4.6 Article

Biomechanical analysis of barefoot walking and three different sports footwear in children aged between 4 and 6 years old

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291056

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to analyze the biomechanics of walking barefoot and with different sports shoes in a group of 12 children aged 4 to 6. Results showed that different shoes significantly impact the kinematic and spatiotemporal variables of children's gait, but the design and composition of the footwear may not be important.
The technological transformation and advertising utilized in the footwear industry significantly impact purchasing decisions. The gait properties, barefoot and with shoes, change depending on the footwear structure. The aim of this work is the biomechanical analysis of walking barefoot and with different sports shoes in a controlled group of 12 children between 4 and 6 years old. Kinematic and spatiotemporal variables were analyzed using a BTS motion capture analysis system with the Helen Hayes protocol. Previously, a survey was carried out with 262 families with children between 4 and 6 years old to justify the choice of footwear for this study. No significant differences were found between any of the measured conditions. The kinematic results showed significant differences in the ankle (right sagittal plane p = 0.04, left p < 0.01; right frontal plane p < 0.01, left p < 0.01), knee (right and left sagittal plane p < 0.01) and hip (right sagittal plane p < 0.01, left p = 0.04; right frontal plane p = 0.03). Additionally, the post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between barefoot gait and different footwear. The footwear used for this study and each one's various characteristics are not preponderant in the spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of the children's gait. Thus, the footwear purchase may be conditioned by its design or composition and other properties may not be relevant.

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