Control of impact loading during distracted running before and after gait retraining in runners.

Gait retraining using visual biofeedback has been reported to reduce impact loading in runners. However, most of the previous studies did not adequately examine the level of motor learning after training, as the modified gait pattern was not tested in a dual-task condition. Hence, this study sought to compare the landing peak positive acceleration (PPA) and vertical loading rates during distracted running before and after gait retraining. Sixteen recreational runners underwent a two-week visual biofeedback gait retraining program for impact loading reduction, with feedback on the PPA measured at heel. In the evaluation of PPA and vertical loading rates before and after the retraining, the participants performed a cognitive and verbal counting task while running. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant interaction between feedback and training on PPA (F = 4.642; P = 0.048) but not vertical loading rates (F > 1.953; P > 0.067). Pairwise comparisons indicated a significantly lower PPA and vertical loading rates after gait retraining (P < 0.007; Cohen's d > 0.68). Visual feedback after gait retraining reduced PPA and vertical loading rates during distracted running (P < 0.033; Cohen's d > 0.36). Gait retraining is effective in lowering impact loading even when the runners are distracted. In dual-task situation, visual biofeedback provided beneficial influence on kinetics control after gait retraining.

Running biomechanics before and after Pose® method gait retraining in distance runners.

Pose® Method gait retraining has been claimed to modify running form and prevent injury. This study examined the running biomechanics before and after Pose® Method gait retraining. Fourteen runners underwent a 4-week Pose® Method gait retraining program delivered by a certified coach. Paired t-tests were employed to compare vertical average (VALR) and instantaneous loading rates (VILR), lower limb kinematics, footstrike angle and trunk flexion in the sagittal plane before and after the training. Kinetically, there were no significant differences in the VALR (p= 0.693) and VILR (p= 0.782) before and after the training. Kinematically, participants exhibited greater peak hip flexion (p= 0.008) and knee flexion (p= 0.003) during swing. Footstrikeangle also reduced significantly (p= 0.008), indicating a footstrike pattern switch from rearfoot strike to midfoot strike. There was no significant difference in the trunk flexion in the sagittal plane after training (p= 0.658). After a course of Pose® Method gait retraining, runners demonstrated a footstrike pattern switch and some kinematics changes at the hip and knee joint during swing. However, injury-related biomechanical markers (e.g., VALR and VILR) and the trunk kinematics remained similar after training. Runners may consider other gait retraining programs for impact loading reduction.

Walking with head-mounted virtual and augmented reality devices: Effects on position control and gait biomechanics.

What was once a science fiction fantasy, virtual reality (VR) technology has evolved and come a long way. Together with augmented reality (AR) technology, these simulations of an alternative environment have been incorporated into rehabilitation treatments. The introduction of head-mounted displays has made VR/AR devices more intuitive and compact, and no longer limited to upper-limb rehabilitation. However, there is still limited evidence supporting the use of VR and AR technology during locomotion, especially regarding the safety and efficacy relating to walking biomechanics. Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore the limitations of such technology through gait analysis. In this study, thirteen participants walked on a treadmill in normal, virtual and augmented versions of the laboratory environment. A series of spatiotemporal parameters and lower-limb joint angles were compared between conditions. The center of pressure (CoP) ellipse area (95% confidence ellipse) was significantly different between conditions (p = 0.002). Pairwise comparisons indicated a significantly greater CoP ellipse area for both the AR (p = 0.002) and VR (p = 0.005) conditions when compared to the normal laboratory condition. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in stride length (p<0.001) and cadence (p<0.001) between conditions. No statistically significant difference was found in the hip, knee and ankle joint kinematics between the three conditions (p>0.082), except for maximum ankle plantarflexion (p = 0.001). These differences in CoP ellipse area indicate that users of head-mounted VR/AR devices had difficulty maintaining a stable position on the treadmill. Also, differences in the gait parameters suggest that users walked with an unusual gait pattern which could potentially affect the effectiveness of gait rehabilitation treatments. Based on these results, position guidance in the form of feedback and the use of specialized treadmills should be considered when using head-mounted VR/AR devices.