An unstable rocker-bottom shoe alters lower extremity biomechanics during level walking

Paquette

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

2013

Self Cite

BackgroundFlip-flops and sandals are popular choices of footwear due to their convenience. However, the effects of these types of footwear on lower extremity biomechanics are still poorly understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate differences in ground reaction force (GRF), center of pressure (COP) and lower extremity joint kinematic and kinetic variables during level-walking in flip-flops, sandals and barefoot compared to running shoes.MethodsTen healthy males performed five walking trials in the four footwear conditions at 1.3 m/s. Three-dimensional GRF and kinematic data were simultaneously collected.ResultsA smaller loading rate of the 1st peak vertical GRF and peak propulsive GRF and greater peak dorsiflexion moment in early stance were found in shoes compared to barefoot, flip-flops and sandals. Barefoot walking yielded greater mediolateral COP displacement, flatter foot contact angle, increased ankle plantarflexion contact angle, and smaller knee flexion contact angle and range of motion compared to all other footwear.ConclusionsThe results from this study indicate that barefoot, flip-flops and sandals produced different peak GRF variables and ankle moment compared to shoes while all footwear yield different COP and ankle and knee kinematics compared to barefoot. The findings may be helpful to researchers and clinicians in understanding lower extremity mechanics of open-toe footwear.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of gait biomechanics of flip‐flops, sandals, barefoot and shoes

Paquette

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

2013

Self Cite

Physical Activity and Health

“…With the increase of walking speed, the overall movement amplitude of hip was not changed greatly; the hip may be the joint as a typical ball and socket joint, which the joint capsule was thick, tense and the joint fissure was deeper, so in the course of movement it was rugged and less flexible. At the same time, the movement of joint was proportional to the speed increasing in the sagittal and horizontal plane; it showed that when walking fast, the subjects increased the hip amplitude of movement in order to maintain the original balance (Zhang et al 2012), especially the increasing of hip abduction throughout the stance phase.…”

Section: Hip Jointsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Research has found hip extension ROM and peak hip extension will increase with increasing speed. The results show that as the speed increases, the effect of unstable shoes on the hip joint is amplified (Zhang et al 2012;Myers et al 2006). With the increase of walking speed, the overall movement amplitude of hip was not changed greatly; the hip may be the joint as a typical ball and socket joint, which the joint capsule was thick, tense and the joint fissure was deeper, so in the course of movement it was rugged and less flexible.…”

Section: Hip Jointsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Effects of Unstable Shoes on Lower Limbs with Different Speeds

Wang

Qiu

Chen

et al. 2019

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of walking at different speeds with wearing unstable shoes on the movement of the lower limbs, and to provide relevant biomechanical supports for fitness and injury prevention. Methods: Twelve females volunteered to join the test. The walking speed was respectively 0.80 m/s, 1.20 m/s and 1.70 m/s. The kinematic parameters of the lower limb of ankle, knee and hip measured with Vicon motion analysis system. And univariate repeated measurements of variance analysis was used to measure the effect of unstable shoes in lower limbs joints in three differences speeds. Results: The movement pattern of the hip joint is relatively stable and is less affected by the speed. It is mainly manifested in the extension, abduction and external rotation of the hip joint. The knee joint is affected by the walking speed, especially in the coronal plane and the horizontal plane. The angle range of motion of the ankle joint are larger than hip joint, there have increased of the dorsiflexion, inversion and internal rotation in ankle joint. Conclusion: For the lower extremities of the hip, knee and ankle joints, with the increase of walking speed, joint angle and range of activities also showed varying degrees of increase; and joint angle peaks are in the pre-support period.

“…For example kinematic algorithms have been compared for detection during walking (O'Connor et al 2006, Desailly et al 2009, De Witt 2010, Pantall et al 2012 or running (Maiwald et al 2009, De Witt 2010, Sinclair et al 2011) and foot switches have been evaluated against pressure matrices (Beauchet et al 2008). However, in a number of applications such as when the effects of different footwear are under investigation, it is common to use kinematic (Shroyer and Weimar 2010, Hardin et al 2004, Zhang et al 2012, Horsak and Baca 2013, TenBroek et al 2013 or pressure insoles (Lythgo et al 2009, Moreno-Hern andez et al 2010, Price et al 2013 to describe changes in movement biomechanics. These changes are often illustrated by measuring the differences in selected spatio-temporal parameters such as walking speed, stride time (or cycle time) and stance time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Initial contact (IC) and end of contact or foot off (FO) can be used to determine the start and end of these phases. Their detection is used for the analysis of spatio-temporal gait parameters, which in turn are used for a variety of applications including the characterisation of gait (Lythgo et al 2009, Moreno-Hern andez et al 2010 or running styles (Hardin et al 2004, Lohman et al 2011) under shod and barefoot conditions and to evaluate the effect of specific footwear on human biomechanics (Shroyer and Weimar 2010, Zhang et al 2012, Horsak and Baca 2013, TenBroek et al 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of kinematic and pressure measurement reference methods used in gait event detection

et al. 2014

Purpose: A variety of methods have been proposed for detection of initial contact (IC) and foot off (FO) and some comparative analysis is reported in the literature. Pressure measurement insoles and kinematic systems are often part of footwear analysis. Although gait event detection algorithms using these systems have been proposed and evaluated against kinetic data (KN) from force platforms (typically used as a 'gold standard'), they have not been compared directly. The objective of this work was to undertake this comparison using the same volunteer dataset and test conditions.Methods: Data from 10 healthy adults walking at self-selected normal speed were collected. Two kinematic algorithms (one using a fixed threshold, KM, and the other using high pass-filtering, HPA) and one algorithm using pressure measurement data from an insole (Contact Area Detection, AD) were tested and compared with the detection provided by KN. All data were synchronised and sampled at 200 Hz. Six basic spatio-temporal parameters were also calculated.Results: The absolute mean difference (AMD) in event detection between the three methods and KN was below 25 ms. However, the methods presented tendencies to detect events earlier or later than KN and this influenced the AMD between the methods, which increased to 47 ms for IC detection between HPA and AD. The spatio-temporal parameters showed no statistically significant differences between AD and KM, but differences reached statistical significance between AD and HPA.Conclusion: It is possible to compare gait events and basic spatio-temporal parameters detected using data from pressure measurement insoles and kinematic algorithms; however the kinematic algorithm used will influence the results. Hence the comparison of findings from alternative detection methods is an important issue for which information about the behaviour of the method used is required. © 2014 © 2014 Taylor & Francis