.

show abstract

Joint dynamics of rear- and fore-foot unplanned sidestepping

Cited by 40 publications

References 24 publications

A Biomechanical Comparison of Single-Leg Landing and Unplanned Sidestepping

A Biomechanical Comparison of Single-Leg Landing and Unplanned Sidestepping

Predicting Athlete Ground Reaction Forces and Moments From Spatio-Temporal Driven CNN Models

Can athletes jump high while landing safely? Relationships between lower limb landing biomechanics and jump performance during a jump-landing task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About