Search

Running biomechanics have traditionally been analysed in laboratory settings, but this may not reflect natural running gait. Wearable technology has the potential to enable precise monitoring of running gait beyond the laboratory. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical validity and intra-session reliability of temporal running gait outcomes measured by the ViMove2 wearable system in healthy adults. Seventy-four healthy adults (43 males, 31 females, aged 18–55 years) wore the inertial device, ViMove2 on the tibia. Participants ran on a treadmill for one minute at various speeds (8, 10, 12, 14km/hr), completed in a standardised shoe (Saucony Guide Runner). Running gait was measured with the ViMove2 wearable and 3D motion capture (Vicon). Temporal running gait outcomes included ground contact time (GCT) and cadence (steps/min). GCT and cadence from the ViMove2 had face validity with expected changes in outcome with different running speeds, but ViMove2 tended to over-estimate GCT, and under-estimate cadence compared to the reference, especially at slower speeds. GCT demonstrated moderate to good agreement to the reference at speeds >10km/hr, but poor agreement at 8km/hr and within female runners. Cadence had moderate to excellent agreement across speeds compared to the reference. GCT and cadence had excellent reliability across speeds, but at 8km/hr GCT had good agreement between trials. Overall, temporal gait outcomes of GCT and cadence can be measured with the ViMove2, but accuracy and reliability are impacted at slow running speeds and within female runners. Future work is needed to clarify sex or speed-dependent corrections to algorithms / outcomes to aid interpretation and application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantitative running gait analysis is an important tool that provides beneficial outcomes to injury risk/recovery or performance assessment. Wearable devices have allowed running gait to be evaluated in any environment (i.e., laboratory or real-world settings), yet there are a plethora of different grades of devices (i.e., research-grade, commercial, or novel multi-modal) available with little information to make informed decisions on selection. This paper outlines a protocol that will examine different grades of wearables for running gait analysis in healthy individuals. Specifically, this pilot study will: 1) examine analytical validity and reliability of wearables (research-grade, commercial, high-end multimodal) within a controlled laboratory setting; 2) examine analytical validation of different grades of wearables in a real-world setting, and 3) explore clinical validation and usability of wearables for running gait analysis (e.g., injury history (previously injured, never injured), performance level (novice, elite) and relationship to meaningful outcomes). The different grades of wearable include: (1) A research-grade device, the Ax6 consists of a configurable tri-axial accelerometer and tri-axial gyroscope with variable sampling capabilities; (2) attainable (low-grade) commercial with proprietary software, the DorsaVi ViMove2 consisting of two, non-configurable IMUs modules, with a fixed sampling rate and (3) novel multimodal high-end system, the DANU Sports System that is a pair of textile socks, that contain silicone based capacitive pressure sensors, and configurable IMU modules with variable sampling rates. Clinical trial registration: Trial registration: NCT05277181. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The study aims were to evaluate the validity of two commercially available swimming activity monitors for quantifying temporal and kinematic swimming variables. Methods: Ten national level swimmers (5 male, 5 female; 15.3±1.3years; 164.8±12.9cm; 62.4±11.1kg; 425±66 FINA points) completed a set protocol comprising 1,500m of swimming involving all four competitive swimming strokes. Swimmers wore the Finis Swimsense and the Garmin Swim activity monitors throughout. The devices automatically identified stroke type, swim distance, lap time, stroke count, stroke rate, stroke length and average speed. Video recordings were also obtained and used as a criterion measure to evaluate performance. Results: A significant positive correlation was found between the monitors and video for the identification of each of the four swim strokes (Garmin: X2 (3) = 31.292, p<0.05; Finis:X2 (3) = 33.004, p<0.05). No significant differences were found for swim distance measurements. Swimming laps performed in the middle of a swimming interval showed no significant difference from the criterion (Garmin: bias -0.065, 95% confidence intervals -3.828–6.920; Finis bias -0.02, 95% confidence intervals -3.095–3.142). However laps performed at the beginning and end of an interval were not as accurately timed. Additionally, a statistical difference was found for stroke count measurements in all but two occasions (p<0.05). These differences affect the accuracy of stroke rate, stroke length and average speed scores reported by the monitors, as all of these are derived from lap times and stroke counts. Conclusions: Both monitors were found to operate with a relatively similar performance level and appear suited for recreational use. However, issues with feature detection accuracy may be related to individual variances in stroke technique. It is reasonable to expect that this level of error would increase when the devices are used by recreational swimmers rather than elite swimmers. Further development to improve accuracy of feature detection algorithms, specifically for lap time and stroke count, would also increase their suitability within competitive settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]