4.6 Article

Validation of Instrumented Football Shoes to Measure On-Field Ground Reaction Forces

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22103673

关键词

ground reaction forces; embedded sensors; football; stud; force platform

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the validity of an innovative football shoe that can directly measure normal ground reaction forces (nGRF) on the field. The results showed good agreement between nGRF measured by the instrumented shoe and vertical ground reaction forces (vGRF) measured by a force platform, indicating that the instrumented shoe is a highly valid tool. The on-field nGRF patterns can provide new insights into training load quantification and detection of neuromuscular fatigue.
Ground reaction forces (GRF) have been widely studied in football to prevent injury. However, ambulatory tools are missing, posing methodological limitations. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of an innovative football shoe measuring normal GRF (nGRF) directly on the field through instrumented studs. A laboratory-based experiment was first conducted to compare nGRF obtained with the instrumented shoe (IS) to vertical GRF (vGRF) obtained with force platform (FP) data, the gold standard to measure vGRF. To this aim, three subjects performed 50 steps and 18 counter-movement jumps (CMJs). Secondly, eleven subjects completed running sprints at different velocities on a football field, as well as CMJs, while wearing the IS. Good to excellent agreement was found between the vGRF parameters measured with the FP and the nGRF measured by the IS (ICC > 0.75 for 9 out of 11 parameters). Moreover, on-field nGRF patterns demonstrated a progressive and significant increase in relation with the running velocity (p < 0.001). This study demonstrated that the IS is a highly valid tool to assess vGRF patterns on a football field. This innovative way to measure vGRF in situ could give new insights to quantify training load and detect neuromuscular fatigue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据