Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

EEG signatures of motor development in early childhood: a systematic review.

Pediatric research·2026
Same author

Material properties of intrinsic foot structures in individuals with plantar fasciitis.

Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)·2026
Same author

Examination of inertial measurement units to evaluate lower body segmental angles in persons with autism.

Journal of biomechanics·2026
Same author

Relationship of Age and Running Biomechanics in Female Recreational Runners.

Journal of applied biomechanics·2025
Same author

Comparative Effects of Complex Contrast Training and Traditional Training Methods on Physical Performance Within Female, Semiprofessional Australian Rules Football Players.

Journal of strength and conditioning research·2024
Same author

Musculoskeletal model degrees of Freedom: Frontal plane constraints are hindering our understanding of human movement.

Journal of biomechanics·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 10, 2026

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
08:08

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis

Published on: May 8, 2014

17.2K

An In Situ Examination of Running Specific Prostheses Stiffness Properties.

Paige Agnew1,2, Hunter J Bennett1,2, Stacie I Ringleb3,2

  • 1Ellmer College of Health Sciences, Old Dominion University, 1007 Student Recreation Center, 4700 Powhatan Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23529.

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
|November 26, 2025
PubMed
Summary

Running specific prostheses (RSPs) exhibit higher stiffness in situ than in lab tests. Understanding these in-situ mechanical properties is crucial for optimizing prosthetic device performance and clinical recommendations.

More Related Videos

A Probing Device for Quantitatively Measuring the Mechanical Properties of Soft Tissues during Arthroscopy
06:16

A Probing Device for Quantitatively Measuring the Mechanical Properties of Soft Tissues during Arthroscopy

Published on: May 1, 2020

5.8K
Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research
04:37

Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research

Published on: March 1, 2024

1.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 10, 2026

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
08:08

Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis

Published on: May 8, 2014

17.2K
A Probing Device for Quantitatively Measuring the Mechanical Properties of Soft Tissues during Arthroscopy
06:16

A Probing Device for Quantitatively Measuring the Mechanical Properties of Soft Tissues during Arthroscopy

Published on: May 1, 2020

5.8K
Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research
04:37

Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research

Published on: March 1, 2024

1.3K

Area of Science:

  • Biomechanics
  • Prosthetics and Orthotics
  • Sports Science

Background:

  • Running specific prostheses (RSPs) enable individuals with lower limb loss to participate in running.
  • Machine testing of RSPs has limitations due to loading rates below in-situ running conditions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the in-situ mechanical properties of RSPs during actual running.
  • To compare in-situ stiffness and hysteresis with machine-tested values.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized 3D motion capture and force platforms to record deformation and loading during running.
  • Calculated linear and nonlinear stiffness and hysteresis using 3D force and deformation data.
  • Analyzed data across loading and restoration phases of the running gait cycle.

Main Results:

  • In-situ linear stiffness during loading was approximately 26 kN/m, consistent across participants.
  • Stiffness decreased by 5-10% during the restoration phase.
  • Prostheses demonstrated nonlinear force-deformation relationships with variable stiffness and hysteresis loops.

Conclusions:

  • In-situ stiffness of RSPs is higher than previously reported from machine testing.
  • Understanding in-situ properties is vital for RSPs, user applications, and clinical prescription.
  • Findings highlight the need for in-situ biomechanical analysis in prosthetic research.