Biomechanics Analysis of the Lower Limbs in 20 Male Sprinters Using the International Society of Biomechanics Six-Degrees-of-Freedom Model and the Conventional Gait Model

Abstract

Background This biomechanics study of the lower limbs aimed to compare the use of the International Society of Biomechanics Six-Degrees-of-Freedom (ISB-6DOF) model and the conventional gait model (CGM), formerly known as the Helen Hayes model, in 20 male sprinters who habitually used the forefoot (FF) or rearfoot (RF) strike modes. Material/Methods We used a motion capture system to compare the difference in lower-extremity joint mechanics between sprinters’ forefoot or rearfoot strike mode during unplanned sidestepping (UPSS). Twenty elite sprinters participated in a motion capture test under 2 models. Each of the 10 participants were classified as having a habitual forefoot strike mode or rearfoot strike mode during unplanned sidestepping. Joint mechanics and gait parameters were calculated according to the designed movement. Results Comparison of the 2 models showed that the knee joint angles were inconsistent ( P <0.05), highlighting the difficulty of the Helen Hayes model in anatomical recognition. The results of the 2 models show that during the unplanned sidestepping, the sprinter using the habitual rearfoot strike mode had a greater load through the knee joint ( P <0.05). Sprinters who used the habitual forefoot strike mode experienced greater load through their ankle joints ( P <0.05). Conclusions The findings from this biomechanics study showed that when compared with the ISB-6DoF model, the findings from the CGM were more reproducible for the evaluation of FF and RF strike during unplanned sidestepping.

Comparison of plugin and redundant marker sets to analyze gait kinematics between different populations

“…In the sagittal plane, there are no differences between marker sets at the hip in healthy subjects, again the same as in previous studies [ 19 , 24 , 25 , 29 ]. However, the Initial Joint Angle, Peak Extension and ROM at the knee, Peak Dorsiflexion, and ROM at the ankle show the differences between marker sets.…”

“…These findings are comparable with previous studies [ 19 – 21 , 24 , 29 ]. In previous studies, some researchers found the differences between marker sets at the knee and hip rotation in the transverse plane [ 19 , 24 , 25 , 29 ], while others also found the differences at the knee in the frontal plane [ 24 , 25 , 29 ]. In this study, the findings in healthy subjects are in agreement with the former, while the findings in OA patients correspond to the latter.…”

“…Previous studies [ 13 , 14 , 19 – 25 ] have tried to investigate the agreement of joint kinematics between these gait models. Slight differences in sagittal plane angles of the lower extremities and slightly larger differences in the hip and knee transverse plane angles were found between two different marker sets of CGM [ 19 ].…”

Ankle biomechanics of the three-step layup in a basketball player with chronic ankle instability

“…The variable selected in this study were ankle angle, moment, and ground reaction force 34 . In data processing, the link coordinate system was established through infrared reflective marks on the body surface of the subject, and the moment and angle of the ankle joint were calculated according to the trajectory change of the movement and the coordinate system.…”