Literature DB >> 28488928

Do subjective assessments of running patterns reflect objective parameters?

Thibault Lussiana1,2, Cyrille Gindre2,3, Laurent Mourot4,5, Kim Hébert-Losier6,7.   

Abstract

Running patterns are often categorized into subgroups according to common features before data analysis and interpretation. The Volodalen® method is a simple field-based tool used to classify runners into aerial or terrestrial using a 5-item subjective rating scale. We aimed to validate the Volodalen® method by quantifying the relationship between its subjective scores and 3D biomechanical measures. Fifty-four runners ran 30 s on a treadmill at 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 km h-1 while their kinematics were assessed subjectively using the Volodalen® method and objectively using 3D motion capture. For each runner and speed, two researchers scored the five Volodalen® items on a 1-to-5 scale, which addressed vertical oscillation, upper-body motion, pelvis and foot position at ground contact, and footstrike pattern. Seven 3D biomechanical parameters reflecting the subjective items were also collected and correlated to the subjective scores. Twenty-eight runners were classified as aerial and 26 as terrestrial. Runner classification did not change with speed, but the relative contribution of the biomechanical parameters to the subjective classification was speed dependent. The magnitude of correlations between subjective and objective measures ranged from trivial to very large. Five of the seven objective parameters significantly differed between aerial and terrestrial runners, and these parameters demonstrated the strongest correlations to the subjective scores. Our results support the validity of the Volodalen® method, whereby the visual appreciation of running gait reflected quantifiable objective parameters. Two minor modifications to the method are proposed to simplify its use and improve agreement between subjective and objective measures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coaching; biomechanics; measurement; motor control; testing

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28488928     DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1325072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Sport Sci        ISSN: 1536-7290            Impact factor:   4.050


  6 in total

1.  Effects of Central and Peripheral Fatigue on Impact Characteristics during Running.

Authors:  Alberto Encarnación-Martínez; Antonio García-Gallart; Roberto Sanchis-Sanchis; Pedro Pérez-Soriano
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 3.847

2.  3D reconstruction of human movement in a single projection by dynamic marker scaling.

Authors:  Erez James Cohen; Riccardo Bravi; Diego Minciacchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Predicting Temporal Gait Kinematics: Anthropometric Characteristics and Global Running Pattern Matter.

Authors:  Aurélien Patoz; Thibault Lussiana; Cyrille Gindre; Laurent Mourot
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  Non-South East Asians have a better running economy and different anthropometrics and biomechanics than South East Asians.

Authors:  Aurélien Patoz; Thibault Lussiana; Bastiaan Breine; Cyrille Gindre; Laurent Mourot; Kim Hébert-Losier
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  PIMP Your Stride: Preferred Running Form to Guide Individualized Injury Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Cyrille Gindre; Bastiaan Breine; Aurélien Patoz; Kim Hébert-Losier; Adrien Thouvenot; Laurent Mourot; Thibault Lussiana
Journal:  Front Rehabil Sci       Date:  2022-05-31

6.  Duty Factor Is a Viable Measure to Classify Spontaneous Running Forms.

Authors:  Aurélien Patoz; Cyrille Gindre; Adrien Thouvenot; Laurent Mourot; Kim Hébert-Losier; Thibault Lussiana
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.