Korean Journal of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회지)

Korean Society of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Differences of the Normalized Jerk According to Shoes, Velocity and Slope During Walking

보행시 신발, 속도, 그리고 경사도에 따른 정규 저크의 차이

  • Published : 2006.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate normalized jerk according to shoes, slope, and velocity during walking. Eleven different test subjects used three different types of shoes (running shoes, mountain climbing boots, and elevated forefoot walking shoes) at various walking speeds(1.19, 1.25, 1.33, 1.56, 1.78, 1.9, 2, 2.11, 2.33m/sec) and gradients(0, 3, 6, 10 degrees) on a treadmill. Since there were concerns about using the elevated forefoot shoes on an incline, these shoes were not used on a gradient. Motion Analysis (Motion Analysis Corp. Santa Rosa, CA USA) was conducted with four Falcon high speed digital motion capture cameras. Utilizing the maximum smoothness theory, it was hypothesized that there would be differences in jerk according to shoe type, velocity, and slope. Furthermore, it was assumed that running shoes would have the lowest values for normalized jerk because subjects were most accustomed to wearing these shoes. The results demonstrated that elevated forefoot walking shoes had lowest value for normalized jerk at heel. In contrast, elevated forefoot walking shoes had greater normalized jerk at the center of mass at most walking speeds. For most gradients and walking speeds, hiking boots had smaller medio-lateral directional normalized jerk at ankle than running shoes. These results alluded to an inverse ratio for jerk at the heel and at the COM for all types of shoes. Furthermore, as velocity increased, medio-lateral jerk was reduced for all gradients in both hiking boots and running shoes. Due to the fragility of the ankle joint, elevated forefoot walking shoes could be recommended for walking on flat surfaces because they minimize instability at the heel. Although the elevated forefoot walking shoes have the highest levels of jerk at the COM, the structure of the pelvis and spine allows for greater compensatory movement than the ankle. This movement at the COM might even have a beneficial effect of activating the muscles in the back and abdomen more than other shoes. On inclines hiking boots would be recommended over running shoes because hiking boots demonstrated more medio-lateral stability on a gradient than running shoes. These results also demonstrate the usefulness of normalized jerk theory in analyzing the relationship between the body and shoes, walking velocity, and movement up a slope.

Keywords

References

  1. 국소해부학(2002). 대한해부학회 편, 고려의학
  2. 김용재, 지진구, 김정태, 홍준희, 이중숙, 이훈식, 박승범 (2004). "20대 여성의 신발종류에 따른 족저압 영역별 비교연구", 한국운동역학회지, 제14권 3호, 93-89
  3. 백남종, 임민석(1997). "보행시 족저압 중심의 이동경로에 관한 연구", 재활의학지, 제21권 4호, 762-772
  4. 이경옥(2005). "발끝이 최대높이까지 올라간 워킹화가 신체구성, 체력, 건강관련 변인에 미치는영향", 한국여성체육학회지, 제19권 제1호. 9-26
  5. 이중숙, 김용재, 박승범(2003). "기능성 전문테니스와 압력분포 분석", 한국운동역학회지, 제4권 3호, 99-118
  6. 최규정, 권희자(2003). "보행용 전문 신발과 일반 운동화의 운동역학적 비교 분석", 한국운동역학회지, 제13권 2호, 161-173 https://doi.org/10.5103/KJSB.2003.13.2.161
  7. 한영민, 최진승, 박상균, Darren Stefanyshyn, 이정한, 탁계래(2005). "보행속도와 동작의 유연성과의 상관관계에 관한 연구", 2005 대한의용생체공학회 추계학술대회 논문집, 101
  8. Bates, B.T.(1985). Testing and evaluation of running shoes. In D.A.Winter, RW Norman, R.P.Wells, K.C. Hayes, & A.E. Patla (Eds.), Biomechanics IX-B (128-132). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  9. Bates, RT., James, S.L., Osterning, L.R, Sawhill, J.A, & Hamill,J.(1981). Effects of running shoes on ground reaction forces. In A Morecki,K Fidelus, K Kedzior, & A Wit (Eds.), Biomechanics VII-B (30-39). Baltimore: University Park
  10. Bauer, H(1970). The effect of high-top and low-eut football shoes on speed and agility. Athletic Journal, 50, 74-77
  11. Bieber, J.M, Coates, J.C, Lohmann, K,& Danoff, J. (1988). The effects of pronation-controlling orthotic devices on pressure and force under the foot during dynamics stance. Physical Therapy Journal, 68, 805
  12. Brain A.(2002). Medical Colounm foot system: on innovative tool for improving posture Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 6(1), 37-46 https://doi.org/10.1054/jbmt.2001.0261
  13. Oarke, T.E., Frederick, E.C., & Cooper, L.B.(1983). Biomechanical measurement of running shoe cushioning properties, In B.M Nigg & B.A Kerr(Eds.), Biomechanical aspects of sports shoes and playing surfaces (25-34). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
  14. Clarke, T.E, Frederick, E.C., & Hamill, C.L.(1983). The effect of shoe design uponrearfoot control in running, Medicine and Science in Sports and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15(5), 376-381
  15. Frederick, E.C.(1986). Kinematically mediated effects of sport shoe design: A review. Journal of Sports Science, 4, 169-184 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640418608732116
  16. Frederick, E.C, Oarke, T.E., & Hamill, C.L. (1983). Shoe design and rearfoot control in running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 15(2), 176
  17. Hreljac, A(2000). Stride smoothness evaluation of runners and other athletes. Gait and Posture, Vol. 11, 188-206.
  18. Hreljac, A, Martin, P. E.(l993). The relationship between smoothness and economy during walking. BioI. Cybern Vol. 69, 213-218 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198961
  19. Saibene, F., Minetti, A.E.(2003). Biomechanical and physiological aspects of legged Iocorrotion in humans. European Journal Of Applied Physiology, 88(4-5), 297-316 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0654-9
  20. Wells, R, Winter, D.(1980). Assessment of signal and noise in the kinematics of normal, pathological and sporting gaits. Proceeding of the special conference of the Canadian Society for Biomechanics(CSB), Human Locomotion I, 92-93

Cited by

  1. Tendencies of the Researches on Foot Measurement Reported in Korean Journals vol.32, pp.4, 2008, https://doi.org/10.5850/JKSCT.2008.32.4.608
  2. The Effect of Form and Hardness of Outsoles on the Motion of the Lower Extremity Joints and on Foot Pressure during Gait vol.21, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5103/KJSB.2011.21.2.223
  3. Medial Longitudinal Arch Balanced Analysis of the Calibration vol.8, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2014.8.2.51