A comparison and update of direct kinematic-kinetic models of leg stiffness in human running |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia;2. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Allied Health Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA;1. Motion Analysis Lab, Division of Occupational and Physical Therapy, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States;2. Occupational and Physical Therapy, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States;3. Department of Physical Therapy, High Point University, High Point, NC, United States;4. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States;1. Department of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Science, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu HI, USA;2. Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas NV, USA;1. School of Sports and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom;2. Li Ning Sports Science Research Center, Li Ning (China) Sports Goods Co. Ltd, Beijing, China;1. Department of Kinesiology, Indiana University, SPH Building 112, 1025 E. Seventh ST, Bloomington, IN, 47405-7109, United States;2. Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts, 110 Totman Building, 30 Eastman Lane, Amherst, MA, 01003-9258, United States;3. Human Performance Laboratory, University of Calgary, KNB 418, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada;4. Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, 249 Forker, 534 Wallace RD, Ames, IA, 50011-3191, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Direct kinematic-kinetic modelling currently represents the “Gold-standard” in leg stiffness quantification during three-dimensional (3D) motion capture experiments. However, the medial-lateral components of ground reaction force and leg length have been neglected in current leg stiffness formulations. It is unknown if accounting for all 3D would alter healthy biologic estimates of leg stiffness, compared to present direct modelling methods. This study compared running leg stiffness derived from a new method (multiplanar method) which includes all three Cartesian axes, against current methods which either only include the vertical axis (line method) or only the plane of progression (uniplanar method). Twenty healthy female runners performed shod overground running at 5.0 m/s. Three-dimensional motion capture and synchronised in-ground force plates were used to track the change in length of the leg vector (hip joint centre to centre of pressure) and resultant projected ground reaction force. Leg stiffness was expressed as dimensionless units, as a percentage of an individual’s bodyweight divided by standing leg length (BW/LL). Leg stiffness using the line method was larger than the uniplanar method by 15.6%BW/LL (P < .001), and multiplanar method by 24.2%BW/LL (P < .001). Leg stiffness from the uniplanar method was larger than the multiplanar method by 8.5%BW/LL (6.5 kN/m) (P < .001). The inclusion of medial-lateral components significantly increased leg deformation magnitude, accounting for the reduction in leg stiffness estimate with the multiplanar method. Given that limb movements typically occur in 3D, the new multiplanar method provides the most complete accounting of all force and length components in leg stiffness calculation. |
| |
| Keywords: | Running Stiffness Kinematics Kinetics |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
