KeepRunning: A MoCap-Based Rapid Test to Prevent Musculoskeletal Running Injuries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (i)
- Define the running events;
- (ii)
- Select the most relevant variables with the greatest influence on the prevention of RRMIs considering the literature and the authors’ criteria, according to the convenience of the KeepRunning test;
- (iii)
- Finally, assess the reproducibility of the running test by conducting a test–retest reliability evaluation on healthy athletes. Test–retest consists of repeating the test twice.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. KeepRunning Analysis Test
2.1.1. Sensor Technology
2.1.2. Data Provided by KeepRunning
2.2. Test–Retest Experiment
2.2.1. Sample
2.2.2. Experimental Protocol
- (i)
- Signing the informed consent;
- (ii)
- Filling in an anamnesis sheet;
- (iii)
- Manual examination by a physiotherapist specialised in the analysis and assessment of musculoskeletal injuries;
- (iv)
- Anatomical calibration or Fitbody;
- (v)
- 5 min treadmill adaptation time at a comfortable speed chosen by the subject (9.0 ± 0.9 km/h);
- (vi)
- Capture of 30 complete running cycles;
- (vii)
- Removal of the clusters of markers and characterisation of the participant using the body composition monitor and anthropometric measurements;
- (viii)
- Anatomical calibration or Fitbody;
- (ix)
- A second capture of 30 cycles at the same speed.
- (i)
- The same rater coordinates the testing of all study participants.
- (ii)
- Cluster of markers placement guidelines explained in Marin et al. [20] are followed.
- (iii)
- The rater stands in front of the runner in the anatomical calibration imitating the posture to be adopted. This ensures that the runner adopts the correct calibration posture.
2.2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Discussion of the Test–Retest Results
4.2. Applicability and Usage Considerations of KeepRunning
4.3. Limitations and Future Work
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ceyssens, L.; Vanelderen, R.; Barton, C.; Malliaras, P.; Dingenen, B. Biomechanical Risk Factors Associated with Running-Related Injuries: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2019, 49, 1095–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, É.Q.; Miana, A.N.; Ferreira, J.S.; Kiyomoto, H.D.; Dinato, M.C.; Sacco, I.C. The Association between Rearfoot Motion while Barefoot and Shod in Different Types of Running Shoes in Recreational Runners. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020, 19, 383. [Google Scholar]
- Kakouris, N.; Yener, N.; Fong, D.T. A Systematic Review of Running-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries in Runners. J. Sport Health Sci. 2021, 10, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, A.D.; Hespanhol, L.C.; Yeung, S.S.; Costa, L.O.P. What are the Main Running-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries? A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2012, 42, 891–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis, P.; Whatman, C.; Sheerin, K.; Hume, P.; Johnson, M.I. The Proportion of Lower Limb Running Injuries by Gender, Anatomical Location and Specific Pathology: A Systematic Review. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2019, 18, 21. [Google Scholar]
- Drapeaux, A.; Carlson, K. The Effect of Manual Therapy on Lower Extremity Joint Kinematics during Running: A Single-Subject Case Study. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2021, 25, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willwacher, S.; Kurz, M.; Robbin, J.; Thelen, M.; Hamill, J.; Kelly, L.; Mai, P. Running-Related Biomechanical Risk Factors for Overuse Injuries in Distance Runners: A Systematic Review Considering Injury Specificity and the Potentials for Future Research. Sports Med. 2022, 52, 1863–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegedus, E.J.; Ickes, L.; Jakobs, F.; Ford, K.R.; Smoliga, J.M. Comprehensive Return to Competitive Distance Running: A Clinical Commentary. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 2507–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Gent, R.N.; Siem, D.; van Middelkoop, M.; Van Os, A.G.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.; Koes, B.W. Incidence and Determinants of Lower Extremity Running Injuries in Long Distance Runners: A Systematic Review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2007, 41, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Worp, M.P.; ten Haaf, D.S.; van Cingel, R.; de Wijer, A.; Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M.W.; Staal, J.B. Injuries in Runners; a Systematic Review on Risk Factors and Sex Differences. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0114937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Quan, W.; Zhou, H.; Sun, D.; Baker, J.S.; Gu, Y. Explaining the Differences of Gait Patterns between High and Low-Mileage Runners with Machine Learning. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Zhou, H.; Quan, W.; Jiang, X.; Liang, M.; Li, S.; Ugbolue, U.C.; Baker, J.S.; Gusztav, F.; Ma, X. A New Method Proposed for Realizing Human Gait Pattern Recognition: Inspirations for the Application of Sports and Clinical Gait Analysis. Gait Posture 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dingenen, B.; Barton, C.; Janssen, T.; Benoit, A.; Malliaras, P. Test-Retest Reliability of Two-Dimensional Video Analysis during Running. Phys. Ther. Sport 2018, 33, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okahisa, T.; Matsuura, T.; Tomonari, K.; Komatsu, K.; Yokoyama, K.; Iwase, J.; Yamada, M.; Sairyo, K. Between-Day Reliability and Minimum Detectable Change of the Conventional Gait Model 2 and Plug-in Gait Model during Running. Gait Posture 2023, 100, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nüesch, C.; Overberg, J.; Schwameder, H.; Pagenstert, G.; Mündermann, A. Repeatability of Spatiotemporal, Plantar Pressure and Force Parameters during Treadmill Walking and Running. Gait Posture 2018, 62, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramah, C.; Preece, S.J.; Gill, N.; Herrington, L. The between-Day Repeatability, Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change for Discrete Kinematic Parameters during Treadmill Running. Gait Posture 2021, 85, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milner, C.E.; Brindle, R.A. Reliability and Minimal Detectable Difference in Multisegment Foot Kinematics during Shod Walking and Running. Gait Posture 2016, 43, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaen-Carrillo, D.; Garcia-Pinillos, F.; Carton-Llorente, A.; Almenar-Arasanz, A.J.; Bustillo-Pelayo, J.A.; Roche-Seruendo, L.E. Test–retest Reliability of the OptoGait System for the Analysis of Spatiotemporal Running Gait Parameters and Lower Body Stiffness in Healthy Adults. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sports Eng. Technol. 2020, 234, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaén-Carrillo, D.; Ruiz-Alias, S.A.; Chicano-Gutiérrez, J.M.; Ruiz-Malagón, E.J.; Roche-Seruendo, L.E.; García-Pinillos, F. Test-Retest Reliability of the MotionMetrix Software for the Analysis of Walking and Running Gait Parameters. Sensors 2022, 22, 3201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marín, J.; Blanco, T.; de la Torre, J.; Marín, J.J. Gait Analysis in a Box: A System Based on Magnetometer-Free IMUs or Clusters of Optical Markers with Automatic Event Detection. Sensors 2020, 20, 3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, L.F.; Urry, S.R.; Wearing, S.C. Reliability of Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Gait Parameters Determined by a New Instrumented Treadmill System. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2013, 14, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mihcin, S.; Ciklacandir, S.; Kocak, M.; Tosun, A. Wearable Motion Capture System Evaluation for Biomechanical Studies for Hip Joints. J. Biomech. Eng. 2021, 143, 044504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wouda, F.J.; Giuberti, M.; Bellusci, G.; Maartens, E.; Reenalda, J.; Van Beijnum, B.F.; Veltink, P.H. On the Validity of Different Motion Capture Technologies for the Analysis of Running. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob), Enschede, The Netherlands, 26–29 August 2018; pp. 1175–1180. [Google Scholar]
- Abu-Faraj, Z.O.; Harris, G.F.; Smith, P.A.; Hassani, S. Human Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- De la Torre, J.; Marin, J.; Ilarri, S.; Marin, J.J. Applying Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Case Study on Cervical Pain Assessment with Motion Capture. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.K.; Mirjalili, S.A.; Fernandez, J. Gait Kinetics, Kinematics, Spatiotemporal and Foot Plantar Pressure Alteration in Response to Long-Distance Running: Systematic Review. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 57, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas-Cuevas, Á.G.; Quesada, J.I.P.; Gooding, J.; Lewis, M.G.; Encarnación-Martínez, A.; Perez-Soriano, P. The Effect of Visual Focus on Spatio-Temporal and Kinematic Parameters of Treadmill Running. Gait Posture 2018, 59, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Pinillos, F.; García-Ramos, A.; Ramírez-Campillo, R.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Roche-Seruendo, L.E. How do Spatiotemporal Parameters and Lower-Body Stiffness Change with Increased Running Velocity? A Comparison between Novice and Elite Level Runners. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 70, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Pinillos, F.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Ramirez-Campillo, R.; Sanz-López, F.; Roche-Seruendo, L.E. How do Amateur Endurance Runners Alter Spatiotemporal Parameters and Step Variability as Running Velocity Increases? a Sex Comparison. J. Hum. Kinet. 2020, 72, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folland, J.P.; Allen, S.J.; Black, M.I.; Handsaker, J.C.; Forrester, S.E. Running Technique is an Important Component of Running Economy and Performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roche-Seruendo, L.E.; García Pinillos, F.; Auria-Martin, I.; Bataller-Cervero, A.V.; Latorre Roman, P.A.; Soto-Hermoso, V.M. Effects of Different Percentages of Body Weight Support on Spatiotemporal Step Characteristics during Running. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1441–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patoz, A.; Lussiana, T.; Breine, B.; Gindre, C.; Malatesta, D. A Single Sacral-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit to Estimate Peak Vertical Ground Reaction Force, Contact Time, and Flight Time in Running. Sensors 2022, 22, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saragiotto, B.T.; Yamato, T.P.; Hespanhol Junior, L.C.; Rainbow, M.J.; Davis, I.S.; Lopes, A.D. What are the Main Risk Factors for Running-Related Injuries? Sports Med. 2014, 44, 1153–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altman, A.R.; Davis, I.S. Barefoot Running: Biomechanics and Implications for Running Injuries. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2012, 11, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buist, I.; Bredeweg, S.W.; Bessem, B.; Van Mechelen, W.; Lemmink, K.A.; Diercks, R.L. Incidence and Risk Factors of Running-Related Injuries during Preparation for a 4-Mile Recreational Running Event. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 44, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, I.S. Is there an Economical Running Technique? A Review of Modifiable Biomechanical Factors Affecting Running Economy. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marin, J.; Blanco, T.; Marin, J.J. Octopus: A Design Methodology for Motion Capture Wearables. Sensors 2017, 17, 1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, R. Gait Analysis Methods in Rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2006, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Optitrack & Motive. Available online: https://www.optitrack.com/software/ (accessed on 11 November 2023).
- De la Torre, J.; Marin, J.; Polo, M.; Marín, J.J. Applying the Minimal Detectable Change of a Static and Dynamic Balance Test using a Portable Stabilometric Platform to Individually Assess Patients with Balance Disorders. Healthcare 2020, 8, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicola, T.L.; Jewison, D.J. The Anatomy and Biomechanics of Running. Clin. Sports Med. 2012, 31, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stöggl, T.; Wunsch, T. Biomechanics of Marathon Running. In Marathon Running: Physiology, Psychology, Nutrition and Training Aspects; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 13–45. [Google Scholar]
- Thordarson, D.B. Running Biomechanics. Clin. Sports Med. 1997, 16, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatchett, A.; Armstrong, K.; Parr, B.; Crews, M.; Tant, C. The Effect of a Curved Non-Motorized Treadmill on Running Gait Length, Imbalance and Stride Angle. Sports 2018, 6, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulze, S.; Schwesig, R.; Edel, M.; Fieseler, G.; Delank, K.; Hermassi, S.; Laudner, K.G. Treadmill Based Reference Running Data for Healthy Subjects is Dependent on Speed and Morphological Parameters. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 55, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, P.P.; Chan, Z.Y.; Au, I.P.; Lam, B.M.; Lam, W.K.; Cheung, R.T. Biomechanical Effects Following Footstrike Pattern Modification using Wearable Sensors. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2021, 24, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Souza, R.B. An Evidence-Based Videotaped Running Biomechanics Analysis. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. 2016, 27, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos-Concejero, J.; Tam, N.; Granados, C.; Irazusta, J.; Bidaurrazaga-Letona, I.; Zabala-Lili, J.; Gil, S.M. Stride Angle as a Novel Indicator of Running Economy in Well-Trained Runners. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 1889–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, B. The Biomechanics of Distance Running. In The Science and Practice of Middle and Long Distance Running; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, 2021; pp. 17–27. [Google Scholar]
- Dos Santos, A.F.; Nakagawa, T.H.; Serrão, F.V.; Ferber, R. Patellofemoral Joint Stress Measured Across Three Different Running Techniques. Gait Posture 2019, 68, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blum, Y.; Lipfert, S.W.; Seyfarth, A. Effective Leg Stiffness in Running. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 2400–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onal, S.; Leefers, M.; Smith, B.; Cho, S. Predicting Running Injury using Kinematic and Kinetic Parameters Generated by an Optical Motion Capture System. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, J.; Atkins, S.; Richards, J.; Vincent, H. Modelling of Muscle Force Distributions during Barefoot and Shod Running. J. Hum. Kinet. 2015, 47, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorstensson, A.; Roberthson, H. Adaptations to Changing Speed in Human Locomotion: Speed of Transition between Walking and Running. Acta Physiol. Scand. 1987, 131, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotstein, A.; Inbar, O.; Berginsky, T.; Meckel, Y. Preferred Transition Speed between Walking and Running: Effects of Training Status. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 1864–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kribus-Shmiel, L.; Zeilig, G.; Sokolovski, B.; Plotnik, M. How Many Strides are Required for a Reliable Estimation of Temporal Gait Parameters? Implementation of a New Algorithm on the Phase Coordination Index. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flaticon. Available online: http://www.flaticon.es (accessed on 13 June 2023).
- Steffen, T.; Seney, M. Test-Retest Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change on Balance and Ambulation Tests, the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale in People with Parkinsonism. Phys. Ther. 2008, 88, 733–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furlan, L.; Sterr, A. The Applicability of Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change to Motor Learning Research—A Behavioral Study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez, J.M.; Martin, P.P. Coeficiente De Correlación Intraclase. Med. De Fam. Semergen 2023, 49, 101907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardina, G.R.; Monnet, T.; Cerveri, P.; Silvatti, A.P. Moving System with Action Sport Cameras: 3D Kinematics of the Walking and Running in a Large Volume. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, W.G. A Spreadsheet for Monitoring an Individual’s Changes and Trend. Sportscience 2017, 21, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Batterham, A.M.; Hopkins, W.G. Making Meaningful Inferences about Magnitudes. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2006, 1, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchheit, M. A Battle Worth Fighting: A Comment on the Vindication of Magnitude-Based Inference. Sportscience 2018, 22, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Hopkins, W.G.; Batterham, A.M. The Vindication of Magnitude-Based Inference. Sportscience 2018, 22, 18–30. [Google Scholar]
- Batterham, A.M.; Hopkins, W.G. The Problems with “the Problem with ‘Magnitude-Based Inference’”. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sainani, K.L. The Problem with “Magnitude-Based Inference”. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018, 50, 2166–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sainani, K.L.; Lohse, K.R.; Jones, P.R.; Vickers, A. Magnitude-based Inference is Not Bayesian and is Not a Valid Method of Inference. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marin, J.; Marin, J.J.; Blanco, T.; de la Torre, J.; Salcedo, I.; Martitegui, E. Is My Patient Improving? Individualized Gait Analysis in Rehabilitation. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A Peer-Reviewed Journal and Site for Sport Research. Available online: http://www.sportsci.org/ (accessed on 13 September 2023).
- Nüesch, C.; Roos, E.; Pagenstert, G.; Mündermann, A. Measuring Joint Kinematics of Treadmill Walking and Running: Comparison between an Inertial Sensor Based System and a Camera-Based System. J. Biomech. 2017, 57, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wouda, F.J.; Giuberti, M.; Bellusci, G.; Maartens, E.; Reenalda, J.; Van Beijnum, B.F.; Veltink, P.H. Estimation of Vertical Ground Reaction Forces and Sagittal Knee Kinematics during Running using Three Inertial Sensors. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, P.O.; Dicharry, J.; Franz, J.; Croce, U.D.; Wilder, R.P.; Kerrigan, D.C. A Kinematics and Kinetic Comparison of Overground and Treadmill Running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nigg, B.M.; De Boer, R.W.; Fisher, V. A Kinematic Comparison of Overground and Treadmill Running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1995, 27, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pink, M.; Perry, J.; Houglum, P.A.; Devine, D.J. Lower Extremity Range of Motion in the Recreational Sport Runner. Am. J. Sports Med. 1994, 22, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Phase | Literature | This Study | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Stance phase (T0–T2) | Initial contact [28] | Initial contact (T0) | Ground contact during running |
Midstance [28] | Full weight support (T1) | ||
Propulsion [28] or toe off [42] | Take off of the foot (T2) | ||
Swing phase (T3–T5) | Float [41], flight phase [42] or double float [43,44] | Flight (T2–T3) | Both feet are in the air |
Swing [41] or stance of the opposite foot [42] | Swing (T3–T4) | Only the opposite foot is supported | |
Float [41], flight phase [42] or double float [43,44] | Flight (T4–T5) | Both feet are in the air |
Events | Running Cycle |
---|---|
T0 | Initial contact of the foot with the heel, midfoot or toe (start of the running cycle of that foot) |
T1 | Supporting the full weight on the considered foot, which is aligned with the CoM |
T2 | Take off of the foot under consideration (start of the first flight with both feet) |
T3 | Opposite foot contact with the heel, midfoot or toe (start of the opposite foot strike and end of the first flight) |
T4 | Take off of the opposite foot (start of the second flight) |
T5 = T0 | Again, initial foot contact (100% of the cycle is completed) |
Category | Name | Description | References |
---|---|---|---|
Spatio-temporal | Stride.Supp (%) | Percentage of support along the stride (from T0 to T2) | [28,31,45] |
First.Flight (%) | Percentage of flight (both feet) between T2 and T3 with respect to the full stride | Defined by us | |
Stride.Length (cm) | Length of a full stride (T0 to T5) | [26,27,30,44,45,46,47,48] | |
Velocity (cm/s) | Average velocity throughout the stride | Defined by us | |
Step.Length (cm) | Distance between the feet in the sagittal plane between T0 and T3 | [28,29,31,44,49,50] | |
Step.Width (cm) | Distance between the feet in the frontal plane between T0 and T3 | Defined by us | |
Stride.Cadence (Stride/min) | Number of strides completed in 1 min | [26,27,30,48] | |
Step.Cadence (Step/min) | Number of steps completed in 1 min | [26,28,29,31,45,50] | |
Max.Height.Foot (cm) | Maximum height reached by the foot opposite to the foot under study during the stance phase (T0 to T2) | Defined by us | |
Stabilometric | Dist.CoM-Foot (cm) | Sagittal plane distance between the subject’s centre of mass and malleolus | [47] |
Dist.CoM-Hand (cm) | Distance in the sagittal plane between the subject’s centre of mass and wrist | Defined by us | |
CoM.Lat/Leg.Length (%) | Ratio between the lateralisation of the subject’s centre of mass and leg length | Defined by us | |
CoM.Vert/Leg.Length (%) | Ratio between the vertical oscillation of the subject’s centre of mass and leg length | [30,47] | |
Kinetic | Vert.Stiffness (KN/m) | Vertical stiffness of the subject in running according to the spring-mass model | [18,28,49,51] |
Name | Description | References |
---|---|---|
Pelvis.Tilt.T0T2 (deg) | Lateralisation of the pelvis. Maximum lateral tilt with respect to T0 during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) | [13,16,30,47,52] |
Chest.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | Dorsal flexion–extension. Average anteroposterior tilt during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) | [16,19,30,47,50] |
Chest.Tilt.T0T2 (deg) | Dorsal lateralisation. Maximum lateral tilt with respect to T0 during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) | [13,16] |
Hip.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | Hip flexion–extension. Angle described during the stance phase (T0 to T2) | [14,16,26,30,52,53] |
Hip.AbdAdd.T0T2 (deg) | Hip abduction–adduction. Angle described from T0 to the maximum during the stance phase (T0 to T2) | [13,14,16,26] |
Knee.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | Knee flexion–extension. Angle described from T0 to the maximum during T0 and T2 | [14,16,19,26,30,47,53] |
Knee.VarusValgus.T0T2 (deg) | Knee varus–valgus. Angle described during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) | [14,16] |
Foot.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | Flexo-extension of the foot. Angle described from T0 to the maximum during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) with respect to the tibia | [14,16,17,53] |
Foot.PronSup.T0T2 (deg) | Pronation–supination of the foot. Angle described from T0 to the maximum during the stance phase (T0 to T2) with respect to the tibia | [16,17,27,47] |
Foot.Rot.T0T2 (deg) | Foot internal–external rotation. Angle described during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) with respect to the tibia | [14,16,17] |
Foot.PronSup.Abs.T0T2 (deg) | Pronation–supination of the foot. Angle described from T0 to the maximum during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) with respect to the ground | [17] |
Foot.Rot.Abs.T0T2 (deg) | Foot internal–external rotation. Angle described during the stance phase (from T0 to T2) with respect to the ground | [17] |
Foot.FlexExt.T0 (deg) | Flexo-extension of the foot. Angle at T0 with respect to the ground | [13,15,17,19,30,47,53] |
Foot.FlexExt.T2 (deg) | Flexo-extension of the foot. Angle at T2 with respect to the ground | Defined by us |
Foot.PronSup.T0 (deg) | Pronation–supination of the foot. Angle at T0 with respect to the ground | [17,19] |
Variables | Test μ (SD) | Retest μ (SD) | Dif. μ (SD) | ICC | MDC 95 | Limits | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spatio-temporal | Stride.Supp (%) | R | 34.3 (3.9) | 34.3 (3.6) | 0.0 (1.7) | 0.95 | 2.39 | (26.9–42.0) |
L | 34.6 (4.0) | 34.5 (3.6) | −0.1 (1.4) | 0.97 | 1.92 | |||
First.Flight (%) | R | 15.6 (4.0) | 15.4 (3.7) | −0.2 (1.2) | 0.97 | 1.74 | (8.1–23.1) | |
L | 15.5 (3.8) | 15.8 (3.5) | 0.3 (1.4) | 0.96 | 2.04 | |||
Stride.Length (cm) | R | 163.6 (19.6) | 162.9 (19.2) | −0.8 (2.8) | 0.99 | 3.87 | (124.5–201.9) | |
L | 163.6 (19.7) | 162.6 (18.9) | −1.1 (3.6) | 0.99 | 4.97 | |||
Velocity (cm/s) | 228.6 (23.9) | 228.3 (24.2) | −0.2 (1.1) | 1.00 | 1.59 | (180.4–276.5) | ||
Step.Length (cm) | R | 81.7 (10.3) | 81.1 (9.8) | −0.6 (2.0) | 0.99 | 2.79 | (62.0–101.2) | |
L | 81.9 (9.5) | 81.8 (9.6) | −0.2 (2.1) | 0.99 | 2.88 | |||
Step.Width (cm) | R | 8.2 (2.4) | 8.6 (2.5) | 0.4 (1.7) | 0.86 | 2.55 | (3.5–13.3) | |
L | 8.2 (2.4) | 8.6 (2.5) | 0.4 (1.7) | 0.86 | 2.47 | |||
Stride.Cadence (Stride/min) | 80.0 (4.2) | 80.2 (4.0) | 0.2 (1.2) | 0.98 | 1.70 | (72.0–88.2) | ||
Step.Cadence (Step/min) | 160.4 (9.2) | 161.4 (8.8) | 0.9 (4.2) | 0.94 | 6.00 | (142.9–178.9) | ||
Max.Height.Foot (cm) | L | 37.4 (8.0) | 37.7 (7.9) | 0.4 (2.0) | 0.98 | 2.86 | (20.9–55.3) | |
R | 38.6 (9.0) | 38.8 (9.5) | 0.2 (2.0) | 0.99 | 2.84 | |||
Stabilometric | Dist.CoM-Foot (cm) | R | 14.7 (3.3) | 14.6 (3.1) | −0.1 (1.6) | 0.93 | 2.26 | (8.2–21.2) |
L | 14.8 (3.3) | 14.6 (3.3) | −0.2 (1.3) | 0.96 | 1.86 | |||
Dist.CoM-Hand (cm) | L | 19.5 (4.1) | 19.6 (3.9) | 0.0 (1.1) | 0.98 | 1.54 | (11.5–28.1) | |
R | 20.0 (4.3) | 20.2 (4.3) | 0.2 (1.3) | 0.97 | 1.89 | |||
CoM.Lat/Leg.Length (%) | R | 1.6 (0.4) | 1.6 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.3) | 0.93 | 0.36 | (0.7–2.6) | |
L | 1.7 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.2) | 0.93 | 0.36 | |||
CoM.Vert/Leg.Length (%) | R | 10.4 (1.6) | 10.6 (1.6) | 0.1 (0.6) | 0.96 | 0.86 | (7.3–13.4) | |
L | 10.2 (1.5) | 10.3 (1.3) | 0.1 (0.6) | 0.96 | 0.79 | |||
Kinetic | Vert.Stiffness (KN/m) | R | 18.3 (2.7) | 18.0 (2.6) | −0.3 (1.1) | 0.95 | 1.60 | (13.0–23.7) |
L | 18.6 (2.7) | 18.6 (2.6) | −0.1 (1.1) | 0.96 | 1.49 |
Variables | Test μ (SD) | Retest μ (SD) | Dif. μ (SD) | ICC | MDC 95 | Limits | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pelvis.Tilt.T0T2 (deg) | R | 6.1 (2.2) | 5.9 (2.1) | −0.1 (0.9) | 0.96 | 1.23 | (1.9–10.2) |
L | 6.2 (2.0) | 5.9 (2.1) | −0.3 (1.0) | 0.94 | 1.38 | ||
Chest.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | R | 10.3 (3.8) | 10.4 (3.5) | 0.1 (1.8) | 0.93 | 2.63 | (2.7–17.9) |
L | 10.1 (4.2) | 10.4 (3.7) | 0.3 (1.9) | 0.94 | 2.78 | ||
Chest.Tilt.T0T2 (deg) | R | 6.7 (1.8) | 6.7 (1.9) | 0.0 (1.1) | 0.90 | 1.64 | (3.2–10.9) |
L | 7.5 (1.9) | 7.3 (2.2) | −0.2 (1.1) | 0.92 | 1.60 | ||
Hip.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | R | 33.1 (4.8) | 32.9 (4.0) | −0.2 (2.4) | 0.92 | 3.48 | (24.6–42.3) |
L | 34.0 (4.6) | 33.6 (4.3) | −0.4 (2.7) | 0.90 | 3.97 | ||
Hip.AbdAdd.T0T2 (deg) | R | 8.5 (3.2) | 8.3 (3.2) | −0.2 (1.3) | 0.96 | 1.86 | (1.6–14.8) |
L | 8.0 (3.5) | 7.9 (3.4) | −0.1 (1.1) | 0.97 | 1.59 | ||
Knee.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | R | 27.5 (5.9) | 26.9 (5.8) | −0.6 (1.9) | 0.97 | 2.62 | (15.7–38.7) |
L | 27.4 (5.6) | 27.0 (5.7) | −0.4 (1.9) | 0.97 | 2.67 | ||
Knee.VarusValgus.T0T2 (deg) | R | 4.9 (1.9) | 5.0 (2.0) | 0.1 (0.9) | 0.94 | 1.35 | (1.4–8.3) |
L | 4.8 (1.4) | 4.7 (1.6) | 0.0 (1.2) | 0.83 | 1.75 | ||
Foot.FlexExt.T0T2 (deg) | R | 17.2 (4.0) | 17.4 (3.8) | 0.2 (1.6) | 0.96 | 2.27 | (8.4–25.8) |
L | 17.1 (4.8) | 16.7 (4.7) | −0.4 (2.5) | 0.93 | 3.54 | ||
Foot.PronSup.T0T2 (deg) | R | 15.9 (3.3) | 15.7 (3.2) | −0.2 (2.2) | 0.88 | 3.19 | (8.9–23.5) |
L | 16.3 (3.8) | 17.0 (4.2) | 0.7 (2.4) | 0.90 | 3.52 | ||
Foot.Rot.T0T2 (deg) | R | 11.6 (2.7) | 12.0 (3.1) | 0.4 (1.5) | 0.93 | 2.22 | (5.3–17.8) |
L | 10.9 (3.2) | 11.7 (3.4) | 0.8 (1.5) | 0.95 | 2.11 | ||
Foot.PronSup.Abs.T0T2 (deg) | R | 12.9 (2.8) | 12.8 (2.8) | −0.1 (1.5) | 0.92 | 2.13 | (6.6–18.6) |
L | 12.2 (3.1) | 12.6 (3.3) | 0.4 (2.0) | 0.90 | 2.84 | ||
Foot.Rot.Abs.T0T2 (deg) | R | 6.7 (2.1) | 6.6 (2.0) | −0.1 (1.1) | 0.92 | 1.63 | (2.5–10.7) |
L | 6.6 (2.1) | 6.5 (2.0) | −0.1 (1.1) | 0.92 | 1.56 | ||
Foot.FlexExt.T0 (deg) | R | −11.2 (9.9) | −11.6 (9.4) | −0.4 (3.7) | 0.96 | 5.26 | (−31.9–8.8) |
L | −11.6 (11.0) | −11.7 (10.4) | −0.1 (3.9) | 0.97 | 5.46 | ||
Foot.FlexExt.T2 (deg) | R | 44.9 (4.2) | 45.2 (3.9) | 0.4 (2.5) | 0.89 | 3.67 | (36.6–52.9) |
L | 44.4 (4.3) | 44.5 (4.0) | 0.2 (2.5) | 0.90 | 3.70 | ||
Foot.PronSup.T0 (deg) | R | −12.4 (3.0) | −12.7 (2.5) | −0.3 (2.2) | 0.81 | 3.36 | (−19.1–−6.4) |
L | −12.8 (3.5) | −13.0 (3.7) | −0.2 (3.1) | 0.77 | 4.78 |
MDC Running | |
---|---|
Average ± SD | |
Variables related to the detection of support in (%) Stride.Supp; First.Flight. | 2.82 ± 1.30 |
Step-related variables in (cm) Stride.Length; Step.Length; Step.Width; Max.Height.Foot. | 3.15 ± 0.85 |
CoM distances in (cm) Dist.CoM-Foot; Dist.CoM-Hand. | 1.89 ± 0.29 |
CoM related variables in (%) CoM.Lat/Leg.Length; CoM.Vert/Leg.Length. | 0.59 ± 0.27 |
Vertical stiffness variable in (KN/m) Vert.Stiffness. | 1.54 ± 0.08 |
Velocity variable in (cm/s) Velocity. | 1.59 |
Stride cadence variable in (Stride/min) Stride.Cadence. | 1.70 |
Step cadence variable in (Step/min) Step.Cadence. | 6.00 |
Angular kinematic variables (°) Joint ranges of motion. | 2.73 ± 1.16 |
MDCs in the Literature | MDCs in This Study | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[14] | [13] | [15] | [16] | [17] | [18] | [19] | MH | |||||
Spatio-temporal variables | PiG | CGM2 | Dr | Iz | Dr | Iz | ||||||
Stride.Supp (%) | - | - | - | - | 1.8 | - | - | - | - | 2.4 | 1.9 | |
Stride.Length (cm) | - | - | - | - | 5.1 | - | - | - | 12.4 | 3.9 | 5.0 | |
Step.Length (cm) | - | - | - | - | 2.8 | - | - | 4.7 | 6.2 | 2.8 | 2.9 | |
Step.Width (cm) | - | - | - | - | 1.4 | - | - | - | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |
Step.Cadence (Step/min) | - | - | - | - | 4.5 | - | - | 7.0 | 11.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | |
CoM.Vert/Leg.Length (%) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.8 | |
Vert.Stiffness (KN/m) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.7 | - | 1.6 | 1.5 | |
[14] | [13] | [15] | [16] | [17] | [18] | [19] | MH | |||||
Kinematic variables (°) | PiG | CGM2 | Dr | Iz | Dr | Iz | ||||||
Pelvis.Tilt.T0T2 | - | - | 2.7 | 2.8 | - | 1.6 | - | - | - | 1.2 | 1.4 | |
Chest.FlexExt.T0T2 | - | - | - | - | - | 10.4 | - | - | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.8 | |
Chest.Tilt.T0T2 | - | - | 1.8 | 1.8 | - | 1.7 | - | - | - | 1.6 | 1.6 | |
Hip.FlexExt.T0T2 | 6.8 | 4.4 | - | - | - | 8.3 | - | - | - | 3.5 | 4.0 | |
Hip.AbdAdd.T0T2 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.3 | - | 2.6 | - | - | - | 1.9 | 1.6 | |
Knee.FlexExt.T0T2 | 5.2 | 3.4 | 2.9 (T1) * | 3.8 (T1) * | - | 6.0 | - | - | 6.1 | 2.6 | 2.7 | |
Knee.VarusValgus.T0T2 | 4.2 | 1.8 | - | - | - | 4.8 | - | - | - | 1.3 | 1.8 | |
Foot.FlexExt.T0T2 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 2.2 (T1) * | 4.8 (T1) * | - | 7.5 | 1.9 | - | - | 2.3 | 3.5 | |
Foot.PronSup.T0T2 | - | - | - | - | - | 3.3 | 2.1 | - | - | 3.2 | 3.5 | |
Foot.Rot.T0T2 | 13.9 | 6.4 | - | - | - | 3.1 | 1.8 | - | - | 2.2 | 2.1 | |
Foot.PronSup.Abs.T0T2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.7 | - | - | 2.1 | 2.8 | |
Foot.Rot.Abs.T0T2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.3 | - | - | 1.6 | 1.6 | |
Foot.FlexExt.T0 | 3.5 * | 1.8 * | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 6.9 * | 1.5 | - | 4.3 | 5.3 | 5.5 | |
Foot.PronSup.T0 | - | - | - | - | - | 7.2 * | 2.4 | - | 1.2 | 3.4 | 4.8 | |
Notes | [14] | * They do not provide ranges of movement. MDC from flexion peak during the stance phase was selected, except for Foot.FlexExt.T0. It was MDC in initial contact. We assume relative angles. | ||||||||||
[13] | * They do not provide ranges of movement in the knee and foot. We took the MDC of the peaks in T1. | |||||||||||
[16] | The * indicates relative angles, but we use absolute angles in Foot.FlexExt.T0, Foot.FlexExt.T2 and Foot.PronSup.T0. |
MDCs | In the Literature | In This Study | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study details | [14] | [13] | [15] | [16] | [17] | [18] | [19] | MH | |
Experimental conditions | Floor | Treadmill | Treadmill | Treadmill | Floor | Treadmill | Treadmill | Treadmill | |
MoCap technology | Full body optical | Trunk, pelvis, lower body optical | Instrumented Treadmill | Trunk, pelvis, lower body optical | Trunk, pelvis, lower body optical | Instrumented Treadmill | Two external optical sensors | Full body optical | |
Sample | 23 (7 F, 16 M) | 21 (12 F, 9 M) | 33 (17 F, 16 M) | 16 (10 F, 6 M) | 18 (18 M) | 31 (13 F, 18 M) | 24 (8 F, 16 M) | 32 (16 F, 16 M) | |
Age | 24.3 ± 4.2 | 28.1 ± 8.3 | 31.6 ± 7.4 | 34.4 ± 10.2 | 28 ± 7 | 34.42 ± 9.26 | 22.7 ± 2.6 | 30 ± 9.5 | |
Rater | Marker placements—Same | Rater 1–10 participants Rater 2–11 participants | Not found | Marker placements—Same | Marker placements—Same | Not found | Not found | Same | |
Time | 5 days | One week | One week 30 min same day | Two weeks | At least 5 days | Same day with no time One week | 5 min | 20 min | |
Velocity (km/h) | 9.0 | 10.0 | 9.0 | 11.5 | 13.3 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 9.0 | |
Notes | [14] | PiG: Plug-in gait model; CGM2: Conventional gait Model 2. | |||||||
[15] | Only data from the right side were further analysed. We compare them with the MDC within-day results. | ||||||||
[17] | It is unclear whether the data obtained are from the right and left sides averaged or only the right side. | ||||||||
[18] | They do not say what side was analysed. We compare this with the MDC within-day results. | ||||||||
[19] | Only the right leg of the participants was analysed. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rodríguez, J.; Marín, J.; Royo, A.C.; Padrón, L.; Pérez-Soto, M.; Marín, J.J. KeepRunning: A MoCap-Based Rapid Test to Prevent Musculoskeletal Running Injuries. Sensors 2023, 23, 9336. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239336
Rodríguez J, Marín J, Royo AC, Padrón L, Pérez-Soto M, Marín JJ. KeepRunning: A MoCap-Based Rapid Test to Prevent Musculoskeletal Running Injuries. Sensors. 2023; 23(23):9336. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239336
Chicago/Turabian StyleRodríguez, Javier, Javier Marín, Ana C. Royo, Luis Padrón, Manuel Pérez-Soto, and José J. Marín. 2023. "KeepRunning: A MoCap-Based Rapid Test to Prevent Musculoskeletal Running Injuries" Sensors 23, no. 23: 9336. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239336