Goto Haruhiko, Kamikubo Toshinao, Yamamoto Ryota, Tsutsui Toshiharu, Torii Suguru
Department of Sports Sciences Japan Institute of Sports Sciences.
Graduate School of Sport Sciences Waseda University.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2024 Nov 1;19(11):1386-1396. doi: 10.26603/001c.123952. eCollection 2024.
Foot strike patterns during running are typically categorized into two types: non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) and rearfoot strike (RFS), or as three distinct types: forefoot strike (FFS), midfoot strike (MFS), and RFS, based on which part of the foot lands first. Various methods, including two-dimensional (2D) visual-based methods and three-dimensional (3D) motion capture-based methods utilizing parameters such as the strike index (SI) or strike angle (SA), have been employed to assess these patterns. However, the consistency between the results obtained from each method remains debatable.
HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement for assessing foot strike patterns into two (NRFS and RFS) or three types (FFS, MFS, and RFS) between 2D visual- and 3D motion capture-based methods. The authors hypothesized that using two description types (NRFS and RFS) would have high inter-method reliability; however, using three description types (FFS, MFS and RFS) would have lower inter-method reliability because of the difficulty in distinguishing between FFS and MFS.
Controlled Laboratory Study.
Overall, 162 foot strikes from four healthy runners with various foot strike patterns were analyzed. Running kinematics and kinetics were recorded using a 3D motion capture system with a force platform. Each foot strike was filmed at 240 fps from the sagittal perspective. The visual, SI, and SA methods were used, and the kappa values for each method were calculated.
An assessment of the two types of foot strike: NRFS and RFS, revealed almost perfect kappa values (κ = 0.89-0.95) among the visual, SI, and SA methods. In contrast, an assessment of the three types: FFS, MFS, and RFS, revealed relatively low kappa values (κ = 0.58-0.71). Kappa values within the NRFS category, which includes MFS and FFS, ranged from fair to slight (κ = 0.08-0.33).
Previous laboratory findings that categorized foot strike patterns into two distinct types may be applied in observational studies, clinical practice, and training situations.
Level 2.
跑步时的着地方式通常分为两种类型：非后脚着地（NRFS）和后脚着地（RFS）；或者分为三种不同类型：前脚着地（FFS）、中脚着地（MFS）和后脚着地（RFS），这取决于脚的哪一部分先着地。已经采用了各种方法来评估这些着地方式，包括基于二维（2D）视觉的方法和基于三维（3D）运动捕捉的方法，后者利用诸如着地指数（SI）或着地角度（SA）等参数。然而，每种方法所获得结果之间的一致性仍存在争议。
假设/目的：本研究的目的是检验基于2D视觉和3D运动捕捉的方法在将着地方式评估为两种类型（NRFS和RFS）或三种类型（FFS、MFS和RFS）时的一致性。作者假设使用两种描述类型（NRFS和RFS）会有较高的方法间可靠性；然而，使用三种描述类型（FFS、MFS和RFS）会有较低的方法间可靠性，因为区分FFS和MFS存在困难。
对照实验室研究。
总共分析了来自四名具有不同着地方式的健康跑步者的162次着地情况。使用带有测力平台的3D运动捕捉系统记录跑步运动学和动力学数据。从矢状面视角以240帧/秒的速度拍摄每次着地情况。采用视觉、SI和SA方法，并计算每种方法的kappa值。
对两种着地类型（NRFS和RFS）的评估显示，在视觉、SI和SA方法之间kappa值几乎完美（κ = 0.89 - 0.95）。相比之下，对三种类型（FFS、MFS和RFS）的评估显示kappa值相对较低（κ = 0.58 - 0.71）。在包括MFS和FFS的NRFS类别内，kappa值范围从中等到轻微（κ = 0.08 - 0.33）。
先前将着地方式分为两种不同类型的实验室研究结果可应用于观察性研究、临床实践和训练场景。
2级。
