Literature DB >> 22138273

Methodological considerations of task and shoe wear on joint energetics during landing.

Sandra J Shultz1, Randy J Schmitz, Amanda J Tritsch, Melissa M Montgomery.   

Abstract

To better understand methodological factors that alter landings strategies, we compared sagittal plane joint energetics during the initial landing phase of drop jumps (DJ) vs. drop landings (DL), and when shod vs. barefoot. Surface electromyography, kinematic and kinetic data were obtained on 10 males and 10 females during five consecutive drop landings and five consecutive drop jumps (0.45m) when shod and when barefoot. Energy absorption was greater in the DJ vs. DL (P=.002), due to increased energy absorption at the hip during the DJ. Joint stiffness/impedance was more affected by shoe condition, where overall stiffness/impedance was greater in shod compared to barefoot conditions (P=.036). Further, hip impedance was greater in shod vs. barefoot for the DL only (via increased peak hip extensor moment in DL), while ankle stiffness was greater in the barefoot vs. shod condition for the DJ only (via decreased joint excursion and increased peak joint moment in DJ vs. DL) (P=.011). DJ and DL place different neuromechanical demands upon the lower extremities, and shoe wear may alter impact forces that modulate stiffness/impedance strategies. The impact of these methodological differences should be considered when comparing landing biomechanics across studies.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22138273     DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol        ISSN: 1050-6411            Impact factor:   2.368


  6 in total

1.  Effects of barefoot and footwear conditions on learning of a dynamic balance task: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Astrid Zech; Stephanie Meining; Kirsten Hötting; Dominik Liebl; Klaus Mattes; Karsten Hollander
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Drop-Jump Landing Varies With Baseline Neurocognition: Implications for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk and Prevention.

Authors:  Daniel C Herman; Jeffrey T Barth
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  Timing differences in the generation of ground reaction forces between the initial and secondary landing phases of the drop vertical jump.

Authors:  Nathaniel A Bates; Kevin R Ford; Gregory D Myer; Timothy E Hewett
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 4.  Peak vertical ground reaction force during two-leg landing: a systematic review and mathematical modeling.

Authors:  Wenxin Niu; Tienan Feng; Chenghua Jiang; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Changes in Lower-Limb Biomechanics, Soft Tissue Vibrations, and Muscle Activation During Unanticipated Bipedal Landings.

Authors:  Shen Zhang; Weijie Fu; Yu Liu
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 2.193

6.  Running barefoot leads to lower running stability compared to shod running - results from a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Karsten Hollander; Daniel Hamacher; Astrid Zech
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.