5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sacral acceleration can predict whole-body kinetics and stride kinematics across running speeds

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Stress fractures are injuries caused by repetitive loading during activities such as running. The application of advanced analytical methods such as machine learning to data from multiple wearable sensors has allowed for predictions of biomechanical variables associated with running-related injuries like stress fractures. However, it is unclear if data from a single wearable sensor can accurately estimate variables that characterize external loading during running such as peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), vertical impulse, and ground contact time. Predicting these biomechanical variables with a single wearable sensor could allow researchers, clinicians, and coaches to longitudinally monitor biomechanical running-related injury risk factors without expensive force-measuring equipment.

          Purpose

          We quantified the accuracy of applying quantile regression forest (QRF) and linear regression (LR) models to sacral-mounted accelerometer data to predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and ground contact time across a range of running speeds.

          Methods

          Thirty-seven collegiate cross country runners (24 females, 13 males) ran on a force-measuring treadmill at 3.8–5.4 m/s while wearing an accelerometer clipped posteriorly to the waistband of their running shorts. We cross-validated QRF and LR models by training them on acceleration data, running speed, step frequency, and body mass as predictor variables. Trained models were then used to predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and contact time. We compared predicted values to those calculated from a force-measuring treadmill on a subset of data ( n = 9) withheld during model training. We quantified prediction accuracy by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE).

          Results

          The QRF model predicted peak vGRF with a RMSE of 0.150 body weights (BW) and MAPE of 4.27  ±  2.85%, predicted vertical impulse with a RMSE of 0.004 BW*s and MAPE of 0.80  ±  0.91%, and predicted contact time with a RMSE of 0.011 s and MAPE of 4.68  ±  3.00%. The LR model predicted peak vGRF with a RMSE of 0.139 BW and MAPE of 4.04  ±  2.57%, predicted vertical impulse with a RMSE of 0.002 BW*s and MAPE of 0.50  ±  0.42%, and predicted contact time with a RMSE of 0.008 s and MAPE of 3.50  ±  2.27%. There were no statistically significant differences between QRF and LR model prediction MAPE for peak vGRF ( p = 0.549) or vertical impulse ( p = 0.073), but the LR model’s MAPE for contact time was significantly lower than the QRF model’s MAPE ( p = 0.0497).

          Conclusions

          Our findings indicate that the QRF and LR models can accurately predict peak vGRF, vertical impulse, and contact time (MAPE < 5%) from a single sacral-mounted accelerometer across a range of running speeds. These findings may be beneficial for researchers, clinicians, or coaches seeking to monitor running-related injury risk factors without force-measuring equipment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences

          Tim Miller (2019)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ground reaction forces at different speeds of human walking and running.

            In this study the variation in ground reaction force parameters was investigated with respect to adaptations to speed and mode of progression, and to type of foot-strike. Twelve healthy male subjects were studied during walking (1.0-3.0 m s-1) and running (1.5-6.0 m s-1). The subjects were selected with respect to foot-strike pattern during running. Six subjects were classified as rearfoot strikers and six as forefoot strikers. Constant speeds were accomplished by pacer lights beside an indoor straightway and controlled by means of a photo-electronic device. The vertical, anteroposterior and mediolateral force components were recorded with a force platform. Computer software was used to calculate durations, amplitudes and impulses of the reaction forces. The amplitudes were normalized with respect to body weight (b.w.). Increased speed was accompanied by shorter force periods and larger peak forces. The peak amplitude of the vertical reaction force in walking and running increased with speed from approximately 1.0 to 1.5 b.w. and 2.0 to 2.9 b.w. respectively. The anteroposterior peak force and mediolateral peak-to-peak force increased about 2 times with speed in walking and about 2-4 times in running (the absolute values were on average about 10 times smaller than the vertical). The transition from walking to running resulted in a shorter support phase duration and a change in the shape of the vertical reaction force curve. The vertical peak force increased whereas the vertical impulse and the anteroposterior impulses and peak forces decreased. In running the vertical force showed an impact peak at touch-down among the rearfoot strikers but generally not among the forefoot strikers. The first mediolateral force peak was laterally directed (as in walking) for the rearfoot strikers but medially for the forefoot strikers. Thus, there is a change with speed in the complex interaction between vertical and horizontal forces needed for propulsion and equilibrium during human locomotion. The differences present between walking and running are consequences of fundamental differences in motor strategies between the two major forms of human progression.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Machine Learning in Human Movement Biomechanics: Best Practices, Common Pitfalls, and New Opportunities

              Traditional laboratory experiments, rehabilitation clinics, and wearable sensors offer biomechanists a wealth of data on healthy and pathological movement. To harness the power of these data and make research more efficient, modern machine learning techniques are starting to complement traditional statistical tools. This survey summarizes the current usage of machine learning methods in human movement biomechanics and highlights best practices that will enable critical evaluation of the literature. We carried out a PubMed/Medline database search for original research articles that used machine learning to study movement biomechanics in patients with musculoskeletal and neuromuscular diseases. Most studies that met our inclusion criteria focused on classifying pathological movement, predicting risk of developing a disease, estimating the effect of an intervention, or automatically recognizing activities to facilitate out-of-clinic patient monitoring. We found that research studies build and evaluate models inconsistently, which motivated our discussion of best practices. We provide recommendations for training and evaluating machine learning models and discuss the potential of several underutilized approaches, such as deep learning, to generate new knowledge about human movement. We believe that cross-training biomechanists in data science and a cultural shift toward sharing of data and tools are essential to maximize the impact of biomechanics research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                peerj
                peerj
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                12 April 2021
                2021
                : 9
                : e11199
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado Boulder , Boulder, CO, United States of America
                [2 ]Department of Human Physiology, University of Oregon , Eugene, OR, United States of America
                Article
                11199
                10.7717/peerj.11199
                8048400
                33954039
                adeaa8d4-845b-4003-a83d-c3903d5a62fc
                ©2021 Alcantara et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 16 September 2020
                : 10 March 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: PAC-12 Student-Athlete Health and Well-Being Grant Program
                Award ID: #3-03_PAC-12-Oregon-Hahn-17-02
                This work was supported by the PAC-12 Student-Athlete Health and Well-Being Grant Program (#3-03_PAC-12-Oregon-Hahn-17-02). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Kinesiology
                Data Mining and Machine Learning

                inertial measurement unit,stress fracture,ground reaction force,injury,machine learning,biomechanics

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content13

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors517