Literature DB >> 28499137

A comparison of the ground reaction force frequency content during rearfoot and non-rearfoot running patterns.

Allison H Gruber1, W Brent Edwards2, Joseph Hamill3, Timothy R Derrick4, Katherine A Boyer3.   

Abstract

Running with a non-rearfoot pattern has been claimed to reduce injury risk because the impact peak in the vertical ground reaction force (GRF) is visually absent in the time-domain compared with a rearfoot pattern. However, running results in a rapid deceleration of the lower extremity segments immediately following initial contact with the ground, regardless of footfall pattern. Therefore, the frequency content of the GRF is expected to contain evidence of this collision. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the waveform components of the GRF generated during the impact phase by habitual rearfoot and habitual non-rearfoot pattern groups using the continuous wavelet transform. Twenty rearfoot and 20 non-rearfoot participants ran over-ground at a standardized speed with their habitual footfall pattern. The continuous wavelet transform was performed on the resultant GRF vector and the vertical GRF. GRF signals generated by the non-rearfoot pattern group during early stance had maximum signal power of 15.4±9.1Hz occurring at 23.1±6.3% of stance, which is within the 10-20Hz range previously associated with impact in rearfoot runners. Maximum signal power occurred earlier in the impact phase (11.5±1.5%) and with a higher frequency (27.2±3.9Hz) in the rearfoot pattern group verses the non-rearfoot pattern group (P<0.05). While the impact force transient may not appear as a prominent feature within the time-domain GRF with a non-rearfoot pattern, the results indicate that both footfall patterns generate frequencies associated with the impact peak in the resultant and vertical GRF.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Foot strike pattern; Ground reaction force; Impact peak; Running biomechanics; Wavelet transform

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28499137     DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.04.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gait Posture        ISSN: 0966-6362            Impact factor:   2.840


  5 in total

1.  Reversing the Mismatch With Forefoot Striking to Reduce Running Injuries.

Authors:  Irene S Davis; Tony Lin-Wei Chen; Scott C Wearing
Journal:  Front Sports Act Living       Date:  2022-05-19

2.  What are the Benefits and Risks Associated with Changing Foot Strike Pattern During Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Injury, Running Economy, and Biomechanics.

Authors:  Laura M Anderson; Daniel R Bonanno; Harvi F Hart; Christian J Barton
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Insight into the hierarchical control governing leg stiffness during the stance phase of running.

Authors:  Alessandro Garofolini; Karen J Mickle; Patrick McLaughlin; Simon B Taylor
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Relationship between Lower Limb Kinematics and Upper Trunk Acceleration in Recreational Runners.

Authors:  Laura Simoni; Silvia Pancani; Federica Vannetti; Claudio Macchi; Guido Pasquini
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 2.682

5.  Validity and Reliability of the Insole3 Instrumented Shoe Insole for Ground Reaction Force Measurement during Walking and Running.

Authors:  Leora A Cramer; Markus A Wimmer; Philip Malloy; Joan A O'Keefe; Christopher B Knowlton; Christopher Ferrigno
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 3.576

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.