Literature DB >> 33197691

A comparison of attachment methods of skin mounted inertial measurement units on tibial accelerations.

Caleb D Johnson1, Jereme Outerleys2, Adam S Tenforde2, Irene S Davis2.   

Abstract

Peak tibial accelerations during running are of interest because of their correlation with vertical ground reaction force load rates and association with running injury. Previous work has demonstrated systematically lower accelerations measured with a bone- compared to skin-mounted accelerometer. However, no studies have assessed the effects of more or less secure attachment methods for skin mounted sensors. Our purpose was to compare two methods of attaching a skin mounted sensor on mean tibial accelerations, stride-to-stride variability, and correlations with vertical load rates. 18 injury-free runners were recruited as participants. An inertial measurement unit, containing a tri-axial accelerometer, was used to record tibial accelerations while participants ran at a self-selected speed on an instrumented treadmill to collect ground reaction forces. The two attachment methods for securing the sensor to the skin were a manufacturer-provided strap (strap condition) and a combination of tape and elastic wraps (wrap condition). Mean vertical accelerations were significantly lower in the wrap condition (p = 0.02, d = 0.57). No differences were detected in resultant accelerations, vertical loading rates, or stride-to-stride variability. Correlations between tibial accelerations and vertical loading rates were strong (r = 0.79-0.91) and similar between conditions. These results provide two key findings of evidence. Evidenced by systematically lower vertical accelerations, a more secure attachment method may be necessary for capturing the most representative measure of tibial accelerations during running. However, a less secure method (i.e. the strap) is sufficient for capturing tibial accelerations as a surrogate for impact loading forces.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerometer; Gait mechanics; IMU; Running; Tibial shock

Year:  2020        PMID: 33197691     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.110118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  4 in total

1.  Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rachel Mason; Liam T Pearson; Gillian Barry; Fraser Young; Oisin Lennon; Alan Godfrey; Samuel Stuart
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2022-10-15       Impact factor: 11.928

2.  Predicting continuous ground reaction forces from accelerometers during uphill and downhill running: a recurrent neural network solution.

Authors:  Ryan S Alcantara; W Brent Edwards; Guillaume Y Millet; Alena M Grabowski
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 2.984

3.  Comparison of impact accelerations between injury-resistant and recently injured recreational runners.

Authors:  Aoife Burke; Sarah Dillon; Siobhán O'Connor; Enda F Whyte; Shane Gore; Kieran A Moran
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 4.  Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis.

Authors:  Lauren C Benson; Anu M Räisänen; Christian A Clermont; Reed Ferber
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 3.576

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.