Comparison of Plug-in Gait and CGM2.3 models reveals systematic differences in joint kinematics and kinetics

Thiel, Tom, Valtonen, Anu M., Kulmala, Juha-Pekka and Cronin, Neil ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-1188 (2026) Comparison of Plug-in Gait and CGM2.3 models reveals systematic differences in joint kinematics and kinetics. Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-52289-x (In Press)

Preview

Text 16291 Thiel et al (2026) Comparison of Plug in Gait.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (5MB) | Preview

Abstract

This study compared two widely used biomechanical models—Plug-in Gait (PiG) and Conventional Gait Model 2.3 (CGM2.3)—during overground walking (WALK) and single-leg squats (SLS) in 24 healthy adults. Data was collected using a 20-camera Vicon system and force plates. Static trials were analyzed with medial knee and ankle markers to align joint axes across models. Kinematic and kinetic outputs were compared using root mean square differences (RMSD) and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) paired t-tests. During WALK, PiG produced greater internal rotation at the knee (RMSD 17.8°, p < 0.001) and hip (RMSD 5.0°, p < 0.001), and smaller sagittal-plane flexion angles (RMSD 2.6° knee, 2.3° hip) compared with CGM2.3. In single-leg squats, these discrepancies increased to 29.1° and 9.0°, respectively, with sagittal-plane differences of 4.4° at the knee and 5.1° at the hip. CGM2.3 yielded higher knee flexion moments (31% in WALK, 104% in SLS), while PiG produced higher frontal-plane knee moments (28% and 89%). The differences were most pronounced at deeper flexion angles. These results demonstrate that biomechanical outcomes differ systematically between models, emphasizing the impact of model selection on joint kinematics and kinetics in human movement analysis.

Item Type:	Article
Article Type:	Article
Additional Information:	We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Conventional gait model; Kinematics; Kinetics; Gait analysis
Subjects:	Q Science > QP Physiology
Divisions:	Schools and Research Institutes > School of Education, Health and Sciences
Depositing User:	Charlotte Crutchlow
Date Deposited:	19 May 2026 07:12
Last Modified:	19 May 2026 08:00
URI:	https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/16291

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record