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 ±â€¯10 years; stature: 1.74 ±â€¯0.07 m; body mass: 74 ±â€¯11 kg; distance running a week: 19 ±â€¯14 km; 5 km time: 24 ±â€¯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.

The use of biofeedback for gait retraining: A mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Biofeedback seems to be a promising tool to improve gait outcomes for both healthy individuals and patient groups. However, due to differences in study designs and outcome measurements, it remains uncertain how different forms of feedback affect gait outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study is to review primary biomechanical literature which has used biofeedback to alter gait-related outcomes in human participants. METHODS: Medline, Cinahl, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus and Pubmed were searched from inception to December 2017 using various keywords and the following MeSHterms: biofeedback, feedback, gait, walking and running. From the included studies, sixteen different study characteristics were extracted. FINDINGS: In this mapping review 173 studies were included. The most common feedback mode used was visual feedback (42%, n = 73) and the majority fed-back kinematic parameters (36%, n = 62). The design of the studies was poor: only 8% (n = 13) of the studies had both a control group and a retention test; 69% (n = 120) of the studies had neither. A retention test after 6 months was performed in 3% (n = 5) of the studies, feedback was faded in 9% (n = 15) and feedback was given in the field rather than the laboratory in 4% (n = 8) of the studies. INTERPRETATION: Further work on biofeedback and gait should focus on the direct comparison between different modes of feedback or feedback parameters, along with better designed and field based studies.