Efficacy of an Audio-Based Biofeedback Intervention to Modify Running Gait in Female Runners

Enhancing running injury prevention strategies with real-time biofeedback: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The number of runners and the incidence of running-related injuries (RRIs) are on the rise. Real-time biofeedback gait retraining offers a promising approach to RRIs prevention. However, due to the diversity in study designs and reported outcomes, there remains uncertainty regarding the efficacy of different forms of feedback on running gait biomechanics. Three databases: MEDLINE, PUBMED, and SPORTDiscus were searched to identify relevant studies published up to March 2024, yielding 4646 articles for review. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black Quality checklist. Primary outcomes, including Peak Tibial Acceleration (PTA), Vertical Average Loading Rate (VALR), and Vertical Instantaneous Loading Rate (VILR), were analysed through meta-analysis. 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed in this review.17 used visual biofeedback (VB) while 14 chose auditory biofeedback (AB). The meta-analysis revealed a reduction in loading variables both immediately following the intervention and after extended training, with both visual and auditory feedback. Notably, the decrease in loading variables was more pronounced post-training and VB proved to be more effective than AB. Real-time biofeedback interventions are effective in lowering loading variables associated with RRIs. The impact is more substantial with sustained training, and VB outperforms AB in terms of effectiveness.

Cues to land softly and quietly result in acute reductions in ground reaction force loading rates in runners

BACKGROUND

A common gait retraining goal for runners is reducing vertical ground reaction force (GRF) loading rates (LRs), which have been associated with injury. Many gait retraining programs prioritize an internal focus of attention, despite evidence supporting an external focus of attention when a specific outcome is desired (e.g., LR reduction).

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does an external focus of attention (using cues for quiet, soft landings) result in comparable reductions in LRs to those achieved using a common internal focus (forefoot striking while barefoot)?

METHODS

This observational study included 37 injured runners (18 male; mean age 36 (14) years) at the OMITTED Running Center. Runners wore inertial measurement units over the distal-medial tibia while running on an instrumented treadmill at a self-selected speed. Data were collected for three conditions: 1) Shod-Control (wearing shoes, without cues); 2) Shod-Quiet (wearing shoes, cues for quiet, soft landings); and 3) Barefoot-FFS (barefoot, cues for forefoot strike (FFS)). Within-subject variables were compared across conditions: vertical instantaneous loading rate (LR, primary outcome); vertical stiffness during initial loading; peak vertical GRF; peak vertical tibial acceleration (TA); and cadence.

RESULTS

Vertical LR, stiffness, and TA were lower in the Shod-Quiet compared to Shod-Control p < 0.001). Peak vertical GRF and cadence were not different between Shod-Quiet and Shod-Control. Reductions in stiffness and LR were similar between Shod-Quiet and Barefoot-FFS, and GRF in Barefoot-FFS remained similar to both shod conditions. However, runners demonstrated additional reductions in TA and increased cadence when transitioning from Shod-Quiet to the Barefoot-FFS condition (p < 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

These results suggests that a focus on quiet, soft landings may be an effective gait retraining method for future research.