Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
  • 1.4
    Impact Factor
  • 1.9
    CiteScore
  • 21 days
    Submission to First Decision
  • 9 days
    Acceptance to Publication

Biomechanics

Biomechanics is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal on biomechanics research published quarterly online by MDPI.
  • Open Access— free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions.
  • High Visibility: indexed within ESCI (Web of Science), Scopus, EBSCO, and other databases.
  • Rapid Publication: manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision is provided to authors approximately 20.7 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 8.2 days (median values for papers published in this journal in the first half of 2026).
  • Recognition of Reviewers: Reviewers whose reports are timely and of high quality receive an APC discount voucher for a future publication in an MDPI journal. Become a reviewer.

Get Alerted

Add your email address to receive forthcoming issues of this journal.

All Articles (399)

  • Article
  • Open Access

Background/Objectives: Musculoskeletal modeling is a critical tool for investigating hand biomechanics and designing assistive technologies. However, the formulation of the mechanical interaction between the hand and objects remains a challenge. This study investigates how constraint-based versus explicit contact-based formulations influence the prediction of maximal lateral pinch force and contact retention in an open-source hand model. Methods: Fifty optimal muscle activation patterns were generated using a constraint-based forward-dynamics optimization framework. These solutions were then re-evaluated in a contact-based model under four friction conditions (μ = 0.29, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.0), with detailed force, kinematic, and computational analyses focused on μ = 0.29 and μ = 1.0. We analyzed the occurrence of contact loss, force stabilization behavior, and the associated computational costs. Results: Constraint-based formulations identified consistent maximal lateral pinch force ranges but overestimated the system’s ability to maintain contact by neglecting friction and sliding. In contact-based simulations with μ = 0.29, 92% of solutions lost contact, often at early stages. While increasing friction improved short-term contact retention, 66% of solutions still failed to maintain contact by the end of the 0.50-s simulations at μ = 1.0. For a simulated duration of 0.20 s, median execution times for contact-based forward dynamics were 62–75 times those for constrained forward dynamics under the numerical settings used. Numerical sensitivity tests showed unchanged contact-loss classification and negligible changes in force histories after tightening the integration tolerance and reducing the maximum step size. Conclusions: There is a clear trade-off between physical realism and computational efficiency. While constraint-based models allow for efficient large-scale optimization, they may yield mechanically unfeasible results. For future assistive device design, hybrid strategies may provide a useful compromise: constraint-based models can be used for efficient optimization followed by targeted validation using contact-based simulations to assess the mechanical feasibility and contact retention of candidate solutions.

Biomechanics

12 November 2026

Results are presented for all simulations (top), a reduced subset including the best solution from each group of ten simulations (middle), and the top five solutions (bottom). Variability decreases across subsets, although multiple activation patterns remain feasible. Muscle abbreviations: CRL (extensor carpi radialis longus), ECRB (extensor carpi radialis brevis), ECU (extensor carpi ulnaris), FCR (flexor carpi radialis), FCU (flexor carpi ulnaris), EPL (extensor pollicis longus), EPB (extensor pollicis brevis), FPL (flexor pollicis longus), APL (abductor pollicis longus), APB (abductor pollicis brevis), FPB (flexor pollicis brevis), OPP (opponens pollicis), ADPt (adductor pollicis, transverse head), and ADPo (adductor pollicis, oblique head).
  • Article
  • Open Access

Background/Objectives: Hip abductor-to-adductor (ABD:ADD) strength characteristics and muscle activation may contribute to lower-limb control during landing, but their respective associations with landing biomechanics remain unclear. This study examined associations of the ABD:ADD strength ratio, strength imbalance index, and EMG activation ratios with lower-limb biomechanics during forward and lateral single-leg landing. Methods: Twenty male Division I collegiate basketball and volleyball athletes completed isokinetic hip strength testing, maximal voluntary isometric contraction EMG testing, and forward (FWD) and lateral (LAT) single-leg landing tasks. EMG activation ratios were quantified at initial contact (IC), peak ground reaction force (GRF), and from IC to peak GRF. Correlation analyses and exploratory regressions were performed. Results: During FWD Landing, strength measures were associated with knee flexion, knee transverse-plane angle, and hip frontal-plane moment, while the EMG ratio at IC was associated with hip and knee frontal-plane angles and hip transverse-plane moment. During LAT Landing, strength measures were associated with hip and knee kinematics and hip and knee frontal-plane moments. Mean early-phase EMG ratio was associated with hip flexion, knee flexion, hip frontal-plane angle, and hip frontal-plane moment. Retained regression models explained 20–33% of outcome variance. Conclusions: Hip ABD:ADD strength characteristics and EMG activation ratios were associated with different aspects of single-leg landing biomechanics. During lateral landing, the mean early-phase EMG ratio was associated with hip and knee flexion angles and hip frontal-plane angle at peak GRF. These exploratory findings indicate that strength capacity and task-specific neuromuscular recruitment provide complementary information regarding hip muscle function during landing.

Biomechanics

10 November 2026

Isokinetic assessment of hip abductor and adductor strength.
  • Review
  • Open Access

Background/Objectives: Finite element analysis (FEA) enables evaluation of internal stresses and strains in the foot that are difficult to measure experimentally. This review synthesizes computational evidence on foot biomechanics, focusing on metatarsal loading and stress fractures, hallux valgus pathomechanics and surgical correction, fracture fixation, plantar loading and footwear, and ligament and soft-tissue mechanics. Methods: This critical review is based on a documented, non-systematic search of Scopus and hand searching. Of 169 records retrieved, 123 were retained and 16 sources were added, with six additional references incorporated during revision, yielding a total of 145 references. Information on model geometry, material formulation, loading and boundary conditions, and validation was extracted. Results: Soft-tissue and plantar-fascia properties substantially influenced predicted plantar pressure and internal stress. Metatarsal loading varied with anatomy, gait phase, footwear, and boundary conditions. Hallux valgus models indicated that osteotomy geometry and displacement can redistribute joint and metatarsal stresses, while minimally invasive fixation constructs often provided predicted stability comparable to conventional techniques. Patient-specific imaging, musculoskeletal coupling, and machine-learning methods are expanding model capability. However, most reported results were deterministic outputs from single-subject geometries, and validation evidence was generally narrower than the clinical decisions for which the models were discussed. Conclusions: FEA provides model-based mechanistic insight into foot loading, deformity, and fixation and can support comparative mechanical evaluation of designs and constructs. Its outputs are hypothesis-generating: no reviewed fixation or footwear ranking has been tested against clinical outcomes, and the results should not be read as evidence of clinical effectiveness. Stronger experimental validation, population-based modeling, uncertainty quantification, and clearer definition of model context of use are required before patient-specific clinical decisions can be supported reliably.

Biomechanics

7 November 2026

Flow of records through the literature search and selection. Counts are those given in Section 1.4.
  • Article
  • Open Access

Background/Objectives: The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare three-dimensional knee kinematics between competitive and recreational athletes during dynamic tasks. It was hypothesized that competitive athletes would exhibit greater knee range of motion (RoM). Methods: Thirty-five varsity athletes (eight lacrosse athletes, eleven soccer athletes, nine volleyball athletes, and seven basketball athletes were recruited from the varsity athlete population) and 26 recreational athletes performed a countermovement vertical jump and 90° sidestep cutting task, common return-to-sport tasks. Markerless motion capture (Theia 3D) was used to extract knee joint angles at initial contact and 200 ms post-contact and RoM across all three anatomical planes. Results: During the vertical jump, competitive athletes exhibited significantly greater sagittal-plane RoM (8–12°), while recreational athletes demonstrated greater frontal- and transverse-plane RoM. During cutting, transverse-plane RoM was significantly greater in recreational athletes than competitive athletes. These differences persisted after controlling jump height or center-of-mass speed via ANCOVA. After Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction, five comparisons remained statistically significant, all involving the vertical jump. Conclusions: Competitive and recreational athletes exhibit distinct knee kinematic profiles, with plane-dependent directional differences. These findings indicate that the level of sport participation is associated with differences in knee kinematics during dynamic tasks, and the clinical and functional implications remain yet to be determined through further prospective research.

Biomechanics

7 November 2026

(A) Participants performed a 90° sidestep cutting task after running 5 m (B) Participants also jumped as high as they could before landing back on the marked area.

Highly Accessed Articles

News & Conferences

Latest Issues

Open for Submission

Journal Sections

XFacebookLinkedIn
Biomechanics - ISSN 2673-7078