Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings.

RESULTS

A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021235527.

Is machine learning and automatic classification of swimming data what unlocks the power of inertial measurement units in swimming?

Researchers have heralded the power of inertial sensors as a reliable swimmer-centric monitoring technology, however, regular uptake of this technology has not become common practice. Twenty-six elite swimmers participated in this study. An IMU (100Hz/500Hz) sensor was secured in the participant's third lumbar vertebrae. Features were extracted from swimming data using two techniques: a novel intrastroke cycle segmentation technique and conventional sliding window technique. Six supervised machine learning models were assessed on stroke prediction performance. Models trained using both feature extraction methods demonstrated high performance (≥ 0.99 weighted average precision, recall, F1-score, area under ROC curve and accuracy), low computational training times (< 3 seconds - bar XGB and when hyperparameters were tuned) and low computational prediction times (< 1 second). Significant differences were observed in weighted average stroke prediction F1-score (p = 0.0294) when using different feature extraction methods and model computational training time (p = 0.0007), and prediction time (p = 0.0026) when implementing hyperparameter tuning. Automatic swimming stroke classification offers benefits to observational coding and notational analysis, and opportunities for automated workload and performance monitoring in swimming. This stroke classification algorithm could be the key that unlocks the power of IMUs as a biofeedback tool in swimming.