Innovations and pitfalls in the use of wearable devices in the prevention and rehabilitation of running related injuries  Richard W. Willy, PhD, PT  Physical Therapy in Sport  Volume 29, Pages 26-33 (January 2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.10.003 Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Fig. 1 The average loading rate of the vertical ground reaction force was only reduced in high impact runners with a prescribed increase in step rate. The low impact runners did not reduce loading rates with the step rate increase. Thus, the added number of gait cycles necessitated by the cued increase in step rate would result in greater cumulative loading across a training run for the low impact runners. This example illustrates a clear need to assess baseline running mechanics and any corresponding response to an intervention. Data adapted from Baggaley et al., 2017. Physical Therapy in Sport 2018 29, 26-33DOI: (10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.10.003) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Fig. 2 Placement of inertial measurement units to quantify lower limb biomechanics. From, Seel, Thomas, Jörg Raisch, and Thomas Schauer. “IMU-based joint angle measurement for gait analysis.” Sensors 14.4 (2014): 6891–6909. Physical Therapy in Sport 2018 29, 26-33DOI: (10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.10.003) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3 Examples of available wearable devices that can be used for the evaluation and treatment of runners. A) ImeasureU™ inertial measurement unit (Auckland, NZ); B) Runscribe™ intertial measurement unit (EI Granada, CA, USA) C) Garmin Forerunner 230™ global positioning system running watch providing real-time feedback on step rate (cadence); Figure D) zFlo Moticon™ insole (Westbrook, ME, USA) for assessment of plantar pressures; and, E) Sample plantar pressure report from zFlo Moticon™ analytical software. Fig. 3D and E are courtesy of zFlo Motion, Inc. Physical Therapy in Sport 2018 29, 26-33DOI: (10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.10.003) Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions