Benzene azo-ketones from cyclic beta-dicarbonyl compounds

Full text of DOI:10.1515/znb-1966-0129

HUMAN MOVEMENT
2015, vol. 16 (3), 137–141
Sex differenceS in limb and joint StiffneSS
in recreational runnerS
doi: 10.1515/humo-2015-0039
1
1
2
1
*
jonathan Sinclair , hannah franceS Shore , Paul j. taylor , StePhen atkinS
1 Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Sport Tourism and Outdoors, University of Central Lancashire,
Preston, United Kingdom
2 School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
AbSTrACT
Purpose. Female runners are known to be at greater risk from chronic running injuries than age-matched males, although the exact
mechanisms are often poorly understood. The aim of the current investigation was to determine if female recreational runners
exhibit distinct limb and joint stiffness characteristics in relation to their male counterparts. Methods. Fourteen male and fourteen
female runners ran over a force platform at 4.0 m · s–1. Lower limb kinematics were collected using an eight-camera optoelectric
motion capture system operating at 250 Hz. Measures of limb and joint stiffness were calculated as a function of limb length and
joint moments divided by the extent of limb and joint excursion. All stiffness and joint moment parameters were normalized
to body mass. Sex differences in normalized limb and knee and ankle joint stiffness were examined statistically using independent
samples t tests. Results. The results indicate that normalized limb (male = 0.18 0.07, female = 0.37 0.10 kN · kg · m–1) and knee
stiffness (male = 5.59 2.02, female = 7.34 1.78 Nm · kg · rad–1) were significantly greater in female runners. Conclusions. On
the basis that normalized knee and limb stiffness were shown to be significantly greater in female runners, the findings from the
current investigation may provide further insight into the aetiology of the distinct injury patterns observed between sexes.
Key words: running, sex, limb stiffness, biomechanics
Introduction
a linear spring and the runner’s body mass is representa-
tive of the point mass [8–10]. The limb spring is able to
compress and expand during the stance phase as lower
extremity joints flex and then extend [11]. With regards
to clinical effects, if the limb spring is overly compliant,
then overload of the musculoskeletal structures asso-
ciated with force attenuation may occur. In turn, if stiff-
ness increases, the forces may be increased up the kinetic
chain [12–14]. It has been therefore hypothesized that
excessive limb stiffness may be linked to an enhanced
risk for bone-related injuries whereas insufficient stiff-
ness a risk for soft tissue injury [7, 12, 15, 16].
It has also been proposed that the stiffness charac-
teristics of the lower extremity joints need considera-
tion [7]. Joint stiffness is a reflection of the moment to
angular excursion ratio and is modelled as a torsional
spring system [12]. Joint stiffness is also clinically im-
portant as it can be related to the attenuation of load trans-
mission through the musculoskeletal system [13, 17].
Increased joint stiffness may also be linked to the aetiology
of running injuries as higher stiffness leads to an in-
creased load that must be borne by the joint in relation
to a more compliant joint [17–19].
Distance running is a very popular physical and rec-
reational activity that has been shown to be physiolog-
ically advantageous [1]. However, retrospective and
prospective aetiological research indicates that 19.4–
79.3% of those who engage in running activities will suffer
from a chronic pathology over the course of 1 year [2], in
which female runners are known to be at greater risk from
chronic running injuries than age-matched males [3].
It has been proposed that differences in lower ex-
tremity injury susceptibility between sexes are related to
the distinct kinetics and kinematics exhibited by female
runners in relation to males [4]. Current research indi-
cates that females are twice as likely to experience an
injury in relation to running [5–6], though the specific
aetiological mechanisms are not well understood. Thus,
there are requirements for further examination into
the biomechanical mechanisms that may be associated
with injury in female runners.
Current clinical research on the aetiology of chronic
lower limb pathologies and the mechanics of human
locomotion has begun investigating lower extremity
limb stiffness. Stiffness, in its simplest form, is a ratio of
the force applied and subsequent deformation of a body
[7]. During running, the stance limb can be modelled
using a spring mass system, where the stance limb reflects
In this regard, sex differences in limb stiffness have also
been previously considered. Padua et al. [20] examined
sex differences in limb stiffness during a two-legged
hopping task. They showed that females exhibited in-
creased limb stiffness but these between-sex differences
were eliminated when the data was normalized for
body mass. Granata et al. [21] showed that females were
* Corresponding author.
- 10.1515/humo-2015-0039
Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/12/2016 10:29:13AM
via free access
137

HUMAN MOVEMENT
J. Sinclair, H.F. Shore, P.J. Taylor, S. Atkins, Sex differences in limb stiffness
associated with increased limb stiffness compared with
males, although this investigation did not normalize
data to body mass. To date, it has not been established
whether sex differences in limb and joint stiffness exist
during running and how they may potentially influence
injury aetiology. The aim of the current investigation was
to therefore determine whether female recreational run-
ners exhibit distinct limb and joint stiffness characteris-
tics in relation to their male counterparts. Such data may
provide better understand on the increased prevalence
of chronic lower extremity injuries in females.
tories were filtered at 50 and 12 Hz using a low-pass
fourth-order zero-lag butterworth filter. Knee and ankle
joint kinematics were calculated using an XYZ sequence
of rotations (where X – sagittal plane, Y –coronal plane
and Z – transverse plane rotations) [25]. Newton-Euler
inverse-dynamics were also adopted to allow knee and
ankle joint moments to be calculated. Segment length,
ground reaction force (GrF) and angular kinematics
were utilized to quantify joint moment-segment mass.
All kinematic waveforms were normalized to 100% of
the stance phase and then the processed trials were
averaged. Discrete kinematic measures from the knee
and ankle data extracted for statistical analysis were
1) angle at footstrike, 2) peak angle, 3) joint angular ex-
cursion (representing the angular displacement from
footstrike to peak angle) and 4) peak joint moment.
Limb stiffness (kN · kg · m–1), vertical ground reaction
force (N · kg–1), joint moments (Nm · kg–1), and joint stiff-
ness (Nm · kg · rad–1) parameters were normalized to body
mass in accordance with Sinclair et al. [13] and Wannop
et al. [26]. Estimation of normalized limb stiffness during
running used a mathematical spring-mass model [8].
Limb stiffness was determined from the ratio of the peak
vertical GrF to the maximum compression of the leg
spring, which was calculated as the change in limb length
from footstrike to minimum limb length during the
stance phase [27, 28]. The normalized torsional stiffness
of the knee and ankle joints were calculated as a function
of the ratio of the change in sagittal joint moment to
joint angular excursion in the sagittal plane between the
beginning of the ground contact phase and the instant
when the joints were maximally flexed [11].
Material and methods
Fourteen male (age 25.21 2.36 years, height 1.89
0.11 m, mass 77.47 5.16 kg) and fourteen female
(age 26.72 5.62 years, height 1.66 0.15 m, mass 62.37
7.21 kg) recreational runners took part in this inves-
tigation. All participants provided written informed
consent and ethical approval was obtained from the
University in line with the principles delineated in the
Declaration of Helsinki.
The participants completed five running trials at
4.0 m · s–1 5%. Lower extremity kinematics were quan-
tified using an eight-camera motion analysis system
(Qualisys Medical, Sweden) at a sampling rate of 250 Hz.
Participants struck an embedded force platform (Kistler
9281CA, Kistler Instruments, UK) sampling at 1000 Hz
with their dominant foot [22]. The stance phase of run-
ning was determined as the time over which > 20 N of
force in the axial direction was applied to the force
platform [23].
The calibrated anatomical systems technique (CAST)
was utilised to quantify knee joint kinematics [24]. To
define the anatomical frames of the right foot, shank
and thigh, retroreflective markers were positioned onto
the medial and lateral malleoli, medial and lateral fem-
oral epicondyles, calcaneus, 1st metatarsal, 5th metatarsal
and greater trochanter. Carbon-fibre tracking clusters
comprising four non-linear retroreflective markers were
positioned onto the thigh and shank segments. The foot
segment was tracked using the calcaneus, 1st metatarsal
and 5th metatarsal marker positions. Static calibration
trials were obtained with the participant in the anatom-
ical position in order for the positions of the anatomical
markers to be referenced in relation to the tracking clus-
ters. The Z (transverse) axis was oriented vertically from
the distal segment end to the proximal segment end.
The Y (coronal) axis was oriented in the segment from the
posterior to anterior. Finally, the X (sagittal) axis orien-
tation was determined using the right hand rule and was
oriented from the medial to lateral. Participants wore
the same footwear throughout the trials (Saucony Pro
Grid Guide II, Saucony, USA) in sizes 5–10 men’s UK.
retroreflective markers were digitized using Qualisys
Track Manager in order to identify the markers and ex-
ported as C3D files to Visual 3D software (C-Motion, USA).
Ground reaction force and retroreflective marker trajec-
Sex differences in normalized limb and joint stiff-
ness characteristics were examined using independent
t tests with significance accepted at the p 0.05 level.
Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. In addi-
tion, linear regression analyses were adopted in order
to determine the strength of the relationship between
measurements of joint and limb stiffness. The data were
screened for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test. Sta-
tistical procedures were conducted using SPSS v22.0
(IbM SPSS, USA).
Results
Table 1 and Figures 1–3 present the normalized limb
and joint stiffness parameters as a function of sex. The
results indicate that normalized limb and knee joint
stiffness parameters were significantly influenced by sex.
Joint kinematics
The results show that normalized peak knee moment
was significantly larger in female runners, t(26) = 2.09,
p
0.05, d = 0.82 (Table 1, Figure 1b). Knee excursion
was shown to be significantly larger in males, t(26) = 2.21,
0.05, d = 0.87 (Table 1, Figure 1a).
p
- 10.1515/humo-2015-0039
Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/12/2016 10:29:13AM
via free access
138

HUMAN MOVEMENT
J. Sinclair, H.F. Shore, P.J. Taylor, S. Atkins, Sex differences in limb stiffness
Table 1. Limb and joint stiffness characteristics as a function of sex
Male
Female
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Knee footstrike (rad)
Knee peak flexion (rad)
Knee excursion (rad)
Ankle footstrike (rad)
Ankle peak dorsiflexion (rad)
Ankle excursion (rad)
0.27
0.81
0.54
0.09
0.34
0.24
2.37
2.37
5.59
13.05
16.85
0.10
0.18
0.23
0.25
0.41
0.20
0.09
0.17
0.79
0.54
2.33
5.69
6.21
0.02
0.07
0.33
0.72
0.39
0.12
0.37
0.25
2.86
2.41
7.24
15.44
21.67
0.07
0.37
0.17
0.12
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.36
0.17
1.78
15.33
2.09
0.02
0.10
*
Knee moment (Nm · kg–1)
Ankle moment (Nm · kg–1)
Knee stiffness (Nm · kg · rad–1)
Ankle stiffness (Nm · kg · rad–1)
Vertical GrF (N · kg–1)
*
*
Limb compression (m)
*
*
Limb stiffness (kN · kg · m–1)
* significant difference
solid line – male, dashed line – female
Figure 3. Normalized knee (a) and ankle (b)
joint moment–angular displacement curves
Spring mass characteristics
Normalized limb stiffness was shown to be signifi-
cantly larger in female runners, t(26) = 5.40, p 0.05,
d = 2.10 (Table 1, Figure 2). Similarly, normalized knee
stiffness was also shown to be significantly larger in fe-
males, t(26) = 2.10, p 0.05, d = 0.82 (Table 1, Figure 3a).
Limb compression was shown to be significantly larger
in male runners, t(26) = 4.58, p 0.05, d = 1.80 (Table 1).
solid line – male, dashed line – female;
FL – flexion, EXT – extension, DF – dorsiflexion
Figure 1. Joint angles and normalized moments
for sagittal knee angle (a), sagittal knee moment (b),
sagittal ankle angle (c), sagittal ankle moment (d)
Correlational analyses
regression analysis revealed a significant positive
association between normalized knee and limb stiff-
ness (R2 = 0.44, p 0.05).
Discussion
The current investigation determined whether female
recreational runners exhibit distinct limb and joint stiff-
ness characteristics in relation to their male counter-
parts. To the authors’ knowledge, this represents the first
solid line – male, dashed line – female
Figure 2. Normalized vertical limb displacement curve (GrF)
- 10.1515/humo-2015-0039
Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/12/2016 10:29:13AM
via free access
139

HUMAN MOVEMENT
J. Sinclair, H.F. Shore, P.J. Taylor, S. Atkins, Sex differences in limb stiffness
investigation to examine sex differences in limb stiff-
ness characteristics in recreational runners.
stiffness and limb stiffness, indicating that knee com-
pliance acts as a key regulator of limb stiffness. This is
perhaps to be expected during running as the sagittal
plane knee excursion is typically much larger than that
of the ankle joint. Our results are in contrast with the
observations of Farley and Morgenroth [11], who de-
noted that leg stiffness during submaximal hopping is
primarily determined by the stiffness characteristics
of the ankle joint. This discrepancy may relate to differ-
ences in the relative contribution of each joint to the
distinct movements. It has been shown that the ankle
joint is more crucial in hopping tasks when compared
with running as it exhibits a larger sagittal plane excur-
sion and is associated with a greater elastic behaviour
of the plantar flexors [11, 35].
The first key observation is that normalized limb
stiffness was found to be significantly larger in female
runners compared with males. This observation op-
poses previous findings in hopping studies which have
either shown a lack of differences between sexes or that
males exhibited higher limb stiffness [20, 21]. It has been
proposed that this difference relates to the different
functional demands of hopping tasks in comparison
with running [29]. This finding relates principally to
the increase in limb compression between sexes as the
normalized vertical GrF magnitude was shown to not
differ significantly. This observation may have clinical
relevance as increased levels of limb stiffness, such as those
observed in female runners, have been linked to the
aetiology of bone injuries [7, 12, 15, 16].
Conclusions
An additional important finding from the current
study is that normalized knee stiffness was also shown
to be significantly greater in female runners in relation
to males. This finding is a reflection of the significant
increase in normalized knee joint moment and signifi-
cant reduction in knee joint angular excursion in female
runners when compared with males. This observation
concurs with those of Maliznak et al. [29] and Sinclair
and Selfe [30], who found that females exhibited sig-
nificantly reduced knee flexion excursion and normalized
knee moment in comparison with males, and may also
have possible clinical significance. Females have a far
greater incidence of non-contact anterior cruciate lig-
ament (ACL) injuries compared with males [31, 32].
Hewett et al. [32] proposed that females lack the neu-
romuscular control of sagittal plane musculature re-
quired to decelerate the centre of mass during landing;
they limit knee flexion excursion and instead utilize pas-
sive restraints to a greater extent. The knee joint mechanics
displayed by females are considered to increase their
risk of ACL injury [31, 32].
The increase in peak normalized sagittal knee moment
and knee stiffness may provide insight into the distinct
injury patterns associated with female runners. Female
recreational runners are at much greater risk of developing
patellofemoral pain than age-matched males [6]. The
significant increase in normalized knee joint moment
and knee stiffness from the current study indicate that
the load borne by the knee may be larger in female run-
ners [18, 19]. Importantly, Hebert et al. [33] demon-
strated that patellofemoral pain is a pathology related
mainly to the knee extensor mechanism. Therefore, this
finding may be important as the consensus regarding
the aetiology of patellofemoral pain is that symptoms are
a function of loading of the knee extensor mechanism
[34, 35].
Although sex differences in running mechanics have
been extensively examined, the current knowledge regard-
ing sex differences in limb and joint stiffness parameters
is limited. The present investigation therefore adds to the
subject by providing a comprehensive evaluation of the
limb stiffness characteristics of male and female recrea-
tional runners. On the basis that normalized knee and
limb stiffness were shown to be significantly greater in
female runners, the findings from the current investi-
gation may provide further insight into the aetiology
of the distinct injury patterns observed between sexes.
Importantly, the findings from the current study support
the notion that females are more susceptible to overuse
injuries than males.
References
1. Lee D.C., Pate r.r., Lavie C.J., Sui X., Church T.S.,
blair S.N., Leisure-time running reduces all-cause and
cardiovascular mortality risk. Am J Coll Cardiol, 2014,
64 (5), 472–481, doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.058.
2. van Gent r.N., Siem D., van Middelkoop M., van Os A.G.,
bierma-Zeinstra S.M.A., Koes b.W., Incidence and de-
terminants of lower extremity running injuries in long
distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med,
2007, 41 (8), 469–480, doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.033548.
3. Taunton J.E., ryan M.b., Clement D.b., McKenzie D.C.,
Lloyd-Smith D.r., Zumbo b.D., A prospective study of
running injuries: the Vancouver Sun run “In Training”
clinics. Br J Sports Med, 2003, 37 (3), 239–244, doi:
10.1136/bjsm.37.3.239.
4. Sinclair J., Greenhalgh A., Edmundson C.J., brooks D.,
Hobbs S.J., Gender Differences in the Kinetics and Kin-
ematics of Distance running: Implications for Footwear
Design. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 2012, 6 (2), 118–128.
5. Grimston S.K., Ensberg J.r., Kloiber r., Hanley D.A., bone
mass, external loads, and stress fractures in female run-
ners. Int J Sport Biomech, 1991, 7, 293–302.
The increase in knee compliance in male runners
may provide insight into the reduction in overall limb
stiffness exhibited by males. The regression analysis re-
vealed a significant positive association between knee
6. robinson r.L., Nee r.J., Analysis of hip strength in females
seeking physical therapy treatment for unilateral patel-
lofemoral pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther,
2007, 37 (5), 232–238, doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2439.
- 10.1515/humo-2015-0039
Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/12/2016 10:29:13AM
via free access
140

HUMAN MOVEMENT
J. Sinclair, H.F. Shore, P.J. Taylor, S. Atkins, Sex differences in limb stiffness
7. butler r.J., Crowell H.P., Davis I.M., Lower extremity
Anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin
Biomech, 1995, 10 (4), 171–178, doi: 10.1016/0268-
0033(95)91394-T.
stiffness: implication for performance and injury. Clin
Biomech, 2003, 18 (6), 511–517, doi: 10.1016/S0268-
0033(03)00071-8.
25. Sinclair J., Taylor P.J., Edmundson C.J., brooks D.,
Hobbs S.J., Influence of the helical and six available Cardan
sequences on 3D ankle joint kinematic parameters. Sports
Biomech, 2012, 11 (3), 430–437, doi: 10.1080/14763141.
2012.656762.
26. Wannop J.W., Worobets J.T., Stefanyshyn D.J., Normal-
ization of ground reaction forces, joint moments, and free
moments in human locomotion. J Appl Biomech, 2012,
28 (6), 665–76.
27. McMahon T.A., Cheng G.C., The mechanics of running:
how does stiffness couple with speed? J Biomech, 1990, 23
(Suppl. 1), 65–78, doi:10.1016/0021-9290(90)90042-2.
28. Hobara H., Muraoka T., Omuro K., Gomi K., Sakamoto M.,
Inoue K. et al., Knee stiffness is a major determinant of leg
stiffness during maximal hopping. J Biomech, 2009, 42 (11),
1768–1771, doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.04.047.
29. Malinzak r.A., Colby S.M., Kirkendall D.T., Yu b., Gar-
rett W.E., A comparison of knee joint motion patterns
between men and women in selected athletic tasks. Clin
Biomech, 2001, 16 (5), 438–445, doi: 10.1016/S0268-
0033(01)00019-5.
8. blickhan r., The spring-mass model for running and
hopping. J Biomech, 1989, 22 (11–12), 1217–1227, doi:
10.1016/0021-9290(89)90224-8.
9. Farley C.T., Gonzalez O., Leg stiffness and stride frequency
in human running. J Biomech, 1996, 29 (2), 181–186,
doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(95)00029-1.
10. Latash M.L., Zatsiorsky V.M., Joint stiffness: Myth or
reality? Hum Mov Sci, 1993, 12 (6), 653–692, doi:
10.1016/0167-9457(93)90010-M.
11. Farley C.T., Morgenroth D.C., Leg stiffness primarily de-
pends on ankle stiffness during human hopping. J Biomech,
1999, 32 (3), 267–273, doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00170-5.
12. Williams D.S., Davis I.M., Scholz J.P., Hamill J., bucha-
nan T.S., High-arched runners exhibit increased leg stiff-
ness compared to low-arched runners. Gait Posture, 2004,
19 (3), 263–269, doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(03)00087-0.
13. Sinclair J., Atkins S., Taylor P.J., The effects of barefoot and
shod running on limb and joint stiffness characteristics
in recreational runners. J Mot Behav, 2015, doi: 10.1080/
00222895.2015.1044493. (Epub ahead of print)
14. Taylor P.J., Vincent H., Atkins S., Sinclair J., Acute expo-
sure to foot orthoses affects joint stiffness characteristics
in recreational male runners. Comparative Exercise Physiol-
ogy, 2015, 11 (3), 183–190, doi: 10.3920/CEP150006.
15. McMahon J.J., Comfort P., Pearson S., Lower limb stiffness:
considerations for female athletes. Strength Cond J, 2012,
34 (5), 70–73, doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e318268131f.
16. bishop M., Fiolkowski P., Conrad b., brunt D., Horody-
ski M., Athletic footwear, leg stiffness, and running kine-
matics. J Athl Train, 2006, 41 (4), 387–392.
17. Hamill J., Gruber A.H., Derrick T.r., Lower extremity joint
stiffness characteristics during running with different
footfall patterns. Eur J Sport Sci, 2014, 14 (2), 130–136,
doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.728249.
18. Laughton C.A., Davis I.M., Hamill J., Effect of strike pat-
tern and orthotic intervention on tibial shock during
running. J Appl Biomech, 2003, 19 (2), 153–168.
19. Hamill J., Moses M., Seay J., Lower extremity joint stiff-
ness in runners with low back pain. Res Sports Med, 2009,
17 (4), 260–273, doi: 10.1080/15438620903352057.
20. Padua D.A., Carcia C.r., Arnold b.L., Granata K.P., Gen-
der differences in leg stiffness and stiffness recruitment
strategy during two-legged hopping. J Motor Behav, 2005,
37 (2), 111–126, doi: 10.3200/JMbr.37.2.111-126.
21. Granata K.P., Padua D.A., Wilson S.E., Gender differences
in active musculoskeletal stiffness. Part II. Quantification
of leg stiffness during functional hopping tasks. J Electro-
myogr Kinesiol, 2002, 12 (2), 127–135, doi: 10.1016/S1050-
6411(02)00003-2.
30. Sinclair J., Selfe J., Sex differences in knee loading in rec-
reational runners. J Biomech, 2015, 48 (10), 2171–2175,
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.05.016.
31. Ireland M.L., Anterior cruciate ligament injury in female
athletes: epidemiology. J Athl Train, 1999, 34 (2), 150–154.
32. Hewett T.E., Myer G.D., Ford K.r., Heidt r.S. Jr, Colo-
simo A.J., McLean S.G. et al., biomechanical measures of
neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee
predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female
athletes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med, 2005, 33 (4),
492–501, doi: 10.1177/0363546504269591.
33. Hebert L.J., Gravel D., Arsenault A.b., Tremblay G., Patel-
lofemoral pain syndrome: the possible role of an inade-
quate neuromuscular mechanism. Clin Biomech, 1994,
9 (2), 93–97, doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(94)90030-2.
34. Ho K.Y., blanchette M.G., Powers C.M., The influence of
heel height on patellofemoral joint kinetics during walking.
Gait Posture, 2012, 36 (2), 271–275, doi: 10.1016/j.gait-
post.2012.03.008.
35. Fukashiro S., Komi P.V., Joint moment and mechanical
power flow of the lower limb during vertical jump. Int J
SportsMed, 1987, 8(Suppl.), 15–21, doi:10.1055/s-2008-
1025699.
Paper received by the Editor: January 9, 2015
Paper accepted for publication: July 27, 2015
Correspondence address
Jonathan Sinclair
22. Sinclair J., Hobbs S.J., Taylor P.J., Currigan G., Green-
halgh A., The Influence of Different Force and Pressure
Measuring Transducers on Lower Extremity Kinematics
Measured During running. J Appl Biomech, 2014, 30 (1),
166–172, doi: 10.1123/jab.2012-0238.
23. Sinclair J., Edmundson C.J., brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Eval-
uation of kinematic methods of identifying gait events
during running. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 2011, 5 (3), 188–192.
24. Cappozzo A., Catani F., Croce U.D. Leardini A., Position
and orientation in space of bones during movement:
Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences
School of Sport Tourism and Outdoors
University of Central Lancashire
Preston, Lancashire
Pr1 2HE, United Kingdom
e-mail: jksinclair@uclan.ac.uk
- 10.1515/humo-2015-0039
Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/12/2016 10:29:13AM
via free access
141