4.2 Article

Reproducibility of lower limb motion and forces during stationary submaximal pedalling using wearable motion tracking sensors

Journal

SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages 1041-1062

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2020.1776760

Keywords

Kinematics; muscle forces; joint forces; OpenSim

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the reproducibility of joint and muscle forces during stationary cycling using wearable sensors. The results showed that the differences between trials within-session were trivial and non-significant, while the differences between trials between sessions were larger. Variability can be attributed to changes in muscle recruitment strategies and sensor repositioning.
In order to address gaps in the literature, this study assessed the reproducibility (i.e., difference between and within sessions) of joint and muscle forces using wearable sensors during stationary cycling. Seventeen male cyclists performed two sessions on a cycle ergometer cycling at a combination of three power outputs (1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 W/kg) and three pedalling cadences (60, 80 and 100 rpm) in two sessions (2-7 days apart). The first trial from each session was repeated at the end of the session for assessment of within-session reproducibility. Three-dimensional (3D) full-body motion and 3D bilateral pedal forces were collected using an inertial motion tracking system and a pair of instrumented pedals, respectively. Joint angles, muscle forces and knee joint forces were computed using OpenSim. Poor to excellent agreement (ICCs = 0.31-0.99) was observed and differences were trivial to small and non-significant between trials within-session. Poor to excellent agreement (ICCs = 0.05-0.97) was observed and differences were trivial to large between sessions. Variability can be attributed to changes in muscle recruitment strategies (within and between-sessions) and to repositioning of sensors (between-sessions).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available