Estimates of Running Ground Reaction Force Parameters from Motion Analysis

Abstract

We compared running mechanics parameters determined from ground reaction force (GRF) measurements with estimated forces obtained from double differentiation of kinematic (K) data from motion analysis in a broad spectrum of running speeds (1.94-5.56 m⋅s). Data were collected through a force-instrumented treadmill and compared at different sampling frequencies (900 and 300 Hz for GRF, 300 and 100 Hz for K). Vertical force peak, shape, and impulse were similar between K methods and GRF. Contact time, flight time, and vertical stiffness (k) obtained from K showed the same trend as GRF with differences < 5%, whereas leg stiffness (k) was not correctly computed by kinematics. The results revealed that the main vertical GRF parameters can be computed by the double differentiation of the body center of mass properly calculated by motion analysis. The present model provides an alternative accessible method for determining temporal and kinetic parameters of running without an instrumented treadmill.

Whole-body biomechanical load in running-based sports: The validity of estimating ground reaction forces from segmental accelerations

“…Estimated GRF results in this study are comparable to other laboratory-based studies aiming to predict 208 GRF from marker trajectory data using a mechanical approach. The impulse errors for low-speed 209 running (2.3%), impact peak errors for moderate-speed running (9.2%) and correlations between 210 estimated and measured impact peaks for low-to high-speed running (R 2 =0.77-0.96) found in the current study are similar to results reported in previous studies that aimed to predict GRF from marker 212 trajectory data for comparable constant speed running tasks 25, 26,31 . However, this study extends 213 beyond other studies in that similar results were also achieved for a range of high-intensity and 214 dynamic running tasks frequently undertaken in running-based sports.…”

“…However, this study extends 213 beyond other studies in that similar results were also achieved for a range of high-intensity and 214 dynamic running tasks frequently undertaken in running-based sports. Moreover, previous studies 215 failed to include the mediolateral and anteroposterior components of acceleration and GRF 25,31 , 216 utilised small sample sizes 25,26,31 and/or investigated running on a treadmill rather than overground 217 26,31 , all of which limit their ability to translate their findings from the lab to an applied sport setting. 218…”

“…This alternative expression of Newton's second law provides a way by which the contribution of 76 multiple segmental accelerations to the GRF can be systematically examined, especially since 77 accelerations of the trunk or other individual segments have been shown to not be sufficient to 78 estimate GRF for several straight running and cutting activities 7-9,11,24 . Other studies have indeed 79 shown that for constant speed running, GRF can be estimated from seven 25 or eleven 26 segmental 80…”

Comprehensive mechanical power analysis in sprint running acceleration

“…Their results are similar to those reported in the present study. Thus, inverse and forward dynamics, which often differ in their prediction in constant speed running 27,31 because of a bias localization of BCoM of the former methodology, concur to reveal the same dynamics in the acceleration phase of a sprint. As inverse dynamics is unable to account for the visceral mass oscillation in affecting BCoM position, 32,33 the similar mechanical results obtained by means of the methods suggests that visceral mass vertical oscillation excursion is decreased in the acceleration phase of sprint running due to a diminished "bounciness" of the spring-mass system.…”

Estimation of Vertical Ground Reaction Forces and Sagittal Knee Kinematics During Running Using Three Inertial Sensors

“…However, none of the aforementioned approaches provided users with kinetic information. Efforts to move kinetic analyses out of the laboratory setting have proven to be effective for trunk bending (Faber et al, 2016 ), gait (Karatsidis et al, 2017 ), dance (Shippen and May, 2012 ), and running (Pavei et al, 2017 ). However, aforementioned approaches require full-body kinematic information.…”