Search

Gender biases and inequities are prevalent across many scientific fields and biomechanics is likely no exception. While progress has been made to support women in the field, especially at biomechanics society conferences, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated professional isolation. The International Women in Biomechanics (IWB) community started in July 2020 with the mission of fostering an environment for women and other under-represented genders in biomechanics to gain year-round support, visibility, and allyship. Nearly 700 biomechanists have joined the IWB community from over 300 universities/organizations and 33 countries. Our community ranges in career stages and professions and interacts through a forum-style platform, teleconference meetings, and social media. In 2021, we conducted a survey to identify the needs, concerns, and issues faced by individuals in the IWB community. We received 144 responses from members in 16 countries. Our survey revealed three primary needs for women in biomechanics: supportive working environments, career planning support, and addressing workplace gender bias. These results, in conjunction with scientific evidence on workforce gender bias, helped us identify three key areas to meet our mission: Member Support, Community Outreach, and Empowering Allyship. Several levels of support are required in these three areas to ensure a lasting, positive, and sustainable impact on gender equity in biomechanics. We conclude by providing our perspectives on an evidence-based call to action to continue addressing gender bias and inequity at the individual, institutional, and scientific society levels. These actions can collectively enhance our allyship for women in the field of biomechanics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Human legs operate like springs with adjustable stiffness during locomotion, improving movement economy and versatility. The potential for the foot to contribute to this spring-like mechanism has been established. However, due to previous modelling approaches assuming a rigid-foot segment, it is unknown if ankle and foot quasi-stiffness can be actively regulated, quasi-stiffness being a measure of joint deformation under an applied load. In this study, we sought to determine if midfoot quasi-stiffness was increased in a similar manner as the ankle with increasing load demands, and if these changes were mediated by increased activation of the intrinsic foot muscles. We also quantified differences in measures of ankle joint quasi-stiffness attributable to the modelling assumption of a rigid-foot segment versus a multi-segment foot. Twenty-two healthy individuals performed a single-leg hopping task at three frequencies (2.0 Hz, 2.3 Hz, and 2.6 Hz) while measuring lower limb kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation (EMG). Kinetics and kinematics were calculated at the midfoot and using two different ankle models: rigid-foot model (shank-foot) and an anatomical ankle (shank-calcaneus). Midfoot quasi-stiffness increased with hopping-frequency (p < 0.05), while contact phase intrinsic foot muscle activation decreased (p < 0.05). The assumption of a rigid-foot model overestimated ankle ROM by ~10° and underestimated ankle quasi-stiffness by 45-60%. This study demonstrates that midfoot quasi-stiffness increases with hopping-frequency; however, the mechanism for these changes remains unclear. Furthermore, this study demonstrates the need to assess the ankle and foot independently, using appropriate models, to avoid significant inaccuracies in basic ankle kinematic and kinetic outputs, such as range of motion and joint quasi-stiffness., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)