Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics
# Background Providing clinicians with an accurate method to predict kinetic measurements using 2D kinematic motion analysis is crucial to the management of distance runners. Evidence is needed to compare the accuracy of 2D and 3D kinematic measurements as well as measured and estimated kinetic va...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
North American Sports Medicine Institute
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| Online Access: | https://ijspt.scholasticahq.com/article/34432-comparison-of-2-d-and-3-d-analysis-of-running-kinematics-and-actual-versus-predicted-running-kinetics |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1825196989141221376 |
|---|---|
| author | Caitlyn Martinez Seth Garbett Kristen Hiromasa Rhandi Jackson Eric Miya Michelle Miya Joshua D White Brian S Baum Mark F Reinking |
| author_facet | Caitlyn Martinez Seth Garbett Kristen Hiromasa Rhandi Jackson Eric Miya Michelle Miya Joshua D White Brian S Baum Mark F Reinking |
| author_sort | Caitlyn Martinez |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | # Background
Providing clinicians with an accurate method to predict kinetic measurements using 2D kinematic motion analysis is crucial to the management of distance runners. Evidence is needed to compare the accuracy of 2D and 3D kinematic measurements as well as measured and estimated kinetic variables.
# Purposes
The objectives of this study were to (1) compare 2D video analysis of running kinematics with gold standard 3D motion capture and, (2) to evaluate published equations which estimate running kinetics using 2D kinematic and spatiotemporal values and modify these equations based on study findings.
# Design
Controlled laboratory study, cross-sectional design
# Methods
Runners who averaged at least 20 miles per week were invited to participate. Athletes ran on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred training pace for a 6-minute warm-up. Markers were placed over designated anatomical landmarks on both sides of the pelvis as well as the left lower extremity. Subjects then ran at their preferred speed and kinematic data were recorded using both the 2D and 3D camera systems at 240 frames/second. Additionally, ground reaction forces were recorded at 1200Hz. 2D and 3D kinematic values were compared and published kinetic prediction formulas were tested. Linear regression was used to develop new prediction equations for average loading rate (AVG_LR), peak vertical ground reaction force (VERT_GRF), and peak braking force (PK_BRK). Paired t-tests were used to assess differences between the 2D and 3D kinematic variables and the measured (MEAS) and calculated (CALC) kinetic variables.
# Results
Thirty runners (13 men and 17 women) voluntarily consented to participate in this study and the mean age of the participants was 31.8 years (range 20 to 48 years). Although significant differences existed, all 2D kinematic measures were within 2°-5° of 3D kinematic measures. Published prediction equations for AVG_LR and VERT_GRF were supported, but new prediction equations showed higher R^2^ for AVG_LR (0.52) and VERT_GRF (0.75) compared to previous work. A new prediction equation for PK_BRK was developed. No significant differences were found between the MEAS and CALC kinetic variables using the new equations.
# Conclusion
Accurate predictions of kinetic variables can be made using spatiotemporal and 2D kinematic variables.
# Level of Evidence
Level 2 |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1014088ddc264e449a13287c482bafd4 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2159-2896 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | North American Sports Medicine Institute |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| spelling | doaj-art-1014088ddc264e449a13287c482bafd42025-02-11T20:27:37ZengNorth American Sports Medicine InstituteInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy2159-28962022-06-01174Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running KineticsCaitlyn MartinezSeth GarbettKristen HiromasaRhandi JacksonEric MiyaMichelle MiyaJoshua D WhiteBrian S BaumMark F Reinking# Background Providing clinicians with an accurate method to predict kinetic measurements using 2D kinematic motion analysis is crucial to the management of distance runners. Evidence is needed to compare the accuracy of 2D and 3D kinematic measurements as well as measured and estimated kinetic variables. # Purposes The objectives of this study were to (1) compare 2D video analysis of running kinematics with gold standard 3D motion capture and, (2) to evaluate published equations which estimate running kinetics using 2D kinematic and spatiotemporal values and modify these equations based on study findings. # Design Controlled laboratory study, cross-sectional design # Methods Runners who averaged at least 20 miles per week were invited to participate. Athletes ran on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred training pace for a 6-minute warm-up. Markers were placed over designated anatomical landmarks on both sides of the pelvis as well as the left lower extremity. Subjects then ran at their preferred speed and kinematic data were recorded using both the 2D and 3D camera systems at 240 frames/second. Additionally, ground reaction forces were recorded at 1200Hz. 2D and 3D kinematic values were compared and published kinetic prediction formulas were tested. Linear regression was used to develop new prediction equations for average loading rate (AVG_LR), peak vertical ground reaction force (VERT_GRF), and peak braking force (PK_BRK). Paired t-tests were used to assess differences between the 2D and 3D kinematic variables and the measured (MEAS) and calculated (CALC) kinetic variables. # Results Thirty runners (13 men and 17 women) voluntarily consented to participate in this study and the mean age of the participants was 31.8 years (range 20 to 48 years). Although significant differences existed, all 2D kinematic measures were within 2°-5° of 3D kinematic measures. Published prediction equations for AVG_LR and VERT_GRF were supported, but new prediction equations showed higher R^2^ for AVG_LR (0.52) and VERT_GRF (0.75) compared to previous work. A new prediction equation for PK_BRK was developed. No significant differences were found between the MEAS and CALC kinetic variables using the new equations. # Conclusion Accurate predictions of kinetic variables can be made using spatiotemporal and 2D kinematic variables. # Level of Evidence Level 2https://ijspt.scholasticahq.com/article/34432-comparison-of-2-d-and-3-d-analysis-of-running-kinematics-and-actual-versus-predicted-running-kinetics |
| spellingShingle | Caitlyn Martinez Seth Garbett Kristen Hiromasa Rhandi Jackson Eric Miya Michelle Miya Joshua D White Brian S Baum Mark F Reinking Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| title | Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics |
| title_full | Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics |
| title_short | Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Analysis of Running Kinematics and Actual Versus Predicted Running Kinetics |
| title_sort | comparison of 2 d and 3 d analysis of running kinematics and actual versus predicted running kinetics |
| url | https://ijspt.scholasticahq.com/article/34432-comparison-of-2-d-and-3-d-analysis-of-running-kinematics-and-actual-versus-predicted-running-kinetics |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT caitlynmartinez comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT sethgarbett comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT kristenhiromasa comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT rhandijackson comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT ericmiya comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT michellemiya comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT joshuadwhite comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT briansbaum comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics AT markfreinking comparisonof2dand3danalysisofrunningkinematicsandactualversuspredictedrunningkinetics |