advertising
-
1
Clinghan R, Arnold GP, Drew TS, et al.: Do you get value for money when you buy an expensive pair of running shoes? Br J Sports Med 42: 189, 2008.
-
2
Tay CS, Sterzing T, Lim CY, et al.: Overall preference of running shoes can be predicted by suitable perception factors using a multiple regression model. Hum Factors 59: 432, 2017.
-
3
Enke RC, Laskowski ER, Thomsen KM: Running shoe selection criteria among adolescent cross-country runners. PM R 1: 816, 2009.
-
4
Branthwaite H, Chockalingam N: What influences someone when purchasing new trainers? Footwear Sci 1: 71, 2009.
-
5
Trinkaus J: Color preference in sport shoes: an informal look. Percept Mot Skills 73: 613, 1991.
-
6
Honert EC, Mohr M, Lam W-K, et al.: Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: a Delphi study. PLoS One 15: e0236047, 2020.
-
7
Kong P, Bagdon M: Shoe preference based on subjective comfort for walking and running. JAPMA 100: 456, 2010.
-
8
Bonacci J, Saunders PU, Hicks A, et al.: Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot: a biomechanical study. Br J Sports Med 47: 387, 2013.
-
9
Cheung RT, Ngai SP: Effects of footwear on running economy in distance runners: a meta-analytical review. J Sci Med Sport 19: 260, 2016.
-
10
Divert C, Mornieux G, Freychat P, et al.: Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect? Int J Sports Med 29: 512, 2008.
-
11
Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R: Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 1519, 2012.
-
12
Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering BA, et al.: Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 48: 2175, 2016.
-
13
Fuller JT, Thewlis D, Tsiros MD, et al.: Effects of a minimalist shoe on running economy and 5-km running performance. J Sports Sci 34: 1740, 2016.
-
14
Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D, et al.: The effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners. Sports Med 45: 411, 2014.
-
15
Weber EH: De Pulsu, Resorptione, Quditu et Tactu. Annotationes Anatomicae et Physiologicae, Leipzig, Koehler, 1834.
-
16
Feyzabadi S, Straube S, Folgheraiter M, et al.: Human force discrimination during active arm motion for force feedback design. IEEE Trans Haptics 6: 309, 2013.
-
17
Ross HE: “Weight Perception,” in Encylopedia of Perception, Vol 2, p 1137, edited by EB Goldstein, Los Angeles, Sage, 2010.
-
18
Hajnal A, Fonseca S, Harrison S, et al.: Comparison of dynamic (effortful) touch by hand and foot. J Mot Behav 39: 82, 2007.
-
19
Donn JM, Porter D, Roberts VC: The effect of footwear mass on the gait patterns of unilateral below-knee amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 13: 140, 1989.
-
20
Slade S, Greenya J, Kliethermes C, et al.: Somatosensory perception of running shoe mass. Ergonomics 57: 912, 2014.
-
21
Hausler M, Conroy T, Kliethermes CL, et al.: Somatosensory perception of running shoe mass is similar for both sexes. Int J Hum Factors Ergon 4: 213, 2016.
-
22
Saxton J, Mardis B, Kliethermes CL, et al.: Somatosensory perception of running shoe mass may be influenced by extended wearing time or inclusion of a personal reference shoe, depending on testing method. Int J Exerc Sci 13: 342, 2020.
-
23
Greenya JG, Slade SJ, Kliethermes CL, et al.: Running shoe mass: can feet tell any difference? Low Extrem Rev 6: 47, 2014.
-
24
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Med Assoc 310: 2191, 2013.
-
25
Arsalis. Available at: www.arsalis.com/gaitway-3d.html#biomechanical-parameters-block-en. Accessed January 10, 2017.
-
26
Ross HE, Brodie EE: Weber fractions for weight and mass as a function of stimulus intensity. Q J Exp Psychol A 39: 77, 1987.
-
27
Hoerzer S, Trudeau MB, Edwards WB, et al.: Intra-rater reliability of footwear-related comfort assessments. Footwear Sci 8: 155, 2016.
-
28
Mills K, Blanch P, Vicenzino B: Identifying clinically meaningful tools for measuring comfort perception of footwear. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1966, 2010.
-
29
Brodie E, Ross HE: Sensorimotor mechanisms in weight discrimination. Percept Psychophys 36: 477, 1984.
-
30
Parent A: Carpenter’s Human Neuroanatomy, 9th ed, London, Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
-
31
Houk JC, Crago PE, Rymer WZ: “Functional Properties of the Golgi Tendon Organs,” in Spinal and Supra-spinal Mechanisms of Moluntary Motor Vontrol and Locomotion, edited by JE Desmedt, p 33, Basel, Karger, 1980.
-
32
Jones LA: Perception of force and weight: theory and research. Psychol Bull 100: 29,1986.
-
33
Brooks J, Allen TJ, Proske U: The senses of force and heaviness at the human elbow joint. Exp Brain Res 226: 617, 2013.
Sensory Perception of Varied Shoe Masses in Running
Search for other papers by Bahador Keshvari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Steven Alevras in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Veit Senner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Studies on the sensory perception of mass mostly focus on the hands rather than the feet. The aim of our study is to measure how accurately runners can perceive additional shoe mass in comparison to a control shoe (CS) while running, and moreover, whether there is a learning effect in the perception of mass. Indoor running shoes were categorized as a CS (283 g) and shoes with four additional masses: shoe 2 (+50 g), shoe 3 (+150 g), shoe 4 (+250 g), and shoe 5 (+315 g).
Methods: There were 22 participants in the experiment, which was divided into two sessions. In session 1, participants ran on a treadmill for 2 min with the CS and then put on one set of weighted shoes and ran for another 2 min at a preferred velocity. A binary question was used after the pair test. This process was repeated for all the shoes to compare them with the CS.
Results: Based on our statistical analysis (mixed effect logistic regression), the independent variable (ie, mass) did have a significant effect on perceived mass (F4,193 = 10.66, P < .0001), whereas repeating the task did not show a significant learning effect (F1,193 = 1.06, P = .30).
Conclusions: An increase of 150 g is the just-noticeable difference among other weighted shoes and the Weber fraction is equal to 0.53 (150:283 g). Learning effect did not improve by repeating the task in two sessions in the same day. This study facilitates our understanding about sense of force and enhances multibody simulation in running.
advertising
