Transfer Learning Effects of Biofeedback Running Retraining in Untrained Conditions

Runners' responses to a biofeedback intervention aimed to reduce tibial acceleration differ within and between individuals

An increment in peak tibial acceleration (PTA) may be related to an increased risk of running-rated injury. Many authors believe that reducing PTA through improved shock-absorption could, therefore, help prevent injury. The aim of the current study was, therefore, to investigate the individual responses of participants to a biofeedback intervention aimed at reducing PTA.11 participants (two females, nine males; 43 ± 10 years; stature: 1.74 ± 0.07 m; body mass: 74 ± 11 kg; distance running a week: 19 ± 14 km; 5 km time: 24 ± 3 min) received an intervention of six sessions of multisensory biofeedback aimed at reducing PTA. Mean PTA and kinematic patterns were measured at baseline, directly after the feedback intervention and a month after the end of the intervention. Group as well as single-subject analyses were performed to quantify differences between the sessions. A significant decrease of 26 per cent (effect size: Hedges' g = 0.94) in mean PTA was found a month after the intervention. No significant changes or large effect sizes were found for any group differences in the kinematic variables. However, on an individual level, shock-absorbing solutions differed both within and between participants. The data suggest participants did not learn a specific solution to reduce PTA but rather learned the concept of reducing PTA. These results suggest future research in gait retraining should investigate individual learning responses and focus on the different strategies participants use both between and within sessions. For training purposes, participants should not focus on learning one running strategy, but they should explore several strategies.

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.

The Effect of Real-Time Tibial Acceleration Feedback on Running Biomechanics During Gait Retraining: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To explore the immediate and retention effect of real-time tibial acceleration feedback on running biomechanics during gait retraining.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies published before May 2022. The included studies were evaluated for methodological quality and bias risk, and data were extracted. A meta-analysis was conducted on the primary outcomes, including peak tibial acceleration (PTA) and vertical ground reaction force. Subgroup analysis was performed by gender, feedback criterion, mode, dosage, fading, retention period, and running environment to evaluate the source of heterogeneity. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe other variables.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (174 participants) were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that real-time tibial acceleration feedback reduced PTA (P < .01, P < .01), vertical impact peak (P = .004, P < .01), vertical average loading rate (P < .01, P < .01), and vertical instantaneous loading rate (P < .01, P < .01) after feedback and during retention period (5 min-12 mo). Subgroup analysis showed that the immediate effect of vertical impact peak was more noticeable with mixed gender (P = .005) and fading feedback (P = .005) conditions, and the retention effect of PTA was more noticeable with high feedback dosage (P < .01) and fading feedback (P < .01) conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time tibial acceleration feedback can reduce PTA and vertical ground reaction force during gait retraining, and for periods of 5 minutes to 12 months when the feedback is removed.

Clinical Application of Gait Retraining in the Injured Runner

Despite its positive influence on physical and mental wellbeing, running is associated with a high incidence of musculoskeletal injury. Potential modifiable risk factors for running-related injury have been identified, including running biomechanics. Gait retraining is used to address these biomechanical risk factors in injured runners. While recent systematic reviews of biomechanical risk factors for running-related injury and gait retraining have been conducted, there is a lack of information surrounding the translation of gait retraining for injured runners into clinical settings. Gait retraining studies in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome have shown a decrease in pain and increase in functionality through increasing cadence, decreasing hip adduction, transitioning to a non-rearfoot strike pattern, increasing forward trunk lean, or a combination of some of these techniques. This literature suggests that gait retraining could be applied to the treatment of other injuries in runners, although there is limited evidence to support this specific to other running-related injuries. Components of successful gait retraining to treat injured runners with running-related injuries are presented.

The Use of Wearable Sensors for Preventing, Assessing, and Informing Recovery from Sport-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Scoping Review

Wearable technologies are often indicated as tools that can enable the in-field collection of quantitative biomechanical data, unobtrusively, for extended periods of time, and with few spatial limitations. Despite many claims about their potential for impact in the area of injury prevention and management, there seems to be little attention to grounding this potential in biomechanical research linking quantities from wearables to musculoskeletal injuries, and to assessing the readiness of these biomechanical approaches for being implemented in real practice. We performed a systematic scoping review to characterise and critically analyse the state of the art of research using wearable technologies to study musculoskeletal injuries in sport from a biomechanical perspective. A total of 4952 articles were retrieved from the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases; 165 were included. Multiple study features-such as research design, scope, experimental settings, and applied context-were summarised and assessed. We also proposed an injury-research readiness classification tool to gauge the maturity of biomechanical approaches using wearables. Five main conclusions emerged from this review, which we used as a springboard to propose guidelines and good practices for future research and dissemination in the field.

Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to monitor running biomechanics in real-world settings, but IMUs are often used within a laboratory. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe how IMUs are used to record running biomechanics in both laboratory and real-world conditions. We included peer-reviewed journal articles that used IMUs to assess gait quality during running. We extracted data on running conditions (indoor/outdoor, surface, speed, and distance), device type and location, metrics, participants, and purpose and study design. A total of 231 studies were included. Most (72%) studies were conducted indoors; and in 67% of all studies, the analyzed distance was only one step or stride or <200 m. The most common device type and location combination was a triaxial accelerometer on the shank (18% of device and location combinations). The most common analyzed metric was vertical/axial magnitude, which was reported in 64% of all studies. Most studies (56%) included recreational runners. For the past 20 years, studies using IMUs to record running biomechanics have mainly been conducted indoors, on a treadmill, at prescribed speeds, and over small distances. We suggest that future studies should move out of the lab to less controlled and more real-world environments.

Using an external focus of attention for gait retraining in runners: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Many gait retraining studies use cues that promote internal focus of attention. However, the motor control literature clearly shows the beneficial effects of using cues that promote an external focus of attention (EFOA) when teaching new movements. This case report seeks to illustrate the outcomes of using an EFOA for running gait retraining. It also examines whether retrained mechanics transfer across different running speeds.

CASE DESCRIPTIONS

A 22-year-old female competitive runner with a history of tibial stress injuries was the participant.

PATIENT MANAGEMENT

Baseline assessments of flexibility, strength, and running biomechanics were performed after which an eight-session gait retraining protocol was implemented. Visual (mirror) and verbal feedback (EFOA) cues were provided during the retraining protocol. Outcomes showed improved hip, knee, and ankle kinematics, reduced ground reaction forces, and earlier onset and longer durations of muscle activity following retraining. These improvements transferred across running speeds.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this participant, EFOA cues were effective for the gait retraining protocol and the benefits were transferable across running speeds. Clinicians should consider how EFOA cues may be incorporated to improve gait retraining outcomes.

Effects of Wearable Devices with Biofeedback on Biomechanical Performance of Running-A Systematic Review

This present review includes a systematic search for peer-reviewed articles published between March 2009 and March 2020 that evaluated the effects of wearable devices with biofeedback on the biomechanics of running. The included articles did not focus on physiological and metabolic metrics. Articles with patients, animals, orthoses, exoskeletons and virtual reality were not included. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 417 articles were first identified, and nineteen were selected following the removal of duplicates and articles which did not meet the inclusion criteria. Most reviewed articles reported a significant reduction in positive peak acceleration, which was found to be related to tibial stress fractures in running. Some previous studies provided biofeedback aiming to increase stride frequencies. They produced some positive effects on running, as they reduced vertical load in knee and ankle joints and vertical displacement of the body and increased knee flexion. Some other parameters, including contact ground time and speed, were fed back by wearable devices for running. Such devices reduced running time and increased swing phase time. This article reviews challenges in this area and suggests future studies can evaluate the long-term effects in running biomechanics produced by wearable devices with biofeedback.