{"title":"足行性与踝关节动态关节刚度关系的研究","authors":"T. Atalaia, J. Abrantes","doi":"10.14198/jhse.2019.14.proc4.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our earlier reports suggest no dynamic joint stiffness (DJS) inter-limb differences related to footedness. A different approach to our data was used in this study: first define ankle DJS, then look for inter-limb differences and finally correlate them with the subject’s perceived footedness. Methods: 31 subjects (20 females, 11 males) were assessed for ankle DJS during the stance phase of gait, unilateral triple-jump for distance (TSU) and single-leg hopping (Hop). DJS was obtained by linear models at three stance sub-phases (controlled plantar flexion (CPF); controlled dorsiflexion (CDF); power plantar flexion (PPF)). Footedness assessed by the Lateral Preference Inventory (LPI). Results: Paired samples t-test showed statistical inter-limb differences in ankle DJS at PPF on gait (p< 0.01) and Hop (p< 0.05) tasks. No footedness-DJS correlation was found with exception of the TSU PPF (Pearson’s p<0.05). Descriptive analysis shows that in gait, 55% of the subjects maintained the same stiffer ankle between the CPF and the CDF, 45% keep the same stiffer ankle between CDF and PPF, and only 19% keep the same stiffer ankle along all stance. In TSU and Hop, only 48% and 74%, respectively, keep the same stiffer ankle between CDF and PPF. Conclusion: This approach increased our earlier findings of footedness-DJS correlation, but the results are still low. The variability of DJS along the stance sub-phases between tasks needs more attention. Hop task cold be more adequate for footedness assessment due to a more consistent DJS behaviour along the stance.","PeriodicalId":288462,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Sport and Exercise - 2019 - Spring Conferences of Sports Science","volume":"27 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On footedness and ankle’s Dynamic Joint Stiffness relation\",\"authors\":\"T. Atalaia, J. Abrantes\",\"doi\":\"10.14198/jhse.2019.14.proc4.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our earlier reports suggest no dynamic joint stiffness (DJS) inter-limb differences related to footedness. A different approach to our data was used in this study: first define ankle DJS, then look for inter-limb differences and finally correlate them with the subject’s perceived footedness. Methods: 31 subjects (20 females, 11 males) were assessed for ankle DJS during the stance phase of gait, unilateral triple-jump for distance (TSU) and single-leg hopping (Hop). DJS was obtained by linear models at three stance sub-phases (controlled plantar flexion (CPF); controlled dorsiflexion (CDF); power plantar flexion (PPF)). Footedness assessed by the Lateral Preference Inventory (LPI). Results: Paired samples t-test showed statistical inter-limb differences in ankle DJS at PPF on gait (p< 0.01) and Hop (p< 0.05) tasks. No footedness-DJS correlation was found with exception of the TSU PPF (Pearson’s p<0.05). Descriptive analysis shows that in gait, 55% of the subjects maintained the same stiffer ankle between the CPF and the CDF, 45% keep the same stiffer ankle between CDF and PPF, and only 19% keep the same stiffer ankle along all stance. In TSU and Hop, only 48% and 74%, respectively, keep the same stiffer ankle between CDF and PPF. Conclusion: This approach increased our earlier findings of footedness-DJS correlation, but the results are still low. The variability of DJS along the stance sub-phases between tasks needs more attention. Hop task cold be more adequate for footedness assessment due to a more consistent DJS behaviour along the stance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":288462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Sport and Exercise - 2019 - Spring Conferences of Sports Science\",\"volume\":\"27 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Sport and Exercise - 2019 - Spring Conferences of Sports Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2019.14.proc4.13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Sport and Exercise - 2019 - Spring Conferences of Sports Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2019.14.proc4.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
On footedness and ankle’s Dynamic Joint Stiffness relation
Our earlier reports suggest no dynamic joint stiffness (DJS) inter-limb differences related to footedness. A different approach to our data was used in this study: first define ankle DJS, then look for inter-limb differences and finally correlate them with the subject’s perceived footedness. Methods: 31 subjects (20 females, 11 males) were assessed for ankle DJS during the stance phase of gait, unilateral triple-jump for distance (TSU) and single-leg hopping (Hop). DJS was obtained by linear models at three stance sub-phases (controlled plantar flexion (CPF); controlled dorsiflexion (CDF); power plantar flexion (PPF)). Footedness assessed by the Lateral Preference Inventory (LPI). Results: Paired samples t-test showed statistical inter-limb differences in ankle DJS at PPF on gait (p< 0.01) and Hop (p< 0.05) tasks. No footedness-DJS correlation was found with exception of the TSU PPF (Pearson’s p<0.05). Descriptive analysis shows that in gait, 55% of the subjects maintained the same stiffer ankle between the CPF and the CDF, 45% keep the same stiffer ankle between CDF and PPF, and only 19% keep the same stiffer ankle along all stance. In TSU and Hop, only 48% and 74%, respectively, keep the same stiffer ankle between CDF and PPF. Conclusion: This approach increased our earlier findings of footedness-DJS correlation, but the results are still low. The variability of DJS along the stance sub-phases between tasks needs more attention. Hop task cold be more adequate for footedness assessment due to a more consistent DJS behaviour along the stance.