Single- Versus Dual-Task Functional Movement Paradigms: A Biomechanical Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Landon B. Lempke ◽  
Jeonghoon Oh ◽  
Rachel S. Johnson ◽  
Julianne D. Schmidt ◽  
Robert C. Lynall
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Functional Movement ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Vertical Ground

Context: Laboratory-based movement assessments are commonly performed without cognitive stimuli (ie, single-task) despite the simultaneous cognitive processing and movement (ie, dual task) demands required during sport. Cognitive loading may critically alter human movement and be an important consideration for truly assessing functional movement and understanding injury risk in the laboratory, but limited investigations exist. Objective: To comprehensively examine and compare kinematics and kinetics between single- and dual-task functional movement among healthy participants while controlling for sex. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Laboratory. Patients (or Other Participants): Forty-one healthy, physically active participants (49% female; 22.5 ± 2.1 y; 172.5 ± 11.9 cm; 71.0 ± 13.7 kg) enrolled in and completed the study. Intervention(s): All participants completed the functional movement protocol under single- and dual-task (subtracting by 6s or 7s) conditions in a randomized order. Participants jumped forward from a 30-cm tall box and performed (1) maximum vertical jump landings and (2) dominant and (3) nondominant leg, single-leg 45° cuts after landing. Main Outcome Measures: The authors used mixed-model analysis of variances (α = .05) to compare peak hip, knee, and ankle joint angles (degrees) and moments (N·m/BW) in the sagittal and frontal planes, and peak vertical ground reaction force (N/BW) and vertical impulse (Ns/BW) between cognitive conditions and sex. Results: Dual-task resulted in greater peak vertical ground reaction force compared with single-task during jump landing (mean difference = 0.06 N/BW; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 0.12; P = .025) but less force during dominant leg cutting (mean difference = −0.08 N/BW; 95% CI, −0.14 to −0.02; P = .015). Less hip-flexion torque occurred during dual task than single task (mean difference = −0.09 N/BW; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.02). No other outcomes were different between single and dual task (P ≥ .053). Conclusions: Slight, but potentially important, kinematic and kinetic differences were observed between single- and dual-task that may have implications for functional movement assessments and injury risk research. More research examining how various cognitive and movement tasks interact to alter functional movement among pathological populations is warranted before clinical implementation.

scholarly journals Kinematics of Usain Bolt’s maximal sprint velocity

Kinesiology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Čoh ◽  
Kim Hébert-Losier ◽  
Stanko Štuhec ◽  
Vesna Babić ◽  
Matej Supej
Keyword(s):  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Vertical Displacement ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Maximal Velocity ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Vertical Ground ◽  
Sprint Velocity

This study investigated the maximal sprint velocity kinematics of the fastest 100 m sprinter, Usain Bolt. Two high-speed video cameras recorded kinematics from 60 to 90 m during the men 100 m final at the IAAF World Challenge Zagreb 2011, Croatia. Despite a relatively slow reaction time (194 ms), Bolt won in 9.85 s (mean velocity: 10.15 m/s). His fastest 20-m section velocity was 12.14 m/s, reached between 70 and 90 m, by 2.70-m long strides and 4.36 strides/s frequency. At the maximal velocity, his contact and flight times were 86 and 145 ms, respectively, and vertical ground reaction force generated equalled 4.2 times his body weight (3932 N). The braking and propulsion phase represented 37% and 63% of ground contact, respectively, with his centre of mass (CoM) exhibiting minor reductions in horizontal velocity (2.7%) and minimal vertical displacement (4.9 cm). Emerged Bolt’s maximal sprint velocity and international predominance from coordinated motor abilities, power generation capacities, and effective technique. This study confirms that his maximal velocity was achieved by means of relatively long strides, minimal braking phase, high vertical ground reaction force, and minimal vertical displacement of CoM. This study is the first in-depth biomechanical analysis of Bolt’s maximal sprinting velocity with the segmental reconstruction.

Lower Extremity Mechanics in Runners with a Converted Forefoot Strike Pattern

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorsey S. Williams ◽  
Irene S. McClay ◽  
Kurt T. Manal
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Running Performance ◽  
Vertical Ground ◽  
The Impact

Runners are sometimes advised to alter their strike pattern as a means of increasing performance or in response to injury. The purpose of this study was to compare lower extremity mechanics of rearfoot strikers (RFS), who were instructed to run with a forefoot strike pattern (CFFS) to those of a preferred forefoot striker (FFS). Three-dimensional mechanics of 9 FFS and 9 CFFS were evaluated. Peak values for most kinematic and kinetic variables and all patterns of movement were not found to be statistically different between CFFS and FFS. Only peak vertical ground reaction force and peak ankle plantarflexion moment were found to be significantly lower (p ≤ .05) in the CFFS group. This suggests that RFS are able to assume a FFS pattern with very little practice that is very similar to that of a preferred FFS. The impact of changing one's strike pattern on injury risk and running performance needs further study.

scholarly journals Associations Among Eccentric Hamstrings Strength, Hamstrings Stiffness, and Jump-Landing Biomechanics

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (7) ◽  
pp. 717-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek R. Dewig ◽  
Jonathan S. Goodwin ◽  
Brian G. Pietrosimone ◽  
J. Troy Blackburn
Keyword(s):  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Ground Contact ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Landing Biomechanics ◽  
Peak Knee ◽  
Acl Injury Risk ◽  
Vertical Ground

Context Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk can be assessed from landing biomechanics. Greater hamstrings stiffness is associated with a landing-biomechanics profile consistent with less ACL loading but is difficult to assess in the clinical setting. Eccentric hamstrings strength can be easily evaluated by clinicians and may provide a surrogate measure for hamstrings stiffness. Objective To examine associations among eccentric hamstrings strength, hamstrings stiffness, and landing biomechanics linked to ACL injury risk. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants A total of 34 uninjured, physically active participants (22 women, 12 men; age = 20.2 ± 1.6 years, height = 171.5 ± 9.7 cm, mass = 67.1 ± 12.7 kg). Intervention(s) We collected eccentric hamstrings strength, active hamstrings stiffness, and double- and single-legged landing biomechanics during a single session. Main Outcome Measure(s) Bivariate associations were conducted between eccentric hamstrings strength and hamstrings stiffness, vertical ground reaction force, internal knee-extension moment, internal knee-varus moment, anterior tibial shear force, knee sagittal-plane angle at initial ground contact, peak knee-flexion angle, knee frontal-plane angle at initial ground contact, peak knee-valgus angle, and knee-flexion displacement using Pearson product moment correlations or Spearman rank-order correlations. Results We observed no association between hamstrings stiffness and eccentric hamstrings strength (r = 0.029, P = .44). We also found no association between hamstrings stiffness and landing biomechanics. However, greater peak eccentric strength was associated with less vertical ground reaction force in both the double-legged (r = −0.331, P = .03) and single-legged (r = −0.418, P = .01) landing conditions and with less internal knee-varus moment in the single-legged landing condition (r = −0.326, P = .04). Conclusions Eccentric hamstrings strength was associated with less vertical ground reaction force during both landing tasks and less internal knee-varus moment during the single-legged landing but was not an acceptable clinical estimate of active hamstrings stiffness.

scholarly journals Running ground reaction forces across footwear conditions are predicted from the motion of two body mass components

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (5) ◽  
pp. 1315-1325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew B. Udofa ◽  
Kenneth P. Clark ◽  
Laurence J. Ryan ◽  
Peter G. Weyand
Keyword(s):  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Ground Reaction Forces ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Time Patterns ◽  
Foot Strike ◽  
Reaction Forces ◽  
Vertical Ground ◽  
Force Time

Although running shoes alter foot-ground reaction forces, particularly during impact, how they do so is incompletely understood. Here, we hypothesized that footwear effects on running ground reaction force-time patterns can be accurately predicted from the motion of two components of the body’s mass (mb): the contacting lower-limb (m1 = 0.08mb) and the remainder (m2 = 0.92mb). Simultaneous motion and vertical ground reaction force-time data were acquired at 1,000 Hz from eight uninstructed subjects running on a force-instrumented treadmill at 4.0 and 7.0 m/s under four footwear conditions: barefoot, minimal sole, thin sole, and thick sole. Vertical ground reaction force-time patterns were generated from the two-mass model using body mass and footfall-specific measures of contact time, aerial time, and lower-limb impact deceleration. Model force-time patterns generated using the empirical inputs acquired for each footfall matched the measured patterns closely across the four footwear conditions at both protocol speeds ( r2 = 0.96 ± 0.004; root mean squared error  = 0.17 ± 0.01 body-weight units; n = 275 total footfalls). Foot landing angles (θF) were inversely related to footwear thickness; more positive or plantar-flexed landing angles coincided with longer-impact durations and force-time patterns lacking distinct rising-edge force peaks. Our results support three conclusions: 1) running ground reaction force-time patterns across footwear conditions can be accurately predicted using our two-mass, two-impulse model, 2) impact forces, regardless of foot strike mechanics, can be accurately quantified from lower-limb motion and a fixed anatomical mass (0.08mb), and 3) runners maintain similar loading rates (ΔFvertical/Δtime) across footwear conditions by altering foot strike angle to regulate the duration of impact. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Here, we validate a two-mass, two-impulse model of running vertical ground reaction forces across four footwear thickness conditions (barefoot, minimal, thin, thick). Our model allows the impact portion of the impulse to be extracted from measured total ground reaction force-time patterns using motion data from the ankle. The gait adjustments observed across footwear conditions revealed that runners maintained similar loading rates across footwear conditions by altering foot strike angles to regulate the duration of impact.

Carrying loads with springy poles

1991 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 1119-1122 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Kram
Keyword(s):  
Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Oxygen Consumption Rate ◽  
Consumption Rate ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Load Carriage ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Suspension Systems ◽  
Vertical Ground ◽  
Male Subjects

People throughout Asia use springy bamboo poles to carry the loads of everyday life. These poles are a very compliant suspension system that allows the load to move along a nearly horizontal path while the person bounces up and down with each step. Could this be an economical way to carry loads inasmuch as no gravitational work has to be done to lift the load repeatedly? To find out, an experiment was conducted in which four male subjects ran at 3.0 m/s on a motorized treadmill with no load and while carrying a load equal to 19% body wt with compliant poles. Oxygen consumption rate, vertical ground reaction force, and the force exerted by the load on the shoulders were measured. Oxygen consumption rate increased by 22%. The same increase has previously been observed when loads are carried with a backpack. Thus compliant poles are not a particularly economical method of load carriage. However, pole suspension systems offer important advantages: they minimize peak shoulder forces and loading rates. In addition, the peak vertical ground reaction force is only slightly increased above unloaded levels when loads are carried with poles.

scholarly journals The Relationship Between Vertical Loadrates and Tibial Acceleration Across Footstrike Patterns

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Davis ◽  
Todd Hayano ◽  
Adam Tenforde
Keyword(s):  
Impact Loading ◽  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Force Plate ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Vertical Ground ◽  
Tibial Acceleration ◽  
The Relationship

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: While the etiology of injuries is multifactorial, impact loading, as measured by the loadrate of the vertical ground reaction force has been implicated. These loadrates are typically measured with a force plate. However, this limits the measure of impacts to laboratory environments. Tibial acceleration, another measure of running impacts, is considered a surrogate for loadrate. It can be measured using new wearable technology that can be used in a runner’s natural environment. However, the correlation between tibial acceleration measured from mobile devices and vertical ground reaction force loadrates, measured from forceplates, is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the correlation between vertical and resultant loadrates to vertical and resultant tibial acceleration across different footstrike patterns (FSP) in runners. Methods: The study involved a sample of convenience made up of 169 runners (74 F, 95 M; age: 38.66±13.08 yrs) presenting at a running injury clinic. This included 25 habitual forefoot strike (FFS), 17 midfoot strike (MFS) and 127 rearfoot strike (RFS) runners. Participants ran on an instrumented treadmill (average speed 2.52±0.25 m/s), with a tri-axial accelerometer attached at the left distal medial tibia. Only subjects running with pain <3/10 on a VAS scale during the treadmill run were included to reduce the confounding effect of pain. Vertical average, vertical instantaneous and resultant instantaneous loadrates (VALR, VILR and RILR) and peak vertical and resultant tibial accelerations (VTA, RTA) were averaged for 8 consecutive left steps. Correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between tibial accelerations and loadrates. Results: All tibial accelerations were significantly correlated across all loadrates, with the exception of RTA with VILR for FFS (Table 1) which was nearly significant (p=0.068). Correlations ranged from 0.37-0.82. VTA was strongly correlated with all loadrates (r = 0.66). RTA was also strongly correlated with both loadrates for RFS and MFS, but only moderately correlated with loadrates for FFS (r = 0.47). Correlations were similar across the different loadrates (VALR, VILR, RILR). Conclusion: The stronger correlation between vertical tibial acceleration and all loadrates (VALR, VILR, RILR) suggests that it may be the best surrogate for loadrates when studying impact loading in runners.

scholarly journals Vertical ground reaction force shape is associated with gait parameters, timed up and go, and functional reach in elderly females

2004 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiaki Takahashi ◽  
Kenji Ishida ◽  
Daisuke Hirose ◽  
Yasunori Nagano ◽  
Kiyoto Okumiya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Timed Up And Go ◽  
Functional Reach ◽  
Gait Parameters ◽  
Vertical Ground
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document