LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Price, C
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: health_and_wellbeing
Health and well-being’ footwear positions itself in the footwear market between high street footwear and specialist therapeutic footwear. Manufacturers in this footwear category promote benefits when compared with standard footwear. However, the full exploration and validation of such proposed benefits requires scientific exploration through the application of footwear biomechanics concepts and techniques. The studies herein were undertaken to assess these biomechanical concepts in ‘health and well-being’ footwear, particularly in FitFlopTM footwear. The studies are experimental studies with repeated measures designs. A total of 128 individual participants volunteered, 28 of which were included in two publications. Variables were quantified using an in-shoe plantar pressure measurement system (with a bespoke insole), electromyography, 3D motion capture, force plates, accelerometers, a modified questionnaire and a custom-made mechanical drop-test device. The research identified that ‘health and well-being’ footwear can be manipulated to increase shock absorption, namely reducing the heel-strike transient magnitude (-19%) compared with a flip-flop. ‘Health and well-being’ footwear does induce instability at specific phases of the gait cycle, which is specific to the outsole shape of the footwear. For example the MBT shoe increased muscle activity relating to controlling sagittal plane motion. The biomechanics of gait are also altered compared to standard footwear styles, such as reducing the frontal plane motion of the foot in stance (-19%) and the magnitude (-86%) and duration (-98%) of gripping with the Hallux in swing compared with a flip-flop. The tested ‘health and well-being’ footwear was subjectively rated equally as comfortable as a control shoe with increased regional pressures in the midfoot (≈25%) and decreased peak pressures in the heel (-22%). Therefore ‘health and well-being’ footwear may influence the biomechanics of wearers however further exploration of meaningful differences and individual population differences is required. The studies emphasise the importance and relevance of testing walking, as well as running, footwear to the wider footwear biomechanics field and demonstrate how this may be integrated into research and development processes within a footwear company.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Reports, Presentations, Marketing and Internal Documents ............................246 Appendix A: Co-author statement of work......................................................... 250 Appendix B: Journal Information ....................................................................... 255 5.3.1 Abstract: The impact of a health Flip Flop on asymptomatic gait (I-FAB Congress, University of Washington, Seattle, United States, September 2010).............257 5.3.2 Abstract: Single-leg balance in “instability” footwear (I-FAB Congress, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, April 2012). ..................................................258 5.3.3 Poster: Single-leg balance in “instability” footwear (I-FAB Congress, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, April 2012). ..................................................259 5.3.4 Abstract: Testing a mechanical protocol to replicate impact in walking footwear (I-FAB Congress, Busan, Korea, April 2014).................................................................260 Chapter 1 Thesis Overview
    • Figure 1.1 Timeline and timeframes for the studies and papers within the thesis as of September 2014. .........................................................................................................................8 Figure 1.2 Objectives of the thesis .............................................................................................9 Figure 1.3 Structure of the thesis..............................................................................................11 Chapter 2 Footwear Biomechanics Concepts
    • Figure 2.1 Comparison of raw vertical ground reaction force in walking barefoot, walking in a trainer and jogging in a trainer of a 53 kg participant at self-selected velocities. ....................14 Figure 2.2 SATRA STM 479 Dynamic shock absorption test machine ..................................19 Figure 2.3 Instability footwear examples .................................................................................25 Figure 2.4 HavaianaTM flip-flop ...............................................................................................37 Chapter 3 Publications
    • Paper 1
    • Figure 3.1 Calculation of the effective mass and drop-height from the results of the human data collection to define the methodology of the mechanical test protocol. ............................66 Figure 3.2 Vertical heel velocity towards the floor in the human testing for the four footwear conditions and barefoot. ...........................................................................................................68 Figure 3.3 Comparison of variables between the two mechanical test conditions (adapted and ASTM) and the human results for the four footwear conditions..............................................69 Paper 3
    • Figure 3.4 Footwear conditions left to right, Control (CO), FitFlop (FF), Masai Barefoot Technology (MB), Reebok (RE) and Skechers (SK). ..............................................................93 Figure 3.5 Example CoP trajectory (mm) of one participant for one 30 second balance trial in each condition...........................................................................................................................97 Figure 3.6 Median RMS (± inter-quartile range error bars) EMG for 30 second single-leg balance. .....................................................................................................................................99 Paper 4
    • Figure 3.7 Median RMS (± inter-quartile range error bars) EMG for phases of stance (x axis) presented as percentage difference from control. ...................................................................113 Paper 5
    • Figure 3.8 . Footwear conditions tested: Havaiana flip-flop (a), FitFlop, Walkstar I (b). .....121 Chapter 1 Thesis Overview
    • Table 1.1 Research equipment and participant overview...........................................................7 Chapter 2 Footwear Biomechanics Concepts
    • Table 2.1 Centre of pressure variables from protocols to quantify instability. ........................26 Table 2.2 Electromyography variables from protocols to quantify instability.........................29 Table 2.3 Comfort questionnaires. ...........................................................................................48 Chapter 3 Publications
    • Paper 1
    • Table 3.1 Characteristics and images of the footwear conditions tested alongside barefoot. ..63 Table 3.2 Variables for the human and mechanical protocols for testing of impact characteristics (mean±1 S.D)....................................................................................................67 Paper 2
    • Table 3.3 Footwear characteristics for the seven footwear conditions tested in the study, all of which had a sandal upper and an EVA construction. ...............................................................77 Table 3.4 Kinematic data from walking in different hardness and thickness variations..........80 Table 3.5 Heel-strike transient and peak positive axial tibial acceleration variables for thickness variations. .................................................................................................................82 Table 3.6 Heel-strike transient and peak positive axial tibial acceleration variables for hardness variations. ..................................................................................................................83 Paper 3
    • Table 3.7 Footwear condition characteristics (size 6) ..............................................................93 Table 3.8 Centre of pressure variables calculated for the 30 second single-leg balance. ........95 Table 3.9 Lower limb joint angle ranges of motion and root mean square data, statistically significant results are presented (determined using repeated measures ANOVA). .................97 Table 3.10 Mean (±s) centre of pressure (CoP) variables, statistically significant results are presented (determined using ANOVA). ...................................................................................98 Paper 4
    • Table 3.11 Footwear condition characteristics. ......................................................................108 Table 3.12 Mean ± SD temporal and spatial characteristics of gait, kinematic ranges of motion (ROM) and centre of pressure variables.................................................................................111 Table 3.13 Electromyography statistically significant differences for the phases of stance ..114 Chapter 4 Critique
    • Aickin, M., Gensler, H., 1996. Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods. Am. J. Public Health 86, 726-728.
    • Albright, B.C., Woodhull-Smith, W.M., 2009. Rocker bottom soles alter the postural response to backward translation during stance. Gait Posture 30, 45-49. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.02.012
    • Alcántara, E., Artacho, M.A., González, J.C., García, A.C., 2005a. Application of product semantics to footwear design. Part II-comparison of two clog designs using individual and compared semantic profiles. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 727-735. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.02.006
    • Alcántara, E., Artacho, M.A., González, J.C., García, A.C., 2005b. Application of product semantics to footwear design. Part I - Identification of footwear semantic space applying diferential semantics. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 713-725.
    • Alexander, R., Jayes, A., 1980. Fourier analysis of forces exerted in walking and running. J. Biomech. 13, 383-390.
    • Allen, P., n.d. SATRA Bulletin - Testing dynamic shock absorption [WWW Document]. URL http://www.satra.co.uk/bulletin/article_view.php?id=706 (accessed 1.21.13).
    • Alton, F., Baldey, L., Caplan, S., Morrissey, M.C., 1998. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill walking. Clin. Biomech. Bristol Avon 13, 434-440.
    • American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons, 2007. Popular Flip-flop Sandals Linked To Rising Youth Heel Pain Rate [WWW Document]. URL http://www.acfas.org/Media/Content.aspx?id=103 (accessed 7.18.12).
    • Anderson, B., Stefanyshyn, D., Nigg, B., 2005. The effect of molded footbeds on comfort and injury rate in military combat boots, in: 7th Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics. Presented at the Footwear Biomechanics Group (International Society of Biomechanics), Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
    • Arezes, P.M., Neves, M.M., Teixeira, S.F., Leão, C.P., Cunha, J.L., 2013. Testing thermal comfort of trekking boots: An objective and subjective evaluation. Appl. Ergon. 44, 557-565. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.007
    • Arts, M.L.J., Bus, S.A., 2011. Twelve steps per foot are recommended for valid and reliable in-shoe plantar pressure data in neuropathic diabetic patients wearing custom made footwear. Clin. Biomech. 26, 880-884.
    • Au, E.Y.L., Goonetilleke, R.S., 2007. A qualitative study on the comfort and fit of ladies' dress shoes. Appl. Ergon. 38, 687-696. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.12.002 Au, E.Y.L., Goonetilleke, R.S., 2012. Capturing Footwear Needs for Delighting Customers, in: The Science of Footwear. CRC Press, pp. 177-192.
    • Barkley, R., Bumgarner, M., Poss, E., 2011. Physiological Versus Perceived Foot Temperature, and Perceived Comfort, during Treadmill Running in Shoes and Socks of Various Constructions. Am. J. Undergrad. Res. 10, 7-14.
    • Barton, C.J., Bonanno, D., Menz, H.B., 2009. Development and evaluation of a tool for the assessment of footwear characteristics. J. Foot Ankle Res. 2, 10-10. doi:10.1186/1757-1146-2-10
    • Bishop, C., Paul, G., Thewlis, D., 2011. Footwear modifies coronal plane forefoot and sagittal plane hallux kinematics during stance phase of walking gait. Footwear Sci. 3, S12-S13. doi:10.1080/19424280.2011.575839
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    42
    42%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article