Next Article in Journal
Antimony Oxide-Doped 0.99Pb(Zr0.53Ti0.47)O3–0.01Bi(Y1−xSbx)O3 Piezoelectric Ceramics for Energy-Harvesting Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
An Overview of Smart Shoes in the Internet of Health Things: Gait and Mobility Assessment in Health Promotion and Disease Monitoring
Previous Article in Journal
Gas Sensor Design Based on a Line Locked Tunable Fiber Laser and the Dual Path Correlation Spectroscopy Method
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Biomechanical Study for Developing Wearable-Sensor System to Prevent Hip Fractures among Seniors
Article Menu
Issue 9 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessTechnical Note
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7(9), 959; doi:10.3390/app7090959

Which Method Detects Foot Strike in Rearfoot and Forefoot Runners Accurately when Using an Inertial Measurement Unit?

Department of Human Locomotion, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz 09126, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 17 August 2017 / Revised: 11 September 2017 / Accepted: 15 September 2017 / Published: 19 September 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [571 KB, uploaded 19 September 2017]   |  

Abstract

Accelerometers and gyroscopes are used to detect foot strike (FS), i.e., the moment when the foot first touches the ground. However, it is unclear whether different conditions (footwear hardness or foot strike pattern) influence the accuracy and precision of different FS detection methods when using such micro-electromechanical sensors (MEMS). This study compared the accuracy of four published MEMS-based FS detection methods with each other and the gold standard (force plate) to establish the most accurate method with regard to different foot strike patterns and footwear conditions. Twenty-three recreational runners (12 rearfoot and 11 forefoot strikers) ran on a 15-m indoor track at their individual running speed in three footwear conditions (low to high hardness). MEMS and a force plate were sampled at a rate of 3750 Hz. Individual accuracy and precision of FS detection methods were found which were dependent on running styles and footwear conditions. Most of the methods were characterized by a delay which generally increased from rearfoot to forefoot strike pattern and from high to low midsole hardness. It can be concluded that only one of the four methods can accurately determine FS in a variety of conditions. View Full-Text
Keywords: foot strike detection; accelerometer; gyroscope; rearfoot running; forefoot running; footwear foot strike detection; accelerometer; gyroscope; rearfoot running; forefoot running; footwear
Figures

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Mitschke, C.; Heß, T.; Milani, T.L. Which Method Detects Foot Strike in Rearfoot and Forefoot Runners Accurately when Using an Inertial Measurement Unit? Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 959.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top