Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Purpose. This study explores lower limb joint displacement differences during the stance phase and to examine the effects of limb dominance on asymmetry. A total of 32 healthy male amateur marathon runners were recruited (age: 35.33 ± 6.90 years, height: 174.17 ± 3.34 cm, weight: 63.92 ± 4.53 kg). The experiment employed a Vicon eight‐camera motion capture system synchronized with an AMTI force plate to record the phase from heel strike to toe‐off. The continuous relative phase (CRP) between the dominant and nondominant limbs was assessed using of independent t‐test of SPM1d. Results. The hip–knee joint of the dominant limb had a larger maximum CRP (t = 1.104, p > 0.05, effect size = 0.270), smaller minimum CRP (t = −2.672, p < 0.05, effect size = 0.653), larger values of mean absolute relative phase (MARF) (t = 3.275, p < 0.05, effect size = 0.122), and deviation phase (DP) (t = 7.582, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.717) than that of the nondominant limb. Comparing the dominant limb of the knee–ankle joints with the nondominant, there are smaller maximum CRP (t = −0.422, p > 0.05, effect size = 0.144), smaller DP (t = −7.237, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.754), a larger minimum CRP (t = 7.909, p < 0.001, effect size = 2.704), and larger MARF (t = 0.355, p > 0.05, effect size = 0.801). Furthermore, during the stance phases, there are significant differences in coordination modes between the dominant limb and nondominant limb of intersegmental joints (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Throughout different phases of the stance phase, asymmetry in the sagittal plane of lower limb joint displacement is evident. The dominant limb undergoes significant changes in joint leading phase coordination modes, with notably less in‐phase coordination compared to the nondominant limb. This predisposes muscles to overstretching, thereby increasing the risk of muscle strains, while the nondominant limb compensates for lower muscle strength. Recognizing and addressing such asymmetries is key to optimizing nondominant limb strength and minimizing muscle overstretching in the dominant limb, leading to improved stability and movement efficiency during marathon running. Consequently, when designing exercise programs or physical therapy, it is crucial to consider limb dominance‐related symmetry differences to mitigate the risk of injury resulting from interlimb disparities in motion.
Purpose. This study explores lower limb joint displacement differences during the stance phase and to examine the effects of limb dominance on asymmetry. A total of 32 healthy male amateur marathon runners were recruited (age: 35.33 ± 6.90 years, height: 174.17 ± 3.34 cm, weight: 63.92 ± 4.53 kg). The experiment employed a Vicon eight‐camera motion capture system synchronized with an AMTI force plate to record the phase from heel strike to toe‐off. The continuous relative phase (CRP) between the dominant and nondominant limbs was assessed using of independent t‐test of SPM1d. Results. The hip–knee joint of the dominant limb had a larger maximum CRP (t = 1.104, p > 0.05, effect size = 0.270), smaller minimum CRP (t = −2.672, p < 0.05, effect size = 0.653), larger values of mean absolute relative phase (MARF) (t = 3.275, p < 0.05, effect size = 0.122), and deviation phase (DP) (t = 7.582, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.717) than that of the nondominant limb. Comparing the dominant limb of the knee–ankle joints with the nondominant, there are smaller maximum CRP (t = −0.422, p > 0.05, effect size = 0.144), smaller DP (t = −7.237, p < 0.001, effect size = 0.754), a larger minimum CRP (t = 7.909, p < 0.001, effect size = 2.704), and larger MARF (t = 0.355, p > 0.05, effect size = 0.801). Furthermore, during the stance phases, there are significant differences in coordination modes between the dominant limb and nondominant limb of intersegmental joints (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Throughout different phases of the stance phase, asymmetry in the sagittal plane of lower limb joint displacement is evident. The dominant limb undergoes significant changes in joint leading phase coordination modes, with notably less in‐phase coordination compared to the nondominant limb. This predisposes muscles to overstretching, thereby increasing the risk of muscle strains, while the nondominant limb compensates for lower muscle strength. Recognizing and addressing such asymmetries is key to optimizing nondominant limb strength and minimizing muscle overstretching in the dominant limb, leading to improved stability and movement efficiency during marathon running. Consequently, when designing exercise programs or physical therapy, it is crucial to consider limb dominance‐related symmetry differences to mitigate the risk of injury resulting from interlimb disparities in motion.
Background How the joints exactly move and interact and how this reflects PD-related gait abnormalities and the response to dopaminergic treatment is poorly understood. A detailed understanding of these kinematics can inform clinical management and treatment decisions. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of different gait speeds and medication on/off conditions on inter-joint coordination, as well as kinematic differences throughout the whole gait cycle in well characterized pwPD. Methods 29 controls and 29 PD patients during medication on, 8 of them also during medication off walked a straight walking path in slow, preferred and fast walking speeds. Gait data was collected using optical motion capture system. Kinematics of the hip and knee and coordinated hip-knee kinematics were evaluated using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) and cyclograms (angle-angle plots). Values derived from cyclograms were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA for within group, and ttest for between group comparisons. Results PD gait differed from controls mainly by lower knee range of motion (ROM). Adaptation to gait speed in PD was mainly achieved by increasing hip ROM. Regularity of gait was worse in PD but only during preferred speed. The ratios of different speed cyclograms were smaller in the PD groups. SPM analyses revealed that PD participants had smaller hip and knee angles during the swing phase, and PD participants reached peak hip flexion later than controls. Withdrawal of medication showed an exacerbation of only a few parameters. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate the potential of granular kinematic analyses, including > 1 joint, for disease and treatment monitoring in PD. Our approach can be extended to further mobility-limiting conditions and other joint combinations. Trial registration The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022998, registered on 04 Sep 2020).
Background how the joints exactly move and interact and how this reflects PD-related gait abnormalities and the response to dopaminergic treatment is poorly understood. A detailed understanding of these kinematics can inform clinical management and treatment decisions. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of different gait speeds and medication on/off conditions on inter-joint coordination, as well as kinematic differences throughout the whole gait cycle in well characterized pwPD. Methods 29 controls and 29 PD patients during medication on, 8 of them also during medication off walked a straight walking path in slow, preferred and fast walking speeds. Gait data was collected using optical motion capture system. Kinematics of the hip and knee and coordinated hip-knee kinematics were evaluated using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) and cyclograms (angle-angle plots). Values derived from cyclograms were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA for within group, and ttest for between group comparisons. Results PD gait differed from controls mainly by lower knee range of motion (ROM). Adaptation to gait speed in PD was mainly achieved by increasing hip ROM. Regularity of gait was worse in PD but only during preferred speed. The ratios of different speed cyclograms were smaller in the PD groups. SPM analyses revealed that PD participants had smaller hip and knee angles during the swing phase, and PD participants reached peak hip flexion later than controls. Withdrawal of medication showed an exacerbation of only a few parameters. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate the potential of granular kinematic analyses, including > 1 joint, for disease and treatment monitoring in PD. Our approach can be extended to further mobility-limiting conditions and other joint combinations. Trial registration: The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022998).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.