advertising
-
1
Cappozzo A. Leo T. Pedotti A. A general computing method for the analysis of human locomotion. J Biomech 8: 307, 1975.
-
2
Kadaba MP. Ramakrishnan HK. Wootten ME. et al: Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait. J Orthop Res 7: 849, 1989.
-
3
Leardini A. Benedetti MG. Berti L. et al: Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture 25: 453, 2007.
-
4
Carson MC. Harrington ME. Thompson N. et al: Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis. J Biomech 34: 1299, 2001.
-
5
MacWilliams BA. Cowley M. Nicholson DE. Foot kinematics and kinetics during adolescent gait. Gait Posture 17: 214, 2003.
-
6
Grivas TB. Vasiliadis ED. Koufopoulos G. et al: Midfoot fractures. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 23: 323, 2006.
-
7
Moen MH. Bongers T. Bakker EW. et al: Risk factors and prognostic indicators for medial tibial stress syndrome. Scand J Med Sci Sports 22: 34, 2012.
-
8
Huang YC. Wang LY. Wang HC. et al: The relationship between the flexible flatfoot and plantar fasciitis: ultrasonographic evaluation. Chang Gung Med J 27: 443, 2004.
-
9
Pohl MB. Buckley JG. Changes in foot and shank coupling due to alterations in foot strike pattern during running. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23: 334, 2008.
-
10
Pohl MB. Messenger N. Buckley JG. Forefoot, rearfoot and shank coupling: effect of variations in speed and mode of gait. Gait Posture 25: 295, 2007.
-
11
Powell DW. Long B. Milner CE. et al: Frontal plane multi-segment foot kinematics in high- and low-arched females during dynamic loading tasks. Hum Mov Sci 30: 105, 2011.
-
12
Tiberio D. The effect of excessive subtalar joint pronation on patellofemoral mechanics: a theoretical model. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 9: 160, 1987.
-
13
Nigg BM. Cole GK. Nachbauer W. Effects of arch height of the foot on angular motion of the lower extremities in running. J Biomech 26: 909, 1993.
-
14
Mahaffey R. Morrison SC. Drechsler WI. et al: Evaluation of multi-segmental kinematic modelling in the paediatric foot using three concurrent foot models. J Foot Ankle Res 6: 43, 2013.
-
15
Deschamps K. Staes F. Bruyninckx H. et al: Repeatability of a 3D multi-segment foot model protocol in presence of foot deformities. Gait Posture 36: 635, 2012.
-
16
Caravaggi P. Benedetti MG. Berti L. et al: Repeatability of a multi-segment foot protocol in adult subjects. Gait Posture 33: 133, 2011.
-
17
Cappozzo A. Catani F. Croce UD. et al: Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 10: 171, 1995.
-
18
Li L. Caldwell GE. Coefficient of cross correlation and the time domain correspondence. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 9: 385, 1999.
-
19
Boling MC. Padua DA. Marshall SW. et al: A prospective investigation of biomechanical risk factors for patellofemoral pain syndrome: the Joint Undertaking to Monitor and Prevent ACL Injury (JUMP-ACL) cohort. Am J Sports Med 37: 2108, 2009.
-
20
McClay I. Manal K. A comparison of three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during running between excessive pronators and normals. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 13: 195, 1998.
-
21
Barnes A. Wheat J. Milner C. Association between foot type and tibial stress injuries: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 42: 93, 2008.
-
22
Lundgren P. Nester C. Liu A. et al: Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. Gait Posture 28: 93, 2008.
-
23
Nester CJ. Liu AM. Ward E. et al. In vitro study of foot kinematics using a dynamic walking cadaver model. J Biomech 40: 1927, 2007.
-
24
Hintermann B. Nigg BM. Sommer C. et al: Transfer of movement between calcaneus and tibia in vitro. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 9: 349, 1994.
-
25
Pohl MB. Messenger N. Buckley JG. Changes in foot and lower limb coupling due to systematic variations in step width. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21: 175, 2006.
-
26
Dugan SA. Bhat KP. Biomechanics and analysis of running gait. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 16: 603, 2005.
-
27
Eslami M. Begon M. Farahpour N. et al: Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22: 74, 2007.
Changes in Kinematic Coupling Among the Rearfoot, Midfoot, and Forefoot Segments During Running and Walking
Search for other papers by Tomoya Takabayashi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mutsuaki Edama in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Erika Yokoyama in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chiaki Kanaya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Takuma Inai in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yuta Tokunaga in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Masayoshi Kubo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
Understanding the concept of kinematic coupling is essential when selecting the appropriate therapeutic strategy and grasping mechanisms for the occurrence of injuries. A previous study reported that kinematic coupling between the rearfoot and shank during running and walking were different. However, because foot mobility involves not only the rearfoot but also the midfoot or forefoot, kinematic coupling is likely to occur among the rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot segments. We investigated changes in kinematic coupling among the rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot segments during running and walking.
Methods:
Ten healthy young men were instructed to run (2.5 ms–1) and walk (1.3 ms–1) on a treadmill at speeds set by the examiner. The three-dimensional joint angles of the rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot were calculated based on the Leardini foot model Kinematic coupling was evaluated with the absolute value of the cross-correlation coefficients and coupling angles obtained by using a vector coding technique.
Results:
The cross-correlation coefficient between rearfoot eversion/inversion and midfoot dorsiflexion/plantarflexion was significantly higher during running (r = 0.79) than during walking (r = 0.58), suggesting that running requires stronger kinematic coupling between rearfoot eversion/inversion and midfoot plantarflexion/dorsiflexion than walking. Furthermore, the coupling angle between midfoot eversion/inversion and forefoot eversion/inversion was significantly less during running (30.0°) than during walking (40.7°) (P < .05). Hence, the magnitude of midfoot frontal plane excursion during running was greater than that during walking.
Conclusions:
Excessive rearfoot eversion during running is likely to lead to excessive midfoot dorsiflexion, and such abnormal kinematic coupling between the rearfoot and midfoot may be associated with mechanisms for the occurrence of injuries.
advertising
