Submitted:
19 July 2025
Posted:
21 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Systematic computational analysis of the combined effects of limb strength, stride length, and ground reaction force asymmetries, an approach previously unexplored comprehensively in the literature.
- Precise quantification of biomechanical changes and compensatory mechanisms under mild (±5%) and pronounced (±10%) asymmetry scenarios.
- Providing detailed, replicable computational benchmarks directly applicable in athletic practice, informing targeted interventions aimed at reducing injury risks and optimizing athletic performance.
1.1. Theoretical Foundations
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Computational Model
2.2. Parameter Definition
- gluteus maximus, gluteus medius (hip extension and stabilization),
- rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, vastus medialis (knee extension),
- gastrocnemius medialis/lateralis, soleus (ankle plantarflexion).
- editing the initial states of the pelvis translation vector (pelvis_tx) and segment velocities (v_segment) in the model’s .states or .mot files,
- applying asymmetric stride scaling factors to one limb using a 1D scalar multiplier applied to normalized joint angle profiles (e.g., for hip, knee, ankle flexion) extracted from inverse kinematics (IK) running data.
- point of application (typically the center of pressure under calcaneus or midfoot),
- force vector components (F<sub>z</sub>, F<sub>y</sub>, F<sub>x</sub>),
- timing and duration within the gait cycle.
2.3. Controlled Simulation and Manipulation
2.3.1. Simulation Setup and Execution Parameters
2.3.2. Implementation of Asymmetry Conditions
- Limb Strength Asymmetry: Implemented by scaling <max_isometric_force> for selected unilateral muscles within the model’s .osim file. Custom Python/Matlab scripts batch-processed model variants, generating five distinct models: baseline, ±5%, ±10%. No changes were made to tendon properties or excitation patterns.
- Stride Length Asymmetry: Achieved by modifying pelvis translation vectors (pelvis_tx) and lower limb segment angular trajectories in the .mot motion files. A 1D scaling factor was applied to step length on one limb while ensuring anatomical realism of joint excursions. Adjustments preserved gait phase durations and ensured bilateral timing alignment.
- GRF Asymmetry: Simulated using modified external load files (.xml/.sto), scaling the vertical GRF (F<sub>z</sub>) vector component for one limb by ±5% and ±10%. Adjustments were time-synchronized to stance onset and terminated at toe-off, avoiding distortions in timing or impulse duration. The anterior-posterior and mediolateral force components remained unchanged to isolate vertical loading effects.
2.3.3. Simulation Management and Reproducibility
- generation of modified input files (.osim, .mot, .xml),
- execution of OpenSim simulation calls,
- convergence tracking, file logging, and error handling,
- standardized output extraction and metadata tagging.
2.4. Data Extraction
2.5. Statistical Analysis and Visualization
- Ground Reaction Forces (GRF): External force components were extracted in all three orthogonal axes - vertical (F<sub>z</sub>), anterior-posterior (F<sub>y</sub>), and medial-lateral (F<sub>x</sub>) - at a sampling frequency of 1000 Hz. GRF time-series were normalized to body weight (expressed in BW units) and interpolated to 101 data points (0–100% stance) for temporal standardization. Analyses focused on extracting peak force magnitudes, impulse (force-time integrals), rate of force development (RFD), and inter-limb asymmetry metrics (e.g., Symmetry Index, Absolute Symmetry Index).
- Net Joint Moments: Internal joint moments at the hip, knee, and ankle were computed using OpenSim’s inverse dynamics solver, integrating external GRF data with model-derived kinematics. Moment data were normalized to body mass (Nm/kg) and resolved in the sagittal plane for consistency with running mechanics. Advanced analyses examined not only peak moment values and their temporal location (as % of gait cycle), but also waveform morphology using discrete point analysis and dynamic time warping (DTW) to quantify inter-condition deviations.
- Muscle Activation Patterns: Neuromuscular output was quantified using the Computed Muscle Control (CMC) algorithm, which generates physiologically plausible muscle excitation profiles required to match prescribed kinematics. Muscle activation values were recorded as continuous signals ranging from 0 to 1. Key lower-limb muscles were analyzed, including rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, semimembranosus, gastrocnemius medialis/lateralis, soleus, tibialis anterior, and gluteus maximus. Temporal activation profiles were segmented by gait phase (stance vs. swing), and statistical metrics such as peak amplitude, time-to-peak, and integrated activation (area under curve) were computed.
- Raw Data Export: Simulation output data were exported from OpenSim using built-in motion analysis tools and custom output reporters. These raw data files (.sto and .mot formats) were batch-processed and imported into MATLAB and Python environments using automated routines for parsing and metadata tagging.
- Data Preprocessing and Normalization: Biomechanical metrics were systematically preprocessed and normalized following standardized conventions: GRF to body weight (BW), joint moments to body mass (Nm/kg), and activations scaled between 0 and 1. All time-series were interpolated using cubic spline methods to standardize temporal resolution across gait cycles. Data matrices were structured hierarchically by condition (baseline, ±5%, ±10%), variable type, and limb.
- Statistical Inference: All inferential analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29). For each biomechanical outcome, a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to assess intra-subject effects across asymmetry levels. Mauchly’s test was applied to evaluate sphericity; Greenhouse–Geisser corrections were used where necessary. Post hoc pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted) identified specific contrasts between symmetrical and asymmetrical scenarios. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were computed for all pairwise contrasts, interpreted according to conventional thresholds: small (0.2), medium (0.5), and large (≥0.8). Additionally, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to quantify precision of estimates and support interpretation.
- Visualization and Reporting: High-resolution plots and comparative visualizations were generated using MATLAB and Matplotlib (Python). GRF, joint moment, and muscle activation profiles were plotted as mean ± standard deviation (SD) bands across gait cycles. Additional plots included bar graphs of discrete metrics (e.g., peak GRF), waveform overlays between conditions, and heatmaps of activation intensity. All figures were prepared at publication quality (300 DPI) and annotated to support direct interpretability by biomechanical and clinical audiences.
2.6. Biomechanical Interpretation and Practical Implications
3. Results
3.1. Ground Reaction Forces (GRF)
3.2. Joint Moments
3.3. Muscle Activation Patterns
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gao, Z.; Mei, Q.; Fernandez, J.; Gu, Y. The Effect of Prolonged Running on the Symmetry of Biomechanical Variables of the Lower Limb Joints. Symmetry 2020, 12, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maloney, S.J. The relationship between asymmetry and athletic performance: A critical review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 2579–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beck, O.N.; Azua, E.N.; Grabowski, A.M. Step Time Asymmetry Increases Metabolic Energy Expenditure during Running. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2018, 118, 2147–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stiffler-Joachim, M.R.; Lukes, D.H.; Kliethermes, S.A.; Heiderscheit, B.C. Lower Extremity Kinematic and Kinetic Asymmetries during Running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2021, 53, 945–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Struzik, A.; Winiarski, S.; Zawadzki, J. Inter-Limb Asymmetry of Leg Stiffness in National Second-League Basketball Players during Countermovement Jumps. Symmetry 2022, 14, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, K.T.; Pearson, L.T.; Hicks, K.M. The effect of lower inter-limb asymmetries on athletic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2023, 18, e0286942. [CrossRef]
- Haddad, M.; Martinez, A.; Inverso, G.; Young, W.; Fong, S.S.M.; Emirge, L.; Levin, O. Motor Asymmetry in Football: Implications for Muscular Power and Dynamic Balance. Symmetry 2024, 16, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, M. Association between Pre-Season Lower Limb Inter-Limb Asymmetry and Non-Contact Injuries in Elite Male Volleyball Players. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 14481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badău, A.; Badău, D.; Joksimović, M.; Manescu, C.O.; Manescu, D.C.; Dinciu, C.C.; Margarit, I.R.; Tudor, V.; Mujea, A.M.; Neofit, A.; Teodor, D.F. Identifying the Level of Symmetrization of Reaction Time According to Manual Lateralization between Team Sports Athletes, Individual Sports Athletes, and Non-Athletes. Symmetry 2024, 16, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, L.C.; Räisänen, A.M.; Clermont, C.A.; Ferber, R. Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis. Sensors 2022, 22, 1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ancillao, A.; Tedesco, S.; Barton, J.; O'Flynn, B. Indirect Measurement of Ground Reaction Forces and Moments by Means of Wearable Inertial Sensors: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2018, 18, 2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mănescu, D.C. Big Data Analytics Framework for Decision-Making in Sports Performance Optimization. Data 2025, 10, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halilaj, E.; Rajagopal, A.; Fiterau, M.; Hicks, J.L.; Hastie, T.J.; Delp, S.L. Machine Learning in Human Movement Biomechanics: Best Practices, Common Pitfalls, and New Opportunities. J. Biomech. 2018, 81, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seth, A.; Hicks, J.L.; Uchida, T.K.; Habib, A.; Dembia, C.L.; Dunne, J.J.; Ong, C.F.; DeMers, M.S.; Rajagopal, A.; Millard, M.; et al. OpenSim: Simulating musculoskeletal dynamics and neuromuscular control to study human and animal movement. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2018, 14, e1006223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Falisse, A.; Van Rossom, S.; Jonkers, I.; De Groote, F. EMG-driven optimal estimation of subject-specific Hill model muscle–tendon parameters of the knee joint actuators. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 64, 2253–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pizzolato, C.; Lloyd, D.G.; Sartori, M.; Ceseracciu, E.; Besier, T.F.; Fregly, B.J.; Reggiani, M. CEINMS: A toolbox to investigate the influence of different neural control solutions on the prediction of muscle excitation and joint moments during dynamic motor tasks. J. Biomech. 2015, 48, 3929–3936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hicks, J.L.; Uchida, T.K.; Seth, A.; Rajagopal, A.; Delp, S.L. Is My Model Good Enough? Best Practices for Verification and Validation of Musculoskeletal Models and Simulations of Movement. J. Biomech. Eng. 2015, 137, 020905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Odintsov, S.D.; Oikonomou, V.K. Towards Modelling Mechanical Shaking Using Potential Energy Surfaces: A Toy Model Analysis. Symmetry 2024, 16, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Astashenok, A.V.; Odintsov, S.D.; Oikonomou, V.K. Chandrasekhar Mass Limit of White Dwarfs in Modified Gravity. Symmetry 2023, 15, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dembia, C.L.; Bianco, N.A.; Falisse, A.; Hicks, J.L.; Delp, S.L. OpenSim Moco: Musculoskeletal optimal control. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2020, 16, e1008493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koźlenia, D.; Struzik, A.; Domaradzki, J. Force, Power, and Morphology Asymmetries as Injury Risk Factors in Physically Active Men and Women. Symmetry 2022, 14, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitto, L.; Kainz, H.; Falisse, A.; Wesseling, M.; Van Rossom, S.; Hoang, H.X.; Papageorgiou, E.; Bar-On, L.; Hallemans, A.; Desloovere, K.; et al. SimCP: A simulation platform to predict gait performance following orthopedic intervention in children with cerebral palsy. Front. Neurorobot. 2019, 13, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Țifrea, C.; Cristian, V.; Mănescu, D. Improving Fitness through Bodybuilding Workouts. Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 177–182. [Google Scholar]
- D’Hondt, J.; Chapelle, L.; Bishop, C.; Aerenhouts, D.; De Pauw, K.; Clarys, P.; D’Hondt, E. Association Between Inter-Limb Asymmetry and Determinants of Middle- and Long-distance Running Performance in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. Open 2024, 10, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vincent, H.K.; Popp, R.; Cicilioni, O.; Vincent, K.R.; Pezzullo, L.; Martenson, M.; Nixon, R.M. Reference biomechanical parameters and natural asymmetry among runners across the age spectrum without a history of running-related injuries. Front. Sports Act. Living 2025, 7, 1560756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Girard, O.; Brocherie, F.; Morin, J.-B.; Millet, G.P. Lower limb mechanical asymmetry during repeated treadmill sprints. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 52, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mănescu, D.C. Fundamente teoretice ale activitații fizice. 9: Editura ASE, 2013, ISBN, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Z.; Fekete, G.; Baker, J.S.; Liang, M.; Xuan, R.; Gu, Y. Effects of running fatigue on lower extremity symmetry among amateur runners: from a biomechanical perspective. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 899818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Badau, D.; Badau, A.; Ene-Voiculescu, V.; Ene-Voiculescu, C.; Teodor, D.F.; Sufaru, C.; Dinciu, C.C.; Dulceata, V.; Manescu, D.C.; Manescu, C.O. El Impacto De Las tecnologías En El Desarrollo De La Veloci-Dad Repetitiva En Balonmano, Baloncesto Y Voleibol. Retos 2025, 64, 809–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, L.C.; Hug, F. Muscle Activation and Biomechanics of Sprinting: A Meta-Analysis Integrating EMG, Kinematic, and Kinetic Data. Appl. Sci. 2023, 15, 4959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winiarski, S.; Kubiak, A.; Paluszak, A. Statistical Parametric Mapping Differences in Muscle Recruitment Patterns Between Comfort- and Performance-Oriented Saddle Positions. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luedke, L.E.; Heiderscheit, B.C.; Williams, D.S.B.; Rauh, M.J. Factors Associated with Self-Selected Step Rate in High School Cross Country Runners. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 1141–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, R.T.; Bianco, N.A.; Finley, J.M. Patterns of asymmetry and energy cost generated from predictive simulations of hemiparetic gait. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2022, 18, e1010466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Falisse, A.; Serrancolí, G.; Dembia, C.L.; Gillis, J.; Jonkers, I.; De Groote, F. Rapid predictive simulations with complex musculoskeletal models suggest that diverse healthy and pathological human gaits can emerge from similar control strategies. J. R. Soc. Interface 2019, 16, 20190402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Quan, W.; Gao, L.; Wang, S.; Zhou, P.; Zang, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, J.; Yang, R.; Fernandez, J.; Gu, Y. Simulation of Lower Limb Muscle Activation Using Running Shoes with Different Heel-to-Toe Drops Using OpenSim. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Groote, F.; Kinney, A.L.; Rao, A.V.; Fregly, B.J. Evaluation of direct collocation optimal control problem formulations for solving the muscle redundancy problem. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2016, 44, 2922–2936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uhlrich, S.D.; Jackson, R.W.; Seth, A.; Kolesar, J.A.; Delp, S.L. Muscle coordination retraining inspired by musculoskeletal simulations reduces knee contact force. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kainz, H.; Koller, W.; Wallnöfer, E.; Bader, T.R.; Mindler, G.T.; Kranzl, A.; et al. A framework based on subject-specific musculoskeletal models and Monte Carlo simulations to personalize muscle coordination retraining. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fregly, B.J.; Meyer, A.J.; Walker, J.A.; Besier, T.F.; Lloyd, D.G.; Delp, S.L. Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. J. Orthop. Res. 2012, 30, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serrancolí, G.; Falisse, A.; Dembia, C.L.; Vantilt, J.; Tanghe, K.; Lefeber, D.; Jonkers, I.; De Groote, F. Subject-exoskeleton contact model calibration leads to accurate interaction force predictions. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2019, 27, 1597–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Promsri, A.; Deedphimai, S.; Promthep, P.; Champamuang, C. Impacts of Wearable Resistance Placement on Running Efficiency Assessed by Wearable Sensors: A Pilot Study. Sensors 2024, 24, 4399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, J.; Liu, Y.; Wu, X. Early Identification of Gait Asymmetry Using a Dual-Channel Hybrid Deep Learning Model Based on a Wearable Sensor. Symmetry 2023, 15, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, M.; Hulleck, A.A.; Katmah, R.; Khalaf, K.; El-Rich, M. Multibody dynamics-based musculoskeletal modeling for gait analysis: A systematic review. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2024, 21, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Delp, S.L.; Anderson, F.C.; Arnold, A.S.; Loan, P.; Habib, A.; John, C.T.; Guendelman, E.; Thelen, D.G. OpenSim: Open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 54, 1940–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thelen, D.G.; Anderson, F.C. Using computed muscle control to generate forward dynamic simulations of human walking from experimental data. J. Biomech. 2006, 39, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vincent, H.K.; Popp, R.; Cicilioni, O.; Vincent, K.R.; Pezzullo, L.; Martenson, M.; Nixon, R.M. Reference biomechanical parameters and natural asymmetry among runners across the age spectrum without a history of running-related injuries. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 2025, 7, 1560756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zadpoor, A.A.; Nikooyan, A.A. The relationship between lower-extremity stress fractures and the ground reaction force: A systematic review. Clin. Biomech. 2011, 26, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, A.M.; Zifchock, R.A.; Hillstrom, H.J. The effects of limb dominance and fatigue on running biomechanics. Gait & Posture 2014, 39, 915–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Forelli, F.; Moiroux-Sahraoui, A.; Labib, M.; Cerrito, A. Gastrocnemius activation deficits and running biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the missing link? Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 2025, 7, article–1594247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dos'Santos, T.; Bishop, C.; Thomas, C.; Comfort, P.; Jones, P.A. The effect of limb dominance on change of direction biomechanics: a systematic review of its importance for injury risk. Phys. Ther. Sport 2019, 37, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brambilla, C.; Beltrame, G.; Marino, G.; Lanzani, V.; Gatti, R.; Portinaro, N.; Molinari Tosatti, L.; Scano, A. Biomechanical Analysis of Human Gait When Changing Velocity and Carried Loads: Simulation Study with OpenSim. Biology 2024, 13, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buchanan, S.; Ting, L. Patterns of asymmetry and energy cost generated from predictive simulations of hemiparetic gait. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2022, 18, e1010466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valente, G.; Pitto, L.; Testi, D.; Seth, A.; Delp, S.L.; Stagni, R.; Viceconti, M.; Taddei, F. Are subject-specific musculoskeletal models robust to the uncertainties in parameter identification? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |




| Condition |
Limb Strength (Max Isometric Force,F<sub>max</sub>) |
Stride Length (Joint Kinematics,.mot) |
Ground Reaction Force (Vertical GRF,.xml/.sto) |
| Baseline (Symmetrical) | 100% F<sub>max</sub> (default model) |
100% step length; standard joint angles and velocities |
100% vertical GRF; symmetrical loading profile |
| Mild Asymmetry (+5%) | +5% on stronger limb, –5% on weaker limb; edited in <max_isometric_force> |
+5% stride length on one limb; scaled pelvis progression & joint kinematics |
+5% increase on one limb; custom GRF vector scaled (stance phase only) |
|
Mild Asymmetry (–5%) |
–5% on stringer limb, +5% on weaker limb; same XML implementation |
–5% stride length; reduced angular excursions in .mot |
–5% GRF magnitude; reduced loading curve on one side |
| Pronounced Asymmetry (+10%) | +10% F<sub>max</sub> unilateral increase |
+10% stride length asymmetry;expanded pelvic translation & joint ranges | +10% GRF increase; modified .sto force-time series |
|
Pronounced Asymmetry (–10%) |
–10% F<sub>max</sub> unilateral decrease |
–10% stride length; compressed joint trajectories |
–10% GRF magnitude; reduced vertical loading per stance |
| Condition | Limb | GRF (BW) | p-value | Cohen’sd | 95% CI |
| Symmetrical | Both | 2.60 ± 0.07 | — | — | — |
| Mild Asymmetry (+5%) | Strong Limb | 2.81 ± 0.11 | < 0.01 | 1.04 | [0.68, 1.41] |
| Weak Limb | 2.37 ± 0.09 | < 0.01 | 1.09 | [0.72, 1.46] | |
| Pronounced Asymmetry (+10%) | Strong Limb | 2.94 ± 0.13 | < 0.001 | 2.28 | [1.88, 2.69] |
| Weak Limb | 2.20 ± 0.12 | < 0.001 | 2.02 | [1.63, 2.41] |
| Condition | Hip Moment (Nm/kg) | p-value | Cohen’s d [95% CI] | Knee Moment (Nm/kg) | p-value | Cohen’s d [95% CI] | Ankle Moment (Nm/kg) | p-value | Cohen’s d [95% CI] |
| Symmetrical | 2.5 ± 0.10 | - | - | 3.6 ± 0.11 | - | - | 2.8 ± 0.09 | - | - |
| Mild Asymmetry (Strong Limb) | 2.7 ± 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.76 [0.42, 1.10] | 3.9 ± 0.17 | 0.003 | 1.12 [0.76, 1.47] | 3.1 ± 0.13 | 0.005 | 1.10 [0.74, 1.45] |
| Mild Asymmetry (Weak Limb) | 2.3 ± 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.72 [0.38, 1.06] | 3.2 ± 0.15 | 0.005 | 0.82 [0.49, 1.15] | 2.5 ± 0.12 | 0.004 | 0.96 [0.61, 1.30] |
| Pronounced Asymmetry (Strong Limb) | 2.9 ± 0.13 | <0.001 | 1.32 [0.97, 1.66] | 4.3 ± 0.18 | <0.001 | 2.07 [1.67, 2.46] | 3.4 ± 0.14 | <0.001 | 1.81 [1.43, 2.19] |
| Pronounced Asymmetry (Weak Limb) | 2.1 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | 1.53 [1.17, 1.89] | 2.9 ± 0.13 | <0.001 | 1.86 [1.48, 2.24] | 2.3 ± 0.11 | <0.001 | 1.78 [1.40, 2.15] |
| Muscle | Condition | Limb | Activation (0–1) | p-value | Cohen’sd | 95% CI |
| Gastrocnemius | Symmetrical | Both | 0.65 ± 0.07 | — | — | — |
| Gastrocnemius | Pronounced (+10%) | Strong Limb | 0.82 ± 0.09 | < 0.001 | 1.78 | [1.42, 2.14] |
| Quadriceps | Symmetrical | Both | 0.63 ± 0.06 | — | — | — |
| Quadriceps | Pronounced (+10%) | Strong Limb | 0.78 ± 0.08 | < 0.001 | 1.62 | [1.27, 1.97] |
| Tibialis Anterior | ±10% Asymmetry | Strong Limb | +10–12% change | 0.03 | 0.95 | [0.60, 1.30] |
| Tibialis Anterior | ±10% Asymmetry | Weak Limb | –12–15% change | < 0.01 | 1.50 | [1.20, 1.90] |
| Hamstrings | Pronounced (+10%) | Strong Limb | 0.74 ± 0.07 | < 0.001 | 1.54 | [1.20, 1.89] |
| Hamstrings | Pronounced (+10%) | Weak Limb | 0.61 ± 0.06 | < 0.001 | 1.48 | [1.14, 1.82] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).