PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2013 | 14 | 1 | 64-69
Article title

Differences in Tibiocalcaneal Kinematics Measured with Skin- and Shoe-Mounted Markers

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Purpose. The aim of the current investigation was to compare the 3-D tibiocalcaneal kinematics between skin- and shoe-mounted markers. Methods. Eleven male participants ran at 4.0m/s ± 5% along a 22 m runway. Tibiocalcaneal kinematics were captured simultaneously using markers placed externally on the shoe and on the skin through windows cut in the shoe. Paired t-tests were used to compare the 3-D kinematic parameters, and intraclass correlations were employed to contrast the kinematic waveforms. Results. Strong correlations were observed between the waveforms at R2 0.85. However, foot movements such as eversion range of motion, peak eversion, peak transverse plane range of motion, velocity of external rotation and peak eversion velocity were all significantly underestimated using shoe-mounted markers. Conclusions. The results indicate that shoe-mounted markers do not fully represent true foot movement.
Publisher
Journal
Year
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
64-69
Physical description
Dates
published
1 - 03 - 2013
online
24 - 04 - 2013
References
  • 1. Viitasalo J.T., Kvist M., Some biomechanical aspects of the foot and ankle athletes with and without shin splints. Am J Sports Med, 1983, 11 (3), 125-130, doi: 10.1177/036354658301100304.[Crossref]
  • 2. van Mechelen W., Running injuries: A review of the epidemiological literature. Sports Med, 1992, 14 (5), 320-335.[Crossref][PubMed]
  • 3. Taunton J.E., Ryan M.B., Clement D.B., McKenzie D.C., Lloyd-Smith D.R., Zumbo B.D., A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics. Br J Sports Med, 2003, 37 (3), 239-244, doi: 10. 1136/bjsm.37.3.239.[Crossref]
  • 4. Stacoff A., Reinschmidt C., Stüssi E., The movement of the heel within a running shoe. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1992, 24, 6, 695-701.[PubMed]
  • 5. Stacoff A., Kalin X., Stussi E., The effects of shoes on the torsion and rearfoot motion in running. Med SciSports Exerc, 1991, 23, 4, 482-490.
  • 6. Stacoff A., Nigg B.M., Reinschmidt C., van den Bogert A.J., Lundberg A., Tibiocalcaneal kinematics of barefoot versus shod running. J Biomech, 2000, 33 (11), 1387-1395, doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00116-0.[Crossref]
  • 7. Nigg B.M., Morlock M., The influence of lateral heel flare of running shoes on pronation and impact forces. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1987, 19 (3), 294-302.[PubMed]
  • 8. Hamill J., Bates B.T., Holt K.G., Timing of lower extremity joints actions during treadmill running. Med Sci SportsExerc, 1992, 24 (7), 808-813.
  • 9. Bishop C., Thewlis D., Uden H., Ogilvie D., Paul G., A radiological method to determine the accuracy of motion capture marker placement on palpable anatomical landmarks through a shoe. Footwear Sci, 2011, 3 (3), 169-177, doi: 10.1080/19424280.2011.635386.[Crossref]
  • 10. Reinschmidt C., Stacoff A., Stüssi E., Heel movement within a court shoe. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 1992, 24 (12), 1390-1395.[PubMed]
  • 11. Reinschmidt C., van den Bogert A.J., Murphy N., Lundberg A., Nigg B.M., Tibiocalcaneal motion during running, measured with external and bone markers. ClinBiomech, 1997, 12 (1), 8-16, doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(96) 00046-0.[Crossref]
  • 12. Richards J., Thewlis D., Anatomical models and markers sets. In: Richards J. (ed.) Biomechanics in clinic and research. Churchill Livingston Elsevier, 2008, 117-128.
  • 13. Sinclair J., Edmundson C.J., Brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Evaluation of kinematic methods of identifying gait events during running. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 2011, 5 (3), 188-192.
  • 14. Cappozzo A., Catani F., Della Croce U., Leardini A., Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech, 1995, 10 (4), 171-178, doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(95)91394-T.[Crossref]
  • 15. Shultz R., Jenkyn T., Determining the maximum diameter for holes in the shoe without compromising shoe integrity when using a multi-segment foot model. MedEng Phys, 2012, 34 (1), 118-122, doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy. 2011.06.017.[Crossref]
  • 16. Cappozzo A., Cappello A., Croce U.D., Pensalfini F., Surface-marker cluster design criteria for 3-D bone movement reconstruction. IEEE Transn Biomed Eng, 1997, 44 (12), 1165-1174, doi: 10.1109/10.649988.[Crossref]
  • 17. Sinclair J., Taylor P.J., Edmundson C.J., Brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Influence of the helical and six available Cardan sequences on 3D ankle joint kinematic parameters. Sports Biomech, 2012, 11 (3), 430-437, doi: 10.1080/14763141.2012.656762.[PubMed][WoS][Crossref]
  • 18. Eslami M., Begon M., Farahpour N., Allard P., Forefootrearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech, 2007, 22 (1), 74-80, doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech. 2006.08.002.[Crossref][WoS]
  • 19. Rothman K.J., No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1990, 1, 43-46.
  • 20. Sinclair J., Greenhalgh A., Edmundson C.J., Brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Gender Differences in the Kinetics and Kinematics of Distance Running: Implications for Footwear Design. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 2012, 6 (2), 118-128.
  • 21. MacWilliams B.A., Cowley M., Nicholson D.E., Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait. Gait Posture, 2003, 17 (3), 214-224, doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(02) 00103-0.[Crossref]
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.-psjd-doi-10_2478_humo-2013-0005
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.