Trial- vs. cycle-level detrending in the analysis of cyclical biomechanical data

• Pataky Todd C
• Rao Guillaume

Biomechanical time series may contain low-frequency trends due to factors like electromechanical drift, attentional drift and fatigue. Existing detrending procedures are predominantly conducted at the trial level, removing trends that exist over finite, adjacent time windows, but this fails to consider what we term ‘cycle-level trends’: trends that occur in cyclical movements like gait and that vary across the movement cycle, for example: positive and negative drifts in early and late gait phases, respectively. The purposes of this study were to describe cycle-level detrending and to investigate the frequencies with which cycle-level trends (i) exist, and (ii) statistically affect results. Anterioposterior ground reaction forces (GRF) from the 41-subject, 8-speed, open treadmill walking dataset of Fukuchi (2018) were analyzed. Of a total of 574 analyzed trials, significant cycle-level trends were found approximately three times more frequently (21.1%) than significant trial-level trends (7.4%). In statistical comparisons of adjacent walking speeds (i.e., speed 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, etc.) just 3.3% of trials exhibited cycle-level trends that changed the null hypothesis rejection decision. However 17.6% of trials exhibited cycle-level trends that qualitatively changed the stance phase regions identified as significant. Although these results are preliminary and derived from just one dataset, results suggest that cycle-level trends can contribute to analysis bias, and therefore that cycle-level trends should be considered and/or removed where possible. Software implementing the proposed cycle-level detrending is available at https://github.com/0todd0000/detrend1d.