Table 1 Summary of biomechanical studies of loading mechanisms in impact landings
Mechanism | Study | Study type | Load estimation approach | Landing task protocol | Landing height | Key loading response finding(s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technique | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Knee joint flexion | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
| Â | [15] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.15-1.05 m | Inverse relationship between initial knee flexion & peak GRFr | |
| Â | [16] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.59 m | Inverse relationship between maximum knee flexion & GRFv | |
| Â | [23] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.80 m & 1.15 m | Higher (32%) GRFv with stiff than soft knee (0.80 m, hard mat) | |
| Â | [25] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.32 m, 0.62 m,1.03 m | Direct relationship between knee stiffness & peak GRFv | |
| Â | [26] | Laboratory | Spring-mass assumption | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.30 m (12 inch) | Higher GRFv (55%) with stiff than soft (bent) knee | |
| Â | [27] | Laboratory | Simulation modelling | Â | 0.10 m-0.40 m | Non-linear, inverse relationship between knee flexion & peak GRFv | |
| Â | [51] | Theoretical | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.46 m | Change in peak GRFv (1.5 BW) with modified knee flexion timing | |
Foot placement | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
| Â | [17] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics & electromyography | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.40 m | Higher (3.4 times) GRFv impact peak in HTL than FFL | |
| Â | [18] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.30 m | Unreported kinetic measures | |
Gender-specific | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
| Â | [11] | Laboratory | Electromyography | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.52 m | No gender difference in peak GRFv or IGRF at 50 & 100 ms | |
| Â | [18] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.30 m | Unreported kinetic measures | |
| Â | [28] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.60 m | No gender difference in magnitude, time and rate of peak GRFv | |
| Â | [30] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Stop-jump | Not reported | Higher peak GRFv (24%) in females than males | |
| Â | [31] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Single-foot) | 0.30 m | Higher peak GRFv (9%) in females than males | |
| Â | [34] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Stop-jump | Not reported | Higher knee extension & valgus moments in females than males | |
| Â | [35] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.60 m | Higher peak GRFv (34%) in females than males | |
Landing height | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
| Â | [2] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.69 m, 1.25 m, 1.82 m | Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv | |
| Â | [14] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.32 m, 0.72 m, 1.28 m | Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv | |
| Â | [15] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.15-1.05 m | Exponential relationship between landing height & peak GRFr | |
| Â | [23] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.80 m & 1.15 m | Unreported kinetic measures | |
| Â | [24] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.90 m | No reported statistical comparison between heights | |
| Â | [25] | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.32 m, 0.62 m,1.03 m | Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv | |
| Â | [27] | Laboratory | Spring-mass assumption | Jump (Double-foot) | 0.10 m-0.40 m | Exponential relationship between landing height & peak GRFv | |
Impacting interface | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
| Â | [2] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.69 m, 1.25 m, 1.82 m | No difference in peak GRFv between mat stiffness | |
| Â | [23] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.80 m & 1.15 m | No difference in peak GRFv between mat stiffness | |
| Â | [46] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.43 m | Peak GRFv sensitivity to heel pad stiffness | |
Performer experience | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
| Â | [14] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.32 m, 0.72 m, 1.28 m | Â | |
| Â | [24] | Laboratory | Â | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.90 m | Higher GRFv in gymnasts than recreational athletes (0.60 & 0.90 m) | |
Landing task | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
| Â | [32] | Laboratory | Â | Backward rotating tuck & pike (beam) | 2.18 m & 2.22 m | Unreported kinetic measures | |
| Â | Â | Laboratory | Inverse dynamics & electromyography | Drop, front & back tucked salto (beam) | 0.72 m | Between task differences in net joint moments after contact | |
| Â | [48] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Backward & forward rotating somersault (vault) | Not reported | Reduced peak GRFv & GRFh in tasks using optimised strategies | |
Mass composition | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
| Â | [19] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.43 m | Peak GRFv (24.3 bodyweights) attenuated by soft tissues | |
| Â | [20] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.46 m | Peak GRFv sensitivity to soft & rigid mass composition | |
| Â | [46] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.43 m | Higher peak GRFv (13%) with higher bone mass (20%) | |
| Â | [49] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.46 m | Peak GRFv (8.6 bodyweights) attenuated by soft tissues | |
Mass coupling | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
| Â | [20] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.46 m | Subject-specific GRFv response to coupling parameter changes | |
| Â | [47] | Theoretical | Simulation modelling | Drop (Double-foot) | 0.43 m | Insensitivity in peak GRFv to coupling parameters | |