Sports Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 195–200 | Cite as

A new method for recording the temporal pattern of stride during treadmill running

  • Lennart Gullstrand
  • Johnny Nilsson
Original Article


The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of a new infrared light based method (IR40) for recording temporal stride patterns during treadmill running. The IR40 device, emitting a tight web of 40 infrared light beams 10 mm above the treadmill running surface, was compared to a previously validated electro-pneumatic contact shoe (CS) method while nine well-trained athletes ran at 2.8, 3.3, 3.9, 4.4, 5.0, and 5.6 m s−1. Disconnection and reconnection of the IR beams marked the stance phase. The sampling rate was 500 Hz for both methods. The stance phase duration was on average 11.5 (±8.4) ms longer with the IR40 than with the CS depending on earlier touch down (8.3 ± 6.2 ms) and delayed toe off (3.2 ± 5.3 ms) registrations. Significantly different stance phases were recorded between all velocities and for both methods. Thus, despite the fact that the IR40 systematically measured a somewhat longer stance phase duration than CS, the IR40 is nonetheless useful for temporal stride analysis during treadmill running.


Infrared radiation mat Contact shoe Stride analysis Treadmill 



The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Centre for Sports Research (CIF), the Swedish Sports Confederation and the Swedish School of Sport and Health Science. The authors wish to thank the athletes who participated so kindly.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hunter I, Smith GA (2007) Preferred and optimal stride frequency, stiffness and economy: changes with fatigue during a 1-h high-intensity run. Eur J Appl Physiol 100:653–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morin JB, Samozino P, Zameziati K, Belli A (2007) Effect of stride frequency and contact time on leg-spring behaviour in human running. J Biomech 40:3341–3348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nigg BM, De Boer RW, Fisher V (1995) A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1:98–105Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nummela A, Keränen T, Mikkelsson LO (2007) Factors related to top running speed and economy. Int J Sports Med 28:655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aubert G (2002) From photography to cinematography: recording movement and gait in a neurological context. J History Neurosci 3:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker R (2007) The history of gait analysis before the advent of modern computers. Gait Posture 26:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marey EJ (1902) The history of chronophotography. Smithsonian Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muybridge E (1878) The science of the horse’s motions. Sci Am 39:241Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elliot BC, Blanksby BA (1976) A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2:84–87Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson RC, Dillmann CJ, Lagasse P, Bickett P (1972) Biomechanics of overground versus treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 4:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luthanen P, Komi PV (1978) Mechanical factors influencing running speed. In: Asmussen E, Jörgenssen K (eds) Biomechanics VI B. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 23–29Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams KR, Cavanaugh PR (1987) Relationship between distance running mechanics, running economy and performance. J Appl Physiol 65:1236–1245Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diss CE (2001) The reliability and kinematic variables used to analyse normal running gait. Gait Posture 14:98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reynolds RF, Day BL (2005) Visual guidance of the human foot during a step. J Physiol 2:677–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nilsson J, Thorstensson A (1989) Ground reaction forces at different speeds of human walking and running. Acta Physiol Scand 136:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bates BT, Osternig LR, Sawhill JA (1983) An assessment of subject variability, subject-shoe interaction and the evaluation of running shoes using ground reaction force data. J Biomech 3:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Belli A, Lacour JR, Komi PV, Candau R, Denis C (1995) Mechanical step variability during treadmill running. Eur J Appl Physiol 70:510–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kram R, Griffin TM, Donelan JM, Chang HY (1998) Force treadmill for measuring vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces. Eur J Appl Physiol 85:764–769Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winter DA, Greenlaw RK, Hobson DA (1975) A microswitch shoe for use in locomotion studies. J Biomech 5:553–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hausdorff JM, Ladin Z, Wei JY (1995) Footswitch system for measurement of the temporal parameters of gait. J Biomech 3:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liedke C, Fokkenrood AW, Menger JT, van der Kooij H, Veltink PH (2007) Evaluation of instrumented shoes for ambulatory assessment of ground reaction forces. Gait Posture 26:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barnett S, Cunningham JL, West S (2001) A comparison of vertical and temporal parameters produced by an in-shoe pressure measuring system and a force plat form. Clin Biomech 16:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Randolph AL, Nelson M, Akkapeddi S, Levin A, Alexandrescu R (2000) Reliability of measurements of pressures applied on the foot during walking by a computerized insole sensor system. Arch Phys Med Rehab 81:573–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nilsson J, Stokes VP, Thorstensson A (1985) A new method to measure foot contact. J Biomech 8:625–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Viitasalo JT, Luthanen P, Mononen HV, Norvapalo K, Paavolainen L, Salonen M (1997) Photocell contact mat: a new instrument to measure contact and flight times in running. J Appl Biomech 14:254–268Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cavanagh PR, Kram R (1989) Stride length in distance running: velocity, body dimensions, and added mass effects. Med Sci Sports Exerc 4:467–479Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nilsson J, Thorstensson A, Halbertsma J (1985) Changes in movements and muscle activity with speed of locomotion and mode of progression in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 136:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Meth Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wank V, Frick U, Schmidtbleicher D (1998) Kinematics and electromyography of lower limb muscles in overground and treadmill running. Int J Sports Med 19:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sykes K (1975) Technique and observation of angular gait patterns in running. Br J Sports Med 9:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Ingen Schenau GJ (1980) Some fundamental aspects of overground versus treadmill locomotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 4:257–261Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Basset DR, Giese JR, Nagle FJ, Ward A, Raab DM, Balke B (1985) Aerobic requirements of overground versus treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 4:477–481Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Riley PO, Dicharry J, Franz J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP, Kerrigan DC (2008) A kinematics and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 6:1093–1100Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schache AG, Blanch PD, Rath DA, Wrigley TV, Starr R, Bennell KL (2001) A comparison of overground and treadmill running for measuring the three-dimensional kinematics of the lumbo–pelvic–hip complex. Clin Biochem 16:667–680Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Savelberg HH, Vorstenbosch MA, Kamman EH, van de Veijer, Schambardt RC (1998) Intra-stride belt-variation affects treadmill locomotion. Gait Posture 1:26–34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elite Sports CentreSwedish Sports ConfederationBosönSweden
  2. 2.Section of Exercise Physiology, Department of Physiology and PharmacologyKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.The Swedish School of Sport and Health SciencesStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Norwegian School of Sport SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations