A 0.05 m Change in Inertial Measurement Unit Placement Alters Time and Frequency Domain Metrics during Running.

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) provide exciting opportunities to collect large volumes of running biomechanics data in the real world. IMU signals may, however, be affected by variation in the initial IMU placement or movement of the IMU during use. To quantify the effect that changing an IMU's location has on running data, a reference IMU was 'correctly' placed on the shank, pelvis, or sacrum of 74 participants. A second IMU was 'misplaced' 0.05 m away, simulating a 'worst-case' misplacement or movement. Participants ran over-ground while data were simultaneously recorded from the reference and misplaced IMUs. Differences were captured as root mean square errors (RMSEs) and differences in the absolute peak magnitudes and timings. RMSEs were ≤1 g and ~1 rad/s for all axes and misplacement conditions while mean differences in the peak magnitude and timing reached up to 2.45 g, 2.48 rad/s, and 9.68 ms (depending on the axis and direction of misplacement). To quantify the downstream effects of these differences, initial and terminal contact times and vertical ground reaction forces were derived from both the reference and misplaced IMU. Mean differences reached up to -10.08 ms for contact times and 95.06 N for forces. Finally, the behavior in the frequency domain revealed high coherence between the reference and misplaced IMUs (particularly at frequencies ≤~10 Hz). All differences tended to be exaggerated when data were analyzed using a wearable coordinate system instead of a segment coordinate system. Overall, these results highlight the potential errors that IMU placement and movement can introduce to running biomechanics data.

Acceleration-Based Estimation of Vertical Ground Reaction Forces during Running: A Comparison of Methods across Running Speeds, Surfaces, and Foot Strike Patterns.

Twenty-seven methods of estimating vertical ground reaction force first peak, loading rate, second peak, average, and/or time series from a single wearable accelerometer worn on the shank or approximate center of mass during running were compared. Force estimation errors were quantified for 74 participants across different running surfaces, speeds, and foot strike angles and biases, repeatability coefficients, and limits of agreement were modeled with linear mixed effects to quantify the accuracy, reliability, and precision. Several methods accurately and reliably estimated the first peak and loading rate, however, none could do so precisely (the limits of agreement exceeded ±65% of target values). Thus, we do not recommend first peak or loading rate estimation from accelerometers with the methods currently available. In contrast, the second peak, average, and time series could all be estimated accurately, reliably, and precisely with several different methods. Of these, we recommend the 'Pogson' methods due to their accuracy, reliability, and precision as well as their stability across surfaces, speeds, and foot strike angles.

Unsupervised Gait Event Identification with a Single Wearable Accelerometer and/or Gyroscope: A Comparison of Methods across Running Speeds, Surfaces, and Foot Strike Patterns.

We evaluated 18 methods capable of identifying initial contact (IC) and terminal contact (TC) gait events during human running using data from a single wearable sensor on the shank or sacrum. We adapted or created code to automatically execute each method, then applied it to identify gait events from 74 runners across different foot strike angles, surfaces, and speeds. To quantify error, estimated gait events were compared to ground truth events from a time-synchronized force plate. Based on our findings, to identify gait events with a wearable on the shank, we recommend the Purcell or Fadillioglu method for IC (biases +17.4 and -24.3 ms; LOAs -96.8 to +131.6 and -137.0 to +88.4 ms) and the Purcell method for TC (bias +3.5 ms; LOAs -143.9 to +150.9 ms). To identify gait events with a wearable on the sacrum, we recommend the Auvinet or Reenalda method for IC (biases -30.4 and +29.0 ms; LOAs -149.2 to +88.5 and -83.3 to +141.3 ms) and the Auvinet method for TC (bias -2.8 ms; LOAs -152.7 to +147.2 ms). Finally, to identify the foot in contact with the ground when using a wearable on the sacrum, we recommend the Lee method (81.9% accuracy).

Accelerometer-based prediction of running injury in National Collegiate Athletic Association track athletes.

Running-related injuries (RRI) may result from accumulated microtrauma caused by combinations of high load magnitudes (vertical ground reaction forces; vGRFs) and numbers (strides). Yet relationships between vGRF and RRI remain unclear - potentially because previous research has largely been constrained to collecting vGRFs in laboratory settings and ignoring relationships between RRI and stride number. In this preliminary proof-of-concept study, we addressed these constraints: Over a 60-day period, each time collegiate athletes (n = 9) ran they wore a hip-mounted activity monitor that collected accelerations throughout the entire run. Accelerations were used to estimate peak vGRF, number of strides, and weighted cumulative loading (sum of peak vGRFs weighted to the 9th power) across the entirety of each run. Runners also reported their post-training pain/fatigue and any RRI that prevented training. Across 419 runs and >2.1 million strides, injured (n = 3) and uninjured (n = 6) participants did not report significantly different pain/fatigue (p = 0.56) or mean number of strides per run (p = 0.91). Injured participants did, however, have significantly greater peak vGRFs (p = 0.01) and weighted cumulative loading per run (p < 0.01). Results from this small but extensively studied sample of elite runners demonstrate that loading profiles (load magnitude-number combinations) quantified with activity monitors can provide valuable information that may prove essential for: (1) testing hypotheses regarding overuse injury mechanisms, (2) developing injury-prediction models, and (3) designing and adjusting athlete- and loading-specific training programs and feedback.

Amputee locomotion: Frequency content of prosthetic vs. intact limb vertical ground reaction forces during running and the effects of filter cut-off frequency.

Compared to intact limbs, running-specific prostheses have high resonance non-biologic materials and lack active tissues to damp high frequencies. These differences may lead to ground reaction forces (GRFs) with high frequency content. If so, ubiquitously applying low-pass filters to prosthetic and intact limb GRFs may attenuate veridical high frequency content and mask important and ecologically valid data from prostheses. To explore differences in frequency content between prosthetic and intact limbs we divided signal power from transtibial unilateral amputees and controls running at 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5m/s into Low (<10Hz), High (10-25Hz), and Non-biologic (>25Hz) frequency bandwidths. Faster speeds tended to reduce the proportion of signal power in the Low bandwidth while increasing it in the High and Non-biologic bandwidths. Further, prostheses had lower proportions of signal power at the High frequency bandwidth but greater proportions at the Non-biologic bandwidth. To evaluate whether these differences in frequency content interact with filter cut-offs and alter results, we filtered GRFs with cut-offs from 1 to 100Hz and calculated vertical impact peak (VIP). Changing cut-off had inconsistent effects on VIP across speeds and limbs: Faster speeds had significantly larger changes in VIP per change in cut-off while, compared to controls, prosthetic limbs had significantly smaller changes in VIP per change in cut-off. These findings reveal differences in GRF frequency content between prosthetic and intact limbs and suggest that a cut-off frequency that is appropriate for one limb or speed may be inappropriate for another.

Corrections in saccade endpoints scale to the amplitude of target displacements in a double-step paradigm.

It is widely held that discrete goal-directed eye movements (saccades) are ballistic in nature because their durations are too short to allow for sensory-based online correction. Recent studies, however, have provided evidence that saccadic endpoints can be mediated via online corrections. Specifically, it has been reported that saccade trajectories adapt to the eccentricity of an unexpectedly perturbed target location (i.e., target 'jump' paradigm). If saccades are subject to online correction mechanisms, then the magnitude of such changes should scale to the amplitude of the target jump. To test this hypothesis, saccadic endpoints for trials on which the target jumped one of three amplitudes (Small: 2.5°, Medium: 5.0°, and Large: 7.5°; i.e., Jump trials) immediately after saccade onset were compared with the endpoints of trials in which the target location did not change (i.e., Reference trials). Results showed that primary saccade endpoints for Jump trials were longer than for Reference trials. Importantly, the magnitude of this increase in endpoint scaled with the amplitude of the target jump. Thus, these results support emerging and coalescent evidence that saccade trajectories are subject to online corrections.

Abnormal surround inhibition does not affect asymptomatic limbs in people with cervical dystonia.

Surround inhibition is a neural mechanism hypothesized to facilitate goal-directed action by disinhibiting agonist muscle activity while simultaneously inhibiting antagonist and other uninvolved muscle activity. The present study was designed to investigate if abnormalities in surround inhibition are found in asymptomatic body parts (the hand) of people with focal cervical dystonia (neck). Participants with (n=7) and without (n=17) cervical dystonia completed a protocol in which they abducted their index finger while EMG was recorded from the first dorsal interosseous (agonist) and abductor digiti minimi (uninvolved) muscles. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered over the primary motor cortex at intervals ranging from 0 to 950+ms after the onset of agonist muscle activity. Motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes from both muscles were compared. In control participants, MEPs from the uninvolved muscle were significantly lower than agonist MEPs at intervals from 0 to 480ms. Similarly, in the hands of participants with cervical dystonia - the asymptomatic body part - MEPs from the uninvolved muscle were significantly lower than agonist MEPs from 0 to 175ms. These findings suggest that surround inhibition in people with focal dystonia may be intact in asymptomatic hands. In other words, abnormalities in surround inhibition may be restricted to the dystonic limb.

How one breaks Fitts's Law and gets away with it: Moving further and faster involves more efficient online control.

Adam, Mol, Pratt, and Fischer (2006) reported what they termed "a violation of Fitts's Law" - when participants aimed to targets in an array, movement times (MTs) to the last target location (highest index of difficulty (ID)) were shorter than predicted by Fitts's Law. Based on the results of subsequent studies in which placeholders were present either during planning and/or execution stages of the movements, it was suggested that the violation may emerge because of context-dependent changes in planning processes. The present study examined this planning explanation by conducting detailed kinematic analyses of movements. Participants performed aiming movements to sets of 3 targets in different placeholder arrays with different movement amplitudes. Consistent with previous Fitts's Law violation findings, MTs were not significantly longer for movements to the last versus middle target location. Interestingly, the pattern of peak limb velocities (typically associated with planning processes) did not mirror the changes in MTs. On the other hand, analyses of the effector's spatial variability during the movement suggested greater involvement of online control processes when the target was in the last position. Based on these results, we suggest that the Fitts' Law violation observed here occurred because of more efficient online control processes.

Joint Simon effects in extrapersonal space.

Numerous studies have revealed that when people sit next to each other and complete separate parts of a Simon task, response times are shorter when the participants' stimulus appears in front of them than when the stimulus appears in the opposite side of space. According to the action co-representation account of this joint Simon effect (JSE), participants represent each other's responses and the compatibility effects emerge because of a set of facilitatory and inhibitory processes that are similar to those that are activated when individuals perform the entire Simon task alone. D. Guagnano, E. Rusconi, and C. A. Umiltà (2010) argued against this account as the sole mechanism based on their finding that a JSE was not observed when participants sat outside of each other's peripersonal space. Notably, the task in the Guagnano et al.'s was a modified version of the conventional JSE task designed to increase the independence of the partners. Here, we reconsider the arguments of Guagnano et al. and report a study in which the authors failed to replicate their key finding. Considering the extant JSE literature, we conclude that the null effect in Guagnano et al.'s study may be an anomaly and that co-representation remains a leading candidate for the critical process underlying JSEs.

Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention.

The joint Simon effect (JSE) is a spatial-compatibility effect that emerges when two people complete complementary components of a Simon task. In typical JSE studies, two participants sit beside each other and perform go-no-go tasks in which they respond to one of two stimuli by pressing a button. According to the action co-representation account, JSEs emerge because each participant represents their partner's response in addition to their own, causing the same conflicts in processing that would occur if an individual responded to both stimuli (i.e., as in a two-choice task). Because the response buttons are typically in front of participants, however, an alternative explanation is that JSEs are the result of a dimensional overlap between target and response locations coded with respect to another salient object (e.g., the co-actor's effector). To contrast these hypotheses, the participants in the present study completed two-choice and joint Simon tasks in which they were asked to focus on generating an aftereffect in the space contralateral to their response. Hommel (Psychological Research 55:270-279, 1993) previously reported that, when participants completed a two-choice task under such effect-focused instructions, spatial-compatibility effects emerged that were based on the aftereffect location instead of the response location. Consistent with the co-representation account, the results of the present study were that an inverse aftereffect-based (i.e., not a response-location-based) compatibility effect was observed in both the two-choice and joint tasks. The overall pattern of results does not fit with the spatial-coding account and is discussed in the context of the extant JSE literature.