4.5 Article

A comparison and update of direct kinematic-kinetic models of leg stiffness in human running

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 253-257

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.09.028

关键词

Running; Stiffness; Kinematics; Kinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Direct kinematic-kinetic modelling currently represents the Gold-standard in leg stiffness quantification during three-dimensional (3D) motion capture experiments. However, the medial-lateral components of ground reaction force and leg length have been neglected in current leg stiffness formulations. It is unknown if accounting for all 3D would alter healthy biologic estimates of leg stiffness, compared to present direct modelling methods. This study compared running leg stiffness derived from a new method (multiplanar method) which includes all three Cartesian axes, against current methods which either only include the vertical axis (line method) or only the plane of progression (uniplanar method). Twenty healthy female runners performed shod overground running at 5.0 m/s. Three-dimensional motion capture and synchronised in-ground force plates were used to track the change in length of the leg vector (hip joint centre to centre of pressure) and resultant projected ground reaction force. Leg stiffness was expressed as dimensionless units, as a percentage of an individual's bodyweight divided by standing leg length (BW/LL). Leg stiffness using the line method was larger than the uniplanar method by 15.6%BW/LL (P < .001), and multiplanar method by 24.2%BW/LL (P < .001). Leg stiffness from the uniplanar method was larger than the multiplanar method by 8.5%BW/LL (6.5 kN/m) (P < .001). The inclusion of medial-lateral components significantly increased leg deformation magnitude, accounting for the reduction in leg stiffness estimate with the multiplanar method. Given that limb movements typically occur in 3D, the new multiplanar method provides the most complete accounting of all force and length components in leg stiffness calculation. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据