Music-based biofeedback to reduce tibial shock in over-ground running: a proof-of-concept study

Methods to reduce impact in distance runners have been proposed based on real-time auditory feedback of tibial acceleration. These methods were developed using treadmill running. In this study, we extend these methods to a more natural environment with a proof-of-concept. We selected ten runners with high tibial shock. They used a music-based biofeedback system with headphones in a running session on an athletic track. The feedback consisted of music superimposed with noise coupled to tibial shock. The music was automatically synchronized to the running cadence. The level of noise could be reduced by reducing the momentary level of tibial shock, thereby providing a more pleasant listening experience. The running speed was controlled between the condition without biofeedback and the condition of biofeedback. The results show that tibial shock decreased by 27% or 2.96 g without guided instructions on gait modification in the biofeedback condition. The reduction in tibial shock did not result in a clear increase in the running cadence. The results indicate that a wearable biofeedback system aids in shock reduction during over-ground running. This paves the way to evaluate and retrain runners in over-ground running programs that target running with less impact through instantaneous auditory feedback on tibial shock.

Tibial Acceleration Reliability and Minimal Detectable Difference During Overground and Treadmill Running

Measurements of tibial acceleration during running must be reliable to ensure valid results and reduce errors. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and minimal detectable difference (MDD) of peak axial and peak resultant tibial acceleration during overground and treadmill running. The authors also compared reliability and MDDs when peak tibial accelerations were determined by averaging 5 or 10 trials. Tibial acceleration was measured during overground and treadmill running of 19 participants using a lightweight accelerometer mounted to the tibia. Peak axial and peak resultant tibial accelerations were determined for each trial. Intraclass correlation coefficients determined within-session reliability, and MDDs were also calculated. Within-session reliability was excellent for all conditions (intraclass correlation coefficients = .95–.99). The MDDs ranged from 0.6 to 1.4 g for peak axial acceleration and from 1.6 to 2.0 g for peak resultant acceleration and were lowest for peak axial tibial acceleration during overground running. Averaging 10 trials did not improve reliability compared to averaging 5 trials but did result in small reductions in MDDs. For peak axial tibial acceleration only, lower MDDs indicate that overground running may be the better option for detecting small differences.

Influence of Prolonged Running and Training on Tibial Acceleration and Movement Quality in Novice Runners

Context Changes in lower limb loading and movement quality after prolonged running and training periods might influence injury risks in runners. Objectives To assess (1) the effects of a single prolonged run and a 3-week running training program on peak tibial acceleration (PTA) during running and Functional Movement Screen (FMS) criterion tests, and (2) the relationship between running volume during the 3-week training program and changes in PTA and FMS scores after training. Design Case series. Setting Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants Ten novice runners (age = 27 ± 7 years) with 15 ± 14 months of running experience, who ran on average 19.6 ± 4.8 km per week at a preferred pace of 7:05 ± 1:30 minutes per km. Main Outcome Measure(s) Participants completed a 30-minute submaximal prolonged treadmill run and 3-week training program with 25% increases in weekly running volume. Peak tibial acceleration and the deep-squat and active straight-leg–raise criterion FMS test scores were assessed before and after the prolonged run at enrollment and after the training program (ie, 3 testing sessions). Results No differences in PTA or FMS scores were observed among the 3 testing times. Although the changes in PTA (r = 0.57) and FMS aggregate score (r = 0.15) were not significantly correlated with training volume, training volume explained 32% of the variance in the PTA change from before to after training. Conclusions Our findings suggest that tibial acceleration and movement quality were not influenced by a single submaximal-effort prolonged run or a 3-week training period. However, novice runners who have a greater increase in running volume might be more susceptible to training-related changes in tibial acceleration than those whose running volume is less.