Gait & posture · 2024
Fatigue assessment in distance runners: A scoping review of inertial sensor-based biomechanical outcomes and their relation to fatigue markers and assessment conditions.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McConnochie Grace, Fox Aaron, Badger Heather, Bellenger Clint, Thewlis Dominic
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fatigue manifests as a decline in performance during high-intensity and prolonged exercise. With technological advancements and the increasing adoption of inertial measurement units (IMUs) in sports biomechanics, there is an opportunity to enhance our understanding of running-related fatigue beyond controlled laboratory environments.
RESEARCH QUESTION: How have IMUs have been used to assess running biomechanics under fatiguing conditions?
METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, our literature search covered six databases without date restrictions until September 2024. The Population, Concept, and Context criteria were used: Population (distance runners ranging from novice to competitive), Concept (fatigue induced by running a distance over 400 m), Context (assessment of fatigue using accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetometer wearable devices). Biomechanical outcomes were extracted and synthesised, and interpreted in the context of three main study characteristics (cohort ability, testing environment, and the inclusion of physiological outcomes) to explore their potential role in influencing outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 88 articles were included in the review. There was a high prevalence of treadmill-based studies (n=46, 52%), utilising only 1-2 sensors (n=69, 78%), and cohorts ranged in experience, from sedentary to elite-level runners, and were largely comprised of males (69% of all participants). The majority of biomechanical outcomes assessed showed varying responses to fatigue across studies, likely attributable to individual variability, exercise intensity, and differences in fatigue protocol settings and prescriptions. Spatiotemporal outcomes such as stride time and frequency (n=37, 42 %) and impact accelerations (n=55, 62%) were more widely assessed, with a fatigue response that appeared population and environment specific.
SIGNIFICANCE: There was notable heterogeneity in the IMU-based biomechanical outcomes and methods evaluated in this review. The review findings emphasise the need for standardisation of IMU-based outcomes and fatigue protocols to promote interpretable metrics and facilitate inter-study comparisons.
RESEARCH QUESTION: How have IMUs have been used to assess running biomechanics under fatiguing conditions?
METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, our literature search covered six databases without date restrictions until September 2024. The Population, Concept, and Context criteria were used: Population (distance runners ranging from novice to competitive), Concept (fatigue induced by running a distance over 400 m), Context (assessment of fatigue using accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetometer wearable devices). Biomechanical outcomes were extracted and synthesised, and interpreted in the context of three main study characteristics (cohort ability, testing environment, and the inclusion of physiological outcomes) to explore their potential role in influencing outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 88 articles were included in the review. There was a high prevalence of treadmill-based studies (n=46, 52%), utilising only 1-2 sensors (n=69, 78%), and cohorts ranged in experience, from sedentary to elite-level runners, and were largely comprised of males (69% of all participants). The majority of biomechanical outcomes assessed showed varying responses to fatigue across studies, likely attributable to individual variability, exercise intensity, and differences in fatigue protocol settings and prescriptions. Spatiotemporal outcomes such as stride time and frequency (n=37, 42 %) and impact accelerations (n=55, 62%) were more widely assessed, with a fatigue response that appeared population and environment specific.
SIGNIFICANCE: There was notable heterogeneity in the IMU-based biomechanical outcomes and methods evaluated in this review. The review findings emphasise the need for standardisation of IMU-based outcomes and fatigue protocols to promote interpretable metrics and facilitate inter-study comparisons.