Detection of Foot Contact Using Inertial Measurement Units in Sports Movements: A Systematic Review
Source abstract
Abstract
Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) offer promising alternatives to traditional motion capture systems, especially in real-world sports scenarios. Accurate foot contact detection (FCD) is crucial for biomechanical analysis, and since on-the-field force plates are unsuitable, IMU-based FCD algorithms have been extensively investigated. However, sports activities leading to musculoskeletal injuries are multidirectional and high-dynamics in nature and FCD algorithms, which have mostly been studied in gait analysis, might sensibly worsen performance. This systematic review (PROSPERO, ID: CRD420251010584) aimed to evaluate IMU-based FCD algorithms applied to high-dynamics sports tasks, identifying strengths, limitations, and areas for improvement. A multi-database search was conducted until May 2025. Studies were included if they applied IMU-based FCD algorithms in high-dynamic movements. In total, 37 studies evaluating 71 FCD algorithms were included. Most papers focused on running, with only 3 on cut manoeuvres. Almost all studies involved healthy individuals only, and foot linear acceleration was the most inspected FCD metric. FCD algorithms demonstrated high accuracy, though speed variation impacted performance in 23/37 studies. This review highlights the lack of validated IMU-based FCD algorithms for high-dynamic sports movements and emphasizes the need for improved methods to advance sports biomechanics testing in injury prevention.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Winter Sports Injuries and Performance
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
2nd Orthopaedic and Traumatological Clinic, IRCCS Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Via G Pupilli 1, 40136 Bologna, Italy
Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto (FEUP), University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, 40123 Bologna, Italy
References (83)
Show source-provided references
1. Systematic Video Analysis of ACL Injuries in Professional Male Football (Soccer): Injury Mechanisms, Situational Patterns and Biomechanics Study on 134 Consecutive Cases10.1136/bjsports-2019-101247 ↗
2. Video Analysis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Male Professional Basketball Players: Injury Mechanisms, Situational Patterns, and Biomechanics10.1177/23259671241234880 ↗
3. A Comparative Video Analysis of Hamstring Injuries Mechanism and Situational Pattern in Men’s and Women’s Football (Soccer)10.1002/ksa.12313 ↗
4. Video Analysis of Achilles Tendon Rupture in Male Professional Football (Soccer) Players: Injury Mechanisms, Patterns and Biomechanics10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001419 ↗
5. Sundberg, A., Högberg, J., Tosarelli, F., Buckthorpe, M., Della Villa, F., Hägglund, M., Samuelsson, K., and Hamrin Senorski, E. (2025). Sport-Specific Injury Mechanisms and Situational Patterns of ACL Injuries: A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Sports Med.10.1007/s40279-025-02271-w ↗
6. The Future of In-Field Sports Biomechanics: Wearables plus Modelling Compute Real-Time in Vivo Tissue Loading to Prevent and Repair Musculoskeletal Injuries10.1080/14763141.2021.1959947 ↗
7. Return to Sports after ACL Injury 5 Years from Now: 10 Things We Must Do10.1186/s40634-022-00514-7 ↗
8. Knee Osteoarthritis Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Frequency, Contributory Elements, and Recent Interventions to Modify the Route of Degeneration
9. Do Healthy Athletes Exhibit At-Risk Biomechanics for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury during Pivoting Movements?10.1080/14763141.2022.2080105 ↗
10. Does the FIFA 11+ Injury Prevention Program Reduce the Incidence of ACL Injury in Male Soccer Players?10.1007/s11999-017-5342-5 ↗
11. Xu, D., Zhou, H., Quan, W., Ma, X., Chon, T.-E., Fernandez, J., Gusztav, F., Kovács, A., Baker, J.S., and Gu, Y. (2024). New Insights Optimize Landing Strategies to Reduce Lower Limb Injury Risk. Cyborg Bionic Syst., 5.10.34133/cbsystems.0126 ↗
12. The Cutting Movement Assessment Score (CMAS) Qualitative Screening Tool: Application to Mitigate Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk during Cutting10.3390/biomechanics1010007 ↗
13. The Effect of Angle and Velocity on Change of Direction Biomechanics: An Angle-Velocity Trade-Off10.1007/s40279-018-0968-3 ↗
14. Niswander, W., and Kontson, K. (2021). Evaluating the Impact of IMU Sensor Location and Walking Task on Accuracy of Gait Event Detection Algorithms. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21123989 ↗
15. Kinematics of 90° Change of Direction in Young Football Players: Insights for ACL Injury Prevention from the CUTtheACL Study on 6008 Trials10.1002/ksa.12230 ↗
16. Reenalda, J., Zandbergen, M.A., Harbers, J.H.D., Paquette, M.R., and Milner, C.E. (2021). Detection of Foot Contact in Treadmill Running with Inertial and Optical Measurement Systems. J. Biomech., 121.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110419 ↗
17. Applications and Limitations of Current Markerless Motion Capture Methods for Clinical Gait Biomechanics10.7717/peerj.12995 ↗
18. Di Paolo, S., Lopomo, N.F., Della Villa, F., Paolini, G., Figari, G., Bragonzoni, L., Grassi, A., and Zaffagnini, S. (2021). Rehabilitation and Return to Sport Assessment after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Quantifying Joint Kinematics during Complex High-Speed Tasks through Wearable Sensors. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21072331 ↗
19. Nijmeijer, E.M., Heuvelmans, P., Bolt, R., Gokeler, A., Otten, E., and Benjaminse, A. (2023). Concurrent Validation of the Xsens IMU System of Lower-Body Kinematics in Jump-Landing and Change-of-Direction Tasks. J. Biomech., 154.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2023.111637 ↗
20. Concurrent Validation of the Noraxon MyoMotion Wearable Inertial Sensors in Change-of-Direction and Jump-Landing Tasks10.1080/14763141.2022.2093264 ↗
21. Prasanth, H., Caban, M., Keller, U., Courtine, G., Ijspeert, A., Vallery, H., and von Zitzewitz, J. (2021). Wearable Sensor-Based Real-Time Gait Detection: A Systematic Review. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21082727 ↗
22. Does Site Matter? Impact of Inertial Measurement Unit Placement on the Validity and Reliability of Stride Variables During Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1007/s40279-021-01443-8 ↗
23. A Proposed Framework to Describe Movement Variability within Sporting Tasks: A Scoping Review10.1186/s40798-022-00473-4 ↗
24. Accuracy of Human Motion Capture Systems for Sport Applications; State-of-the-Art Review10.1080/17461391.2018.1463397 ↗
25. Poitras, I., Dupuis, F., Bielmann, M., Campeau-Lecours, A., Mercier, C., Bouyer, L.J., and Roy, J.-S. (2019). Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19071555 ↗
26. Preatoni, E., Bergamini, E., Fantozzi, S., Giraud, L.I., Orejel Bustos, A.S., Vannozzi, G., and Camomilla, V. (2022). The Use of Wearable Sensors for Preventing, Assessing, and Informing Recovery from Sport-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Scoping Review. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22093225 ↗
27. Adesida, Y., Papi, E., and McGregor, A.H. (2019). Exploring the Role of Wearable Technology in Sport Kinematics and Kinetics: A Systematic Review. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19071597 ↗
28. Prill, R., Walter, M., Królikowska, A., and Becker, R. (2021). A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Applications of Wearable Movement Sensors for Knee Joint Rehabilitation. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21248221 ↗
29. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration10.7326/M18-1377 ↗
30. GRADE: An Emerging Consensus on Rating Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD ↗
31. Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., and Welch, V.A. (2024). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, John Wiley & Sons.
32. The Use of a Single Inertial Sensor to Identify Stride, Step, and Stance Durations of Running Gait10.1016/j.jsams.2009.01.005 ↗
33. Determination of Gait Events Using an Externally Mounted Shank Accelerometer10.1123/jab.29.1.118 ↗
34. Evaluation of the Performance of Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection Algorithms in Different Real-World Scenarios Using the MAREA Gait Database10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.09.023 ↗
35. Validity of Using Tri-Axial Accelerometers to Measure Human Movement—Part II: Step Counts at a Wide Range of Gait Velocities10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.02.006 ↗
36. Step Detection Robust against the Dynamics of Smartphones10.3390/s151027230 ↗
37. Reliability and Validity of the Myotest® for Measuring Running Stride Kinematics10.1080/02640414.2015.1068436 ↗
38. Harrison, D., and Whelan, N. (July, January 29). A Comparison of Foot Strike Events Using the Force Plates and Peak Impact Acceleration Measures. Proceedings of the 33th International Society of Biomechanics in Sport (ISBS 2015), Poitiers, France.
39. Accuracy of PARTwear Inertial Sensor and Optojump Optical Measurement System for Measuring Ground Contact Time During Running10.1519/JSC.0000000000001299 ↗
40. Accuracy of Three Methods in Gait Event Detection during Overground Running10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.10.009 ↗
41. Stride Length Determination during Overground Running Using a Single Foot-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.02.003 ↗
42. Falbriard, M., Meyer, F., Mariani, B., Millet, G.P., and Aminian, K. (2018). Accurate Estimation of Running Temporal Parameters Using Foot-Worn Inertial Sensors. Front. Physiol., 9.10.3389/fphys.2018.00610 ↗
43. Benson, L.C., Clermont, C.A., Watari, R., Exley, T., and Ferber, R. (2019). Automated Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection During Multiple Running Conditions. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19071483 ↗
44. Aubol, K.G., and Milner, C.E. (2020). Foot Contact Identification Using a Single Triaxial Accelerometer during Running. J. Biomech., 105.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2020.109768 ↗
45. Nazarahari, M., Khandan, A., Khan, A., and Rouhani, H. (2022). Foot Angular Kinematics Measured with Inertial Measurement Units: A Reliable Criterion for Real-Time Gait Event Detection. J. Biomech., 130.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110880 ↗
46. Patoz, A., Lussiana, T., Breine, B., Gindre, C., and Malatesta, D. (2022). A Single Sacral-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit to Estimate Peak Vertical Ground Reaction Force, Contact Time, and Flight Time in Running. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22030784 ↗
47. Donahue, S.R., and Hahn, M.E. (2022). Validation of Running Gait Event Detection Algorithms in a Semi-Uncontrolled Environment. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22093452 ↗
48. Yang, Y., Wang, L., Su, S., Watsford, M., Wood, L.M., and Duffield, R. (2022). Inertial Sensor Estimation of Initial and Terminal Contact during In-Field Running. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22134812 ↗
49. Bach, M.M., Dominici, N., and Daffertshofer, A. (2022). Predicting Vertical Ground Reaction Forces from 3D Accelerometry Using Reservoir Computers Leads to Accurate Gait Event Detection. Front. Sports Act. Living, 4.10.3389/fspor.2022.1037438 ↗
50. Young, F., Mason, R., Wall, C., Morris, R., Stuart, S., and Godfrey, A. (2022). Examination of a Foot Mounted IMU-Based Methodology for a Running Gait Assessment. Front. Sports Act. Living, 4.10.3389/fspor.2022.956889 ↗
51. Donahue, S.R., and Hahn, M.E. (2023). Estimation of Gait Events and Kinetic Waveforms with Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning When Running in an Unconstrained Environment. Sci. Rep., 13.10.1038/s41598-023-29314-4 ↗
52. Ramli, A.A., Liu, X., Berndt, K., Chuah, C.-N., Goude, E., Kaethler, L.B., Lopez, A., Nicorici, A., Owens, C., and Rodriguez, D. (2024). Gait Event Detection and Travel Distance Using Waist-Worn Accelerometers across a Range of Speeds: Automated Approach. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24041155 ↗
53. Miqueleiz, U., Aguado-Jimenez, R., Lecumberri, P., and Gorostiaga, E.M. (2025). Agreement between an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) Algorithm and a Photoelectric System for Analysing Spatiotemporal Variables during Overground and Treadmill Running. Sports Biomech., 1–19.10.1080/14763141.2025.2502750 ↗
54. Identifying Right and Left Impact Using the Derivative of Linear Resultant Acceleration from a Single Sacrum-Mounted IMU10.1017/wtc.2025.4 ↗
55. Use of Accelerometers for Detecting Foot-Ground Contact Time during Running
56. Feature Identification With a Heuristic Algorithm and an Unsupervised Machine Learning Algorithm for Prior Knowledge of Gait Events10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3131953 ↗
57. Lucot, Q., Beurienne, E., and Behr, M. (2024). Multi-Activity Step Counting Algorithm Using Deep Learning Foot Flat Detection with an IMU Inside the Sole of a Shoe. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24216927 ↗
58. van Werkhoven, H., Farina, K.A., and Langley, M.H. (2019). Using A Soft Conformable Foot Sensor to Measure Changes in Foot Strike Angle During Running. Sports, 7.10.3390/sports7080184 ↗
59. Estimation of Temporal Parameters during Sprint Running Using a Trunk-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.12.020 ↗
60. IMU- Based Determination of Stance Duration During Sprinting10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.330 ↗
61. Blauberger, P., Horsch, A., and Lames, M. (2021). Detection of Ground Contact Times with Inertial Sensors in Elite 100-m Sprints under Competitive Field Conditions. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21217331 ↗
62. Santicchi, G., Stillavato, S., Deriu, M., Comi, A., Cerveri, P., Esposito, F., and Zago, M. (2024). Validation of Step Detection and Distance Calculation Algorithms for Soccer Performance Monitoring. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24113343 ↗
63. Automated Gait Event Detection for a Variety of Locomotion Tasks Using a Novel Gyroscope-Based Algorithm10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.06.019 ↗
64. A Novel Approach to Determine Strides, Ice Contact, and Swing Phases During Ice Hockey Skating Using a Single Accelerometer10.1123/jab.2014-0245 ↗
65. Khandan, A., Fathian, R., Carey, J.P., and Rouhani, H. (2022). Measurement of Temporal and Spatial Parameters of Ice Hockey Skating Using a Wearable System. Sci. Rep., 12.10.1038/s41598-022-26777-9 ↗
66. Tomita, Y., Iizuka, T., Irisawa, K., and Imura, S. (2021). Detection of Movement Events of Long-Track Speed Skating Using Wearable Inertial Sensors. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21113649 ↗
67. Apte, S., Karami, H., Vallat, C., Gremeaux, V., and Aminian, K. (2023). In-Field Assessment of Change-of-Direction Ability with a Single Wearable Sensor. Sci. Rep., 13.10.1038/s41598-023-30773-y ↗
68. Role of the Penultimate Foot Contact During Change of Direction: Implications on Performance and Risk of Injury10.1519/SSC.0000000000000395 ↗
69. Jeon, H., Kim, S.L., Kim, S., and Lee, D. (2020). Fast Wearable Sensor-Based Foot-Ground Contact Phase Classification Using a Convolutional Neural Network with Sliding-Window Label Overlapping. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20174996 ↗
70. Rivadulla, A., Chen, X., Weir, G., Cazzola, D., Trewartha, G., Hamill, J., and Preatoni, E. (2021). Development and Validation of FootNet; a New Kinematic Algorithm to Improve Foot-Strike and Toe-off Detection in Treadmill Running. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1101/2021.03.03.433728 ↗
71. Comparing Lab and Field Agility Kinematics in Young Talented Female Football Players: Implications for ACL Injury Prevention10.1080/17461391.2022.2064771 ↗
72. Di Paolo, S., Nijmeijer, E.M., Bragonzoni, L., Gokeler, A., and Benjaminse, A. (2023). Definition of High-Risk Motion Patterns for Female ACL Injury Based on Football-Specific Field Data: A Wearable Sensors Plus Data Mining Approach. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23042176 ↗
73. Joint and Segmental Mechanics Differ between Cutting Maneuvers in Skilled Athletes10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.08.005 ↗
74. Estimation of Step-by-Step Spatio-Temporal Parameters of Normal and Impaired Gait Using Shank-Mounted Magneto-Inertial Sensors: Application to Elderly, Hemiparetic, Parkinsonian and Choreic Gait10.1186/1743-0003-11-152 ↗
75. Gait Patterns after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Are Related to Graft Type10.1177/0363546504266483 ↗
76. Biomechanical but Not Strength or Performance Measures Differentiate Male Athletes Who Experience ACL Reinjury on Return to Level 1 Sports10.1177/0363546520988018 ↗
77. Systematic Video Analysis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Professional Male Rugby Players: Pattern, Injury Mechanism, and Biomechanics in 57 Consecutive Cases10.1177/23259671211048182 ↗
78. Cereatti, A., Gurchiek, R., Mündermann, A., Fantozzi, S., Horak, F., Delp, S., and Aminian, K. (2024). ISB Recommendations on the Definition, Estimation, and Reporting of Joint Kinematics in Human Motion Analysis Applications Using Wearable Inertial Measurement Technology. J. Biomech., 173.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112225 ↗
79. Analysis of the Performance of 17 Algorithms from a Systematic Review: Influence of Sensor Position, Analysed Variable and Computational Approach in Gait Timing Estimation from IMU Measurements10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.08.025 ↗
80. Encarnación-Martínez, A., Pérez-Soriano, P., Sanchis-Sanchis, R., García-Gallart, A., and Berenguer-Vidal, R. (2021). Validity and Reliability of an Instrumented Treadmill with an Accelerometry System for Assessment of Spatio-Temporal Parameters and Impact Transmission. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21051758 ↗
81. Drobnič, M., Verdel, N., Holmberg, H.-C., and Supej, M. (2023). The Validity of a Three-Dimensional Motion Capture System and the Garmin Running Dynamics Pod in Connection with an Assessment of Ground Contact Time While Running in Place. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23167155 ↗
82. Trabassi, D., Serrao, M., Varrecchia, T., Ranavolo, A., Coppola, G., De Icco, R., Tassorelli, C., and Castiglia, S.F. (2022). Machine Learning Approach to Support the Detection of Parkinson’s Disease in IMU-Based Gait Analysis. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22103700 ↗
83. Data-Driven Deep Learning for Predicting Ligament Fatigue Failure Risk Mechanisms10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2025.110519 ↗