Setting Standards for Medically-Based Running Analysis

Vincent, Heather K.; Herman, Daniel C.; Lear-Barnes, Leslie; Barnes, Robert; Chen, Cong; Greenberg, Scott; Vincent, Kevin R.

doi:10.1249/jsr.0000000000000071

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 5 shows that gait dominance was not consistent across all three running surfaces for any of the participants. This result reinforces the literature, which suggests that gait biomechanics can change with variation in running surface [20]. This result stresses the importance of training in the competition setting and will help sand-based athletes' conditioning as they become accustomed to the altered gait biomechanics.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Features Observed Using Multiple Inertial Sensors for Running Track and Hard-Soft Sand Running: A Comparison Study

Worsey

Espinosa

Shepherd

et al. 2020

The 13th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variability in the running surface can cause an athlete to alter their gait. Most literature report running on grass, a treadmill or athletics running tracks using inertial sensors. This study compares the signals obtained by 9 degrees of freedom (DOF) inertial-magnetic sensors incorporating an accelerometer (±16 g), gyroscope (±2000°/s) and magnetometer (±8 gauss). The sensors were placed on the participant’s shank, knee, lower spine and upper spine, and the participants were asked to run on three different surfaces (running track, hard sand and soft sand). The calculated player loads for a 400 m run on each surface type was very similar. The mean and standard deviation values were 577 ± 130, 581 ± 128, 568 ± 124 for soft sand, hard sand and the running track, respectively. This did not correlate with the participant’s self-assessment RPE (Rate of perceived exertion), which demonstrated running on soft sand to be significantly more challenging, yielding a mean and standard deviation of 5.3 ± 2.5 (Hard to Very Hard). Soft sand running had a decreased swing time duration but increased variability (0.44 ± 0.02 s—Swing Time, 6.5 ± 1.1%—CV), hard sand running had the longest swing and intermediate variability duration (0.46 ± 0.02 s—Swing Time, 3.30 ± 2.58 %—CV) and running track running had the medium swing time but lowest variability (0.45 ± 0.02 s, 2.7 ± 0.9%—CV). Gait dominance was not consistent across the surfaces for each participant and remained below a ratio of 0.4. These results provide an insight into how athletes modify their gait mechanics to accommodate different running surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Features Observed Using Multiple Inertial Sensors for Running Track and Hard-Soft Sand Running: A Comparison Study

Worsey

Espinosa

Shepherd

et al. 2020

The 13th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, males with PFP were reported to run with a greater peak knee adduction angle when compared to both females with PFP and male controls. Limitations of this study include use of a fixed speed (3.35m/sec), which may result in different findings to when running at a self-selected speed (Schache et al, 2011;Vincent et al, 2014); and the lack of a female control group. Improving understanding of how kinematic associations with PFP may differ between sexes is important to guide the development of more tailored interventions for this often persistent condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased hip adduction during running is associated with patellofemoral pain and differs between males and females: A case-control study

Neal

Barton

Birn-Jeffery

et al. 2019

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patellofemoral pain is common amongst recreational runners and associated with altered running kinematics. However, it is currently unclear how sex may influence kinematic differences previously reported in runners with patellofemoral pain. This case-control study aimed to evaluate lower limb kinematics in males and females with and without patellofemoral pain during running. Lower limb 3D kinematics were assessed in 20 runners with patellofemoral pain (11 females, 9 males) and 20 asymptomatic runners (11 females, 9 males) during a 3km treadmill run. Variables of interest included peak hip adduction, internal rotation and flexion angles; and peak knee flexion angle, given their previously reported association with patellofemoral pain. Age, height, mass, weekly run distance and step rate were not significantly different between groups. Mixed-sex runners with patellofemoral pain were found to run with a significantly greater peak hip adduction angle d=0.91, 95% CI 1.4-8.2, p=0.01) when compared to matched controls, but analyses for all other kinematic variables were non-significant. Females with patellofemoral pain ran with a significantly greater peak hip adduction angle compared to female p=0.02, F=3.41, 95% CI 0.4-12.8). Analyses for all other kinematic variables between groups (males and females with/without PFP) were non-significant. Differences in peak hip adduction between those with and without patellofemoral pain during running appear to be driven by females. This potentially highlights different kinematic treatment targets between males and females. Future research is encouraged to report lower limb kinematic variables in runners with patellofemoral pain separately for males and females.

show abstract

“…Although video assessment of running mechanics is advocated as part of the clinical examination of an injured runner, 9,38 the reliability of few commonly evaluated video kinematics has been previously de-stance, ankle dorsiflexion angle at midstance, and COM vertical excursion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of a Qualitative Video Analysis for Running

Pipkin¹,

Kotecki²,

Hetzel³

et al. 2016

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Reliability study. Background Video analysis of running gait is frequently performed in orthopaedic and sports medicine practices to assess biomechanical factors that may contribute to injury. However, the reliability of a whole-body assessment has not been determined. Objective To determine the intrarater and interrater reliability of the qualitative assessment of specific running kinematics from a 2-dimensional video. Methods Running-gait analysis was performed on videos recorded from 15 individuals (8 male, 7 female) running at a self-selected pace (3.17 ± 0.40 m/s, 8:28 ± 1:04 min/mi) using a high-speed camera (120 frames per second). These videos were independently rated on 2 occasions by 3 experienced physical therapists using a standardized qualitative assessment. Fifteen sagittal and frontal plane kinematic variables were rated on a 3- or 5-point categorical scale at specific events of the gait cycle, including initial contact (n = 3) and midstance (n = 9), or across the full gait cycle (n = 3). The video frame number corresponding to each gait event was also recorded. Intrarater and interrater reliability values were calculated for gait-event detection (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and standard error of measurement [SEM]) and the individual kinematic variables (weighted kappa [κw]). Results Gait-event detection was highly reproducible within raters (ICC = 0.94-1.00; SEM, 0.3-1.0 frames) and between raters (ICC = 0.77-1.00; SEM, 0.4-1.9 frames). Eleven of the 15 kinematic variables demonstrated substantial (κw = 0.60-0.799) or excellent (κw>0.80) intrarater agreement, with the exception of foot-to-center-of-mass position (κw = 0.59), forefoot position (κw = 0.58), ankle dorsiflexion at midstance (κw = 0.49), and center-of-mass vertical excursion (κw = 0.36). Interrater agreement for the kinematic measures varied more widely (κw = 0.00-0.85), with 5 variables showing substantial or excellent reliability. Conclusion The qualitative assessment of specific kinematic measures during running can be reliably performed with the use of a high-speed video camera. Detection of specific gait events was highly reproducible, as were common kinematic variables such as rearfoot position, foot-strike pattern, tibial inclination angle, knee flexion angle, and forward trunk lean. Other variables should be used with caution. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(7):556-561. Epub 6 Jun 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6280.

show abstract

Setting Standards for Medically-Based Running Analysis

Cited by 14 publications

References 51 publications

Features Observed Using Multiple Inertial Sensors for Running Track and Hard-Soft Sand Running: A Comparison Study

Features Observed Using Multiple Inertial Sensors for Running Track and Hard-Soft Sand Running: A Comparison Study

Increased hip adduction during running is associated with patellofemoral pain and differs between males and females: A case-control study

Reliability of a Qualitative Video Analysis for Running

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About