Do rotational shear-cushioning shoes influence horizontal ground reaction forces and perceived comfort during basketball cutting maneuvers?

Lam, Wing-Kai; Qu, Yi; Yang, Fan; Cheung, Roy T.H.

doi:10.7717/peerj.4086

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While it could not be identified precisely how this small difference could influence the study outcomes, the only possibility that exist is the shoe with higher heel-to-toe drop could possibly offer a slight extra cushioning feature to the shoe. However, the study by Lam et al ( 2017 ) identified that cushioning provides no advantage to the horizontal ground reaction force component that is crucial during short-exertion, high-intensity movement such as short-distance sprint and change of direction tasks. Therefore, it can be suggested that the influence of heel-to-toe drop difference was minimal in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Forefoot Bending Stiffness of Futsal Shoes on Multiple V-Cut Run Performance

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A forefoot bending stiffness (FBS) property of footwear is known to benefit athletes in running performance. To date, the efficacy of bending stiffness on performance is rather unknown from the perspective of futsal shoes. This study investigates the influence of bending stiffness property of three commercial futsal shoes on change of direction run resultant performance. Nineteen university level athletes participated in the human performance test (multiple V-cut change of direction run) on a hardwood flooring facility using three pairs of futsal shoes (i.e., S1, S2, and S3) with different models but similar in outsole material (S1—mass: 311 g, heel-to-toe drop: 10 mm, friction coefficient, 1.25; S2—mass: 232 g, heel-to-toe drop: 8 mm, friction coefficient: 1.34; and S3—mass: 276 g, heel-to-toe drop: 7 mm, friction coefficient: 1.30). The FBS properties for each shoe were mechanically measured. Results from the analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant difference of FBS value among the three shoes (S1: 0.32 Nm/deg., S2: 0.26 Nm/deg., and S3: 0.36 Nm/deg.) [F(2,8) = 28.50 (p < 0.001)]. Shoes with relatively higher shoe-playing surface friction coefficient (S2 and S3) had significant impact on the V-cut performance (p < 0.05) when compared with the shoe with lower friction coefficient (S1). In contrast to the literature, the shoe with the lowest FBS (S2) did not suffer any detriments on the resultant performance in the test conducted. These findings suggested that there could be other performance limiting factors, such as the friction coefficient, rather than FBS that have greater influence on the test outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Forefoot Bending Stiffness of Futsal Shoes on Multiple V-Cut Run Performance

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the contrary, others have shown that overall comfort level could be perceived in a 45°side-cutting task when examining the effects of a shear cushioning system in the forefoot. 5 Nin et al 17 found that cushioning intensity of basketball shoes can be consistently rated according to midsole hardness conditions in layup, shot-blocking, and drop-landing tasks, but rearfoot stability could only be differentiated during the layup task. This suggests that human perception to athletic footwear properties may be task specific and function specific, while a specific degree of functional shoe modification is needed to reach athlete awareness.…”

Section: Subjective Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding injury prevention, it is desirable if footwear midsole material can minimize the risk of sportsrelated injuries. 5 During basketball games, non-contact lower extremity injuries, such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and ankle ligament sprains, are common. 6 Players often perform cutting maneuvers to change direction, which impose high pressure in the forefoot region 7 and great loading in the lower extremities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, during a 45°cutting maneuver of male university basketball players, basketball shoes with a softer midsole shore hardness (50 Asker C) were reported to reduce plantar loading in the forefoot region compared with shoes with a harder midsole (60 Asker C). 5 Currently, the biomechanical effects of shoe midsole rebound properties on side-cutting movements are unclear. Thus, it is of interest to investigate if customized shoe midsoles with different rebound properties influence the biomechanics of side-cutting movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of basketball shoe midsole inserts featuring different mechanical rebound properties on biomechanical loading and subjective perception during a side-cutting maneuver

Pan

Sterzing²,

Pang

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the influence of basketball shoe midsole inserts with different forefoot and rearfoot rebound properties on biomechanical loading and subjective perception during a side-cutting maneuver. Eleven male basketball players executed side cutting in four shoe conditions mechanically characterized for their rearfoot/forefoot rebound: compliant/compliant, springy/springy, compliant/springy, and springy/compliant. Lower extremity kinetics and kinematics (normalized to body mass), as well as subjective perception, were measured. During the weight-acceptance phase, there were no differences between shoes in all biomechanical variables, except a slightly greater ankle range of motion (1.2° greater than the other three shoes) in the frontal plane for shoe compliant/springy. During the push-off phase, shoe springy/springy led to a greater ankle plantarflexion moment (1.21 Nm/kg greater than the other three shoes, p < 0.001) and knee internal rotation moment (0.09 Nm/kg greater than the other three shoes, p = 0.012), while shoe compliant/springy resulted in a greater ankle range of motion in the frontal plane (1.4° greater than the other three shoes, p < 0.001). Perception data showed no statistically significant difference among any shoes. In conclusion, springy inserts of basketball shoe midsoles induced a biomechanical loading effect. Perception of players being unaffected indicates the importance of biomechanical evaluation to examine the effects of the given shoe modifications during side cutting.

show abstract

“…The impact force and pressure distribution characteristics between the feet and the shoes must be understood to effectively optimize the technical movements, reduce foot injuries, and improve the design of specialized shoes [6]. However, the existing studies on foot loading have mainly focused on common gait characteristics, such as walking and running [7,8], and studies on specific sports maneuvers, such as cross-over running and lay-up jumping [9][10][11], are limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoe Cushioning Effects on Foot Loading and Comfort Perception during Typical Basketball Maneuvers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the relationship between foot loading and comfort perception in two basketball shoes during basketball-specific maneuvers. Methods: Twelve male collegiate basketball players were required to complete three basketball maneuvers (i.e., side-step cutting, 90 • L-direction running, and lay-up jumping) in two basketball shoe conditions (shoe L and shoe N, with different midsole cushioning types). Two Kistler force plates and a Medilogic insole plantar pressure system were used to collect kinetic data (i.e., impact force, peak loading rate, and plantar pressure variables). Perception scales were used to evaluate comfort perception. Results: No significant difference was observed between the two shoes during maneuvers in terms of ground reaction force. However, the plantar pressure of shoe L in the midfoot and lateral foot regions was significantly greater than that of shoe N during side-step cutting and lay-up jumping. Shoe N was significantly superior to shoe L, especially in dynamic scale in terms of the perception of comfort. The plantar pressure and perception characteristics in the two shoes were significantly different but inconsistent with each other. Conclusion: The biomechanical characteristics of the shoes themselves and the perception evaluation of the athletes should be considered in comprehensive shoe-cushioning design and evaluation.

show abstract

Do rotational shear-cushioning shoes influence horizontal ground reaction forces and perceived comfort during basketball cutting maneuvers?

Cited by 11 publications

References 29 publications

The Influence of Forefoot Bending Stiffness of Futsal Shoes on Multiple V-Cut Run Performance

The Influence of Forefoot Bending Stiffness of Futsal Shoes on Multiple V-Cut Run Performance

Influence of basketball shoe midsole inserts featuring different mechanical rebound properties on biomechanical loading and subjective perception during a side-cutting maneuver

Shoe Cushioning Effects on Foot Loading and Comfort Perception during Typical Basketball Maneuvers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About