Which Method Detects Foot Strike in Rearfoot and Forefoot Runners Accurately when Using an Inertial Measurement Unit?
Source abstract
Abstract
Accelerometers and gyroscopes are used to detect foot strike (FS), i.e., the moment when the foot first touches the ground. However, it is unclear whether different conditions (footwear hardness or foot strike pattern) influence the accuracy and precision of different FS detection methods when using such micro-electromechanical sensors (MEMS). This study compared the accuracy of four published MEMS-based FS detection methods with each other and the gold standard (force plate) to establish the most accurate method with regard to different foot strike patterns and footwear conditions. Twenty-three recreational runners (12 rearfoot and 11 forefoot strikers) ran on a 15-m indoor track at their individual running speed in three footwear conditions (low to high hardness). MEMS and a force plate were sampled at a rate of 3750 Hz. Individual accuracy and precision of FS detection methods were found which were dependent on running styles and footwear conditions. Most of the methods were characterized by a delay which generally increased from rearfoot to forefoot strike pattern and from high to low midsole hardness. It can be concluded that only one of the four methods can accurately determine FS in a variety of conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies · Foot and Ankle Surgery · Diabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Human Locomotion, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz 09126, Germany
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Heel strike angle and foot angular velocity in the sagittal plane during running in different shoe conditions10.1186/1757-1146-1-S1-O16 ↗
2. Can minimal running shoes imitate barefoot heel-toe running patterns? Acomparison of lower leg kinematics10.1016/j.jshs.2014.03.002 ↗
3. Comparison of Minimalist Footwear Strategies for Simulating Barefoot Running : A Randomized Crossover Study10.1371/journal.pone.0125880 ↗
4. EMG patterns during running: Intra-and inter-individual variability10.1016/1050-6411(95)00015-1 ↗
5. Running injury and stride time variability over a prolonged run10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.09.020 ↗
6. A kinematics and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181677530 ↗
7. Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot: A biomechanical study10.1136/bjsports-2012-091837 ↗
8. (Jaap) Continuous three dimensional analysis of running mechanics during a marathon by means of inertial magnetic measurement units to objectify changes in running mechanics10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.08.032 ↗
9. The Variability in Running Gait Caused by Force Plate Targeting10.1123/jab.17.1.77 ↗
10. Measuring kinematic changes of the foot using a gyro sensor during intense running10.1080/02640414.2013.843013 ↗
11. Development of a wearable sensor system for quantitative gait analysis10.1016/j.measurement.2009.02.002 ↗
12. Accelerometer and rate gyroscope measurement of kinematics: An inexpensive alternative to optical motion analysis systems10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00231-7 ↗
13. Mitschke, C., Öhmichen, M., and Milani, T.L. (2017). A Single Gyroscope Can Be Used to Accurately Determine Peak Eversion Velocity during Locomotion at Different Speeds and in Various Shoes. Appl. Sci., 7.10.3390/app7070659 ↗
14. Characteristics of shock attenuation during fatigued running10.1080/0264041031000140383 ↗
15. A simple method to detect stride intervals in continuous acceleration and gyroscope data recorded during treadmill running10.1080/19424280.2015.1038656 ↗
16. A single gyrometer inside an instrumented running shoe allows mobile determination of gait cycle and pronation velocity during outdoor running10.1080/19424280902977095 ↗
17. Assessment of walking features from foot inertial sensing10.1109/TBME.2004.840727 ↗
18. A simple field method to identify foot strike pattern during running10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.03.002 ↗
19. The use of a single inertial sensor to identify stride, step, and stance durations of running gait10.1016/j.jsams.2009.01.005 ↗
20. Monitoring Kinematic Changes With Fatigue in Running Using Body-Worn Sensors10.1109/TITB.2012.2201950 ↗
21. Determination of gait events using an externally mounted shank accelerometer10.1123/jab.29.1.118 ↗
22. Comparison of accelerometry stride time calculation methods10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.05.029 ↗
23. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners10.1038/nature08723 ↗
24. Lower extremity mechanics in runners with a converted forefoot strike pattern10.1123/jab.16.2.210 ↗
25. Perceptual and biomechanical variables for running in identical shoe constructions with varying midsole hardness10.1016/S0268-0033(97)00008-9 ↗
26. Effect of strike pattern and orthotic intervention on tibial shock during running10.1123/jab.19.2.153 ↗
27. Long-term cushioning properties of running shoes10.1007/978-2-287-09413-2_11 ↗
28. Comparison of test methods to quantify shock attenuating properties of athletic footwear10.1016/j.proeng.2010.04.070 ↗
29. The position of medial dual density midsole elements in running shoes does not influence biomechanical variables10.1080/19424280.2011.613857 ↗
30. Quantitative Methods in Psychology10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 ↗