Footstrike evaluation in male runners: A comparison of lateral and medial video views against traditional motion capture

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS
Shiwei Mo , Adrian Siu Yin Chu , Sikun Shao , Yinjie Chen , Kim Hebert-Losier , Li Li , Roy T.H. Cheung
{"title":"Footstrike evaluation in male runners: A comparison of lateral and medial video views against traditional motion capture","authors":"Shiwei Mo ,&nbsp;Adrian Siu Yin Chu ,&nbsp;Sikun Shao ,&nbsp;Yinjie Chen ,&nbsp;Kim Hebert-Losier ,&nbsp;Li Li ,&nbsp;Roy T.H. Cheung","doi":"10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Footstrike evaluation is essential for understanding running biomechanics and is often performed in research and clinical settings using 2D video analysis. However, whether it is appropriate to analyse both right-left footstrike patterns from a single sagittal plane video is unclear. This study compared medial and lateral video views in assessing footstrike pattern and footstrike angle, using a motion capture system as the gold standard. We analyzed 4,800 footfalls from 20 healthy recreational runners during self-paced treadmill running, recruited through convenient sampling. Footstrike angle agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and root mean square error (RMSE). The mean difference in footstrike angle between the gold standard and lateral view was 0.40° (95% limits of agreement: 6.05° to −5.25°), while the medial view showed a mean difference of −1.31° (95% limits: 8.37° to −10.99°). ICC values indicated excellent agreement for both lateral (0.979) and medial (0.940) views to the gold standard. RMSE was lower for the lateral (2.91°) than medial (5.11°) view, suggesting greater precision. Footstrike pattern classification was assessed using Cohen’s kappa, revealing substantial agreement for the lateral view (κ = 0.785, p &lt; 0.001) and good agreement for the medial view (κ = 0.606, p &lt; 0.001). These results indicate that while both views demonstrate strong agreement, the lateral view aligns more closely with the gold standard in continuous and categorical assessments. Our findings suggest lateral video analysis may be preferable for footstrike evaluation in applied and clinical settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomechanics","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 112865"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002192902500377X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Footstrike evaluation is essential for understanding running biomechanics and is often performed in research and clinical settings using 2D video analysis. However, whether it is appropriate to analyse both right-left footstrike patterns from a single sagittal plane video is unclear. This study compared medial and lateral video views in assessing footstrike pattern and footstrike angle, using a motion capture system as the gold standard. We analyzed 4,800 footfalls from 20 healthy recreational runners during self-paced treadmill running, recruited through convenient sampling. Footstrike angle agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and root mean square error (RMSE). The mean difference in footstrike angle between the gold standard and lateral view was 0.40° (95% limits of agreement: 6.05° to −5.25°), while the medial view showed a mean difference of −1.31° (95% limits: 8.37° to −10.99°). ICC values indicated excellent agreement for both lateral (0.979) and medial (0.940) views to the gold standard. RMSE was lower for the lateral (2.91°) than medial (5.11°) view, suggesting greater precision. Footstrike pattern classification was assessed using Cohen’s kappa, revealing substantial agreement for the lateral view (κ = 0.785, p < 0.001) and good agreement for the medial view (κ = 0.606, p < 0.001). These results indicate that while both views demonstrate strong agreement, the lateral view aligns more closely with the gold standard in continuous and categorical assessments. Our findings suggest lateral video analysis may be preferable for footstrike evaluation in applied and clinical settings.
男性跑步者的步法评估:与传统动作捕捉相比,横向和内侧视频视图的比较
步法评估对于理解跑步生物力学至关重要,通常在研究和临床环境中使用2D视频分析进行。然而,从单个矢状面视频中分析左右两种脚步模式是否合适尚不清楚。本研究使用动作捕捉系统作为黄金标准,比较了内侧和外侧视频视图在评估步法模式和步法角度方面的效果。我们分析了20名健康的休闲跑步者在跑步机上进行自定速跑步时的4800步。采用Bland-Altman分析、类内相关系数(ICC)和均方根误差(RMSE)评估脚击角一致性。金标准视角和侧视视角的脚击角度平均差值为0.40°(95%一致限:6.05°至- 5.25°),而内侧视角的脚击角度平均差值为- 1.31°(95%一致限:8.37°至- 10.99°)。ICC值显示侧面(0.979)和内侧(0.940)视图与金标准非常一致。侧视图(2.91°)的RMSE低于内侧视图(5.11°),表明精度更高。使用Cohen 's kappa评估步法模式分类,揭示了侧面视图的基本一致性(κ = 0.785, p <;0.001),内侧视图一致性良好(κ = 0.606, p <;0.001)。这些结果表明,虽然两种观点都表现出强烈的一致性,但横向观点在连续和分类评估中更接近黄金标准。我们的研究结果表明,在应用和临床环境中,横向视频分析可能更适合用于脚法评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of biomechanics
Journal of biomechanics 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomechanics publishes reports of original and substantial findings using the principles of mechanics to explore biological problems. Analytical, as well as experimental papers may be submitted, and the journal accepts original articles, surveys and perspective articles (usually by Editorial invitation only), book reviews and letters to the Editor. The criteria for acceptance of manuscripts include excellence, novelty, significance, clarity, conciseness and interest to the readership. Papers published in the journal may cover a wide range of topics in biomechanics, including, but not limited to: -Fundamental Topics - Biomechanics of the musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems, mechanics of hard and soft tissues, biofluid mechanics, mechanics of prostheses and implant-tissue interfaces, mechanics of cells. -Cardiovascular and Respiratory Biomechanics - Mechanics of blood-flow, air-flow, mechanics of the soft tissues, flow-tissue or flow-prosthesis interactions. -Cell Biomechanics - Biomechanic analyses of cells, membranes and sub-cellular structures; the relationship of the mechanical environment to cell and tissue response. -Dental Biomechanics - Design and analysis of dental tissues and prostheses, mechanics of chewing. -Functional Tissue Engineering - The role of biomechanical factors in engineered tissue replacements and regenerative medicine. -Injury Biomechanics - Mechanics of impact and trauma, dynamics of man-machine interaction. -Molecular Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of biomolecules. -Orthopedic Biomechanics - Mechanics of fracture and fracture fixation, mechanics of implants and implant fixation, mechanics of bones and joints, wear of natural and artificial joints. -Rehabilitation Biomechanics - Analyses of gait, mechanics of prosthetics and orthotics. -Sports Biomechanics - Mechanical analyses of sports performance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信