PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between differences in comfort and changes in lower extremity kinematic and kinetic variables and muscle activity in response to foot orthoses. METHODS: Twenty-one recreational runners volunteered for this study. Three orthotic conditions (posting, custom-molding, and posting and custom-molding) were compared with a control (flat) insert. Lower extremity kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data were collected for 108 trials per subject and condition in nine sessions per subject for overground running at 4 m.s-1. Comfort for all orthotic conditions was assessed in each session using a visual analog scale. The statistical tests used included repeated measures ANOVA, linear regression analysis, and discriminant analysis (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Comfort ratings were significantly different between orthotic conditions and the control condition ([lower, upper] confidence limits; posting: [-3.1, -0.8]; molding: [0.4, 3.4]; and posting and molding: [-1.1, 1.9]); 34.9% of differences in comfort were explained by changes in 15 kinematic, kinetic, and EMG variables. The 15 kinematic, kinetic, and EMG variables that partially explained differences in comfort classified 75.0% of cases correctly to the corresponding orthotic condition. DISCUSSION: In general, comfort is an important and relevant feature of foot orthoses. Evaluations of foot orthoses using comfort do not only reflect subjective perceptions but also differences in functional biomechanical variables. Future research should focus on defining the relationship between comfort and biomechanical variables for material modifications of footwear, different modes of locomotion, and the general population.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between differences in comfort and changes in lower extremity kinematic and kinetic variables and muscle activity in response to foot orthoses. METHODS: Twenty-one recreational runners volunteered for this study. Three orthotic conditions (posting, custom-molding, and posting and custom-molding) were compared with a control (flat) insert. Lower extremity kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data were collected for 108 trials per subject and condition in nine sessions per subject for overground running at 4 m.s-1. Comfort for all orthotic conditions was assessed in each session using a visual analog scale. The statistical tests used included repeated measures ANOVA, linear regression analysis, and discriminant analysis (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Comfort ratings were significantly different between orthotic conditions and the control condition ([lower, upper] confidence limits; posting: [-3.1, -0.8]; molding: [0.4, 3.4]; and posting and molding: [-1.1, 1.9]); 34.9% of differences in comfort were explained by changes in 15 kinematic, kinetic, and EMG variables. The 15 kinematic, kinetic, and EMG variables that partially explained differences in comfort classified 75.0% of cases correctly to the corresponding orthotic condition. DISCUSSION: In general, comfort is an important and relevant feature of foot orthoses. Evaluations of foot orthoses using comfort do not only reflect subjective perceptions but also differences in functional biomechanical variables. Future research should focus on defining the relationship between comfort and biomechanical variables for material modifications of footwear, different modes of locomotion, and the general population.
Authors: Shannon E Munteanu; Karl B Landorf; Hylton B Menz; Jill L Cook; Tania Pizzari; Lisa A Scott Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2009-10-24 Impact factor: 2.303