Cyril Donnelly
Background: I help lead the precision rehabilitation research arm of the Rehabilitation Research Institute of Singapore, which is a collaborative research incentive between Nanyang Technological University, The Agency for Science, Technology and Research and The National Healthcare Group.
Previously, I held a tenured faculty position at the University of Australia. My education background includes a Bachelor of Kinesiology (Hons.) degree from McMaster University (Canada), Master of Science degree from The University of Waterloo (Canada), and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Biomechanics from the University of Western Australia (Australia).
Research Interests/Themes: With the use of advanced neuro-musculoskeletal modelling and analysis techniques, understand the principles and mechanisms underpinning human movement so to inform and translate best practice participant/patient-specific injury/disease management.
Specific research arms:
1) Neruo-Musculoskeletal modeling and simulation
2) Movement screening and monitoring
3) Real world translation
Phone: +65 8136 0652
Address: 11 Mandalay Rd
RRIS, Clinical Sciences Building
Singapore, 308232
Previously, I held a tenured faculty position at the University of Australia. My education background includes a Bachelor of Kinesiology (Hons.) degree from McMaster University (Canada), Master of Science degree from The University of Waterloo (Canada), and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Biomechanics from the University of Western Australia (Australia).
Research Interests/Themes: With the use of advanced neuro-musculoskeletal modelling and analysis techniques, understand the principles and mechanisms underpinning human movement so to inform and translate best practice participant/patient-specific injury/disease management.
Specific research arms:
1) Neruo-Musculoskeletal modeling and simulation
2) Movement screening and monitoring
3) Real world translation
Phone: +65 8136 0652
Address: 11 Mandalay Rd
RRIS, Clinical Sciences Building
Singapore, 308232
less
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Methods: We formulate new guidelines and evaluate them alongside the original 2015 recommendations using two movements: single-leg jump-landing (SLJL) and walking gait. We also present a MATLAB function for users to test if their simulations meet these guidelines.
Results: We found that on average, only 4.3% (SLJL) and 8.2% (walking gait) of the original 2015 residuals volume met all the new physics-based guidelines. The free-moment guideline was the most restrictive for reasonable simulations, especially for high-velocity movements at times with lower vertical ground reaction forces. Additionally, some of the new recommended residuals volume fell outside of the original 2015 recommendations. Moreover, accepting reasonable simulations using different thresholds leads to different joint torques as high as 24 Nm (SLJL) and 8.2 Nm (walking gait).
Conclusion: The physics-based guidelines are overall more restrictive than the original 2015 recommendations and elicit different simulation kinetics.
Significance: Using different guidelines may lead to different conclusions and clinical interpretations. We advocate for the physics-based guidelines as they are built upon the dynamic, physics-based characteristics of the movement.
Methods: We formulate new guidelines and evaluate them alongside the original 2015 recommendations using two movements: single-leg jump-landing (SLJL) and walking gait. We also present a MATLAB function for users to test if their simulations meet these guidelines.
Results: We found that on average, only 4.3% (SLJL) and 8.2% (walking gait) of the original 2015 residuals volume met all the new physics-based guidelines. The free-moment guideline was the most restrictive for reasonable simulations, especially for high-velocity movements at times with lower vertical ground reaction forces. Additionally, some of the new recommended residuals volume fell outside of the original 2015 recommendations. Moreover, accepting reasonable simulations using different thresholds leads to different joint torques as high as 24 Nm (SLJL) and 8.2 Nm (walking gait).
Conclusion: The physics-based guidelines are overall more restrictive than the original 2015 recommendations and elicit different simulation kinetics.
Significance: Using different guidelines may lead to different conclusions and clinical interpretations. We advocate for the physics-based guidelines as they are built upon the dynamic, physics-based characteristics of the movement.
Looking to the prospective research, links between ACL injury incidence and peak vertical ground reaction forces have been documented [4]. In the running literature, absolute peak rotational ground reaction moments (i.e., free moments) have been related to tibia stress fracture incidence [5]. As the transverse plane rotational loads are characteristic of sidestepping sporting movements, the aim of this research was to verify if a mechanical relationship exists between peak free moments during the WA phase of sidestepping and time varying, multi-component knee moment vectors.