Author:
Horst Fabian,Hoitz Fabian,Slijepcevic Djordje,Schons Nicolas,Beckmann Hendrik,Nigg Benno M.,Schöllhorn Wolfgang I.
Abstract
AbstractPlacing a stronger focus on subject-specific responses to footwear may lead to a better functional understanding of footwear’s effect on running and its influence on comfort perception, performance, and pathogenesis of injuries. We investigated subject-specific responses to different footwear conditions within ground reaction force (GRF) data during running using a machine learning-based approach. We conducted our investigation in three steps, guided by the following hypotheses: (I) For each subject x footwear combination, unique GRF patterns can be identified. (II) For each subject, unique GRF characteristics can be identified across footwear conditions. (III) For each footwear condition, unique GRF characteristics can be identified across subjects. Thirty male subjects ran ten times at their preferred (self-selected) speed on a level and approximately 15 m long runway in four footwear conditions (barefoot and three standardised running shoes). We recorded three-dimensional GRFs for one right-foot stance phase per running trial and classified the GRFs using support vector machines. The highest median prediction accuracy of 96.2% was found for the subject x footwear classification (hypothesis I). Across footwear conditions, subjects could be discriminated with a median prediction accuracy of 80.0%. Across subjects, footwear conditions could be discriminated with a median prediction accuracy of 87.8%. Our results suggest that, during running, responses to footwear are unique to each subject and footwear design. As a result, considering subject-specific responses can contribute to a more differentiated functional understanding of footwear effects. Incorporating holistic analyses of biomechanical data is auspicious for the evaluation of (subject-specific) footwear effects, as unique interactions between subjects and footwear manifest in versatile ways. The applied machine learning methods have demonstrated their great potential to fathom subject-specific responses when evaluating and recommending footwear.
Funder
Gesellschaft für Forschungsförderung Niederösterreich
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Nigg, B. M., Stefanyshyn, D., Cole, G. & Boyer, K. Footwear research - past, present and future. In Proceedings: 7th Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics (eds Hamill, J. et al.) 14–17 (Case Western Reserve University Printing, 2005).
2. Nigg BM. Biomechanics of Sport Shoes. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Topline Printing; 2010.
3. Nigg, B. M., Baltich, J., Hoerzer, S. & Enders, H. Running shoes and running injuries: Mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: “Preferred movement path” and “comfort filter”. Br. J. Sports Med. 49(20), 1290–1294. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095054 (2015).
4. Hoitz, F. et al. The effects of systematically altered footwear features on biomechanics, injury, performance, and preference in runners of different skill level: a systematic review. Footwear Sci. 12(3), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2020.1773936 (2020).
5. Sterzing, T., Schweiger, V., Ding, R. & Cheung, J.T.-M. Brauner. Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe running. Footwear Sci. 5(2), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2012.757810 (2013).
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献