Next Article in Journal
Machine Learning for Automated Classification of Abnormal Lung Sounds Obtained from Public Databases: A Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Numerical Simulation of the Effect of Different Footwear Midsole Structures on Plantar Pressure Distribution and Bone Stress in Obese and Healthy Children
Previous Article in Journal
Microwave Breast Sensing via Deep Learning for Tumor Spatial Localization by Probability Maps
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Prosthetic Foot Research Work: 2000 to 2022
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Bioengineering
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/bioengineering10101154
bioengineering-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Barefoot and Shod Conditions on the Kinematics and Kinetics of the Lower Extremities in Alternating Jump Rope Skipping—A One-Dimensional Statistical Parameter Mapping Study

by
Jun Li
1,2,
Kaicheng Wu
1,
Dongqiang Ye
3,
Liqin Deng
1,
Jichao Wang
1 and
Weijie Fu
1,*
1
School of Exercise and Health, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China
2
School of Health and Nursing, Wuxi Taihu University, Wuxi 214000, China
3
Shanghai Warrior Shoes Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200082, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bioengineering 2023, 10(10), 1154; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101154
Submission received: 16 August 2023 / Revised: 14 September 2023 / Accepted: 30 September 2023 / Published: 2 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomechanics and Bionics in Sport and Exercise, Volume II)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: To explore the difference in the biomechanics of the lower extremity during alternating jump rope skipping (AJRS) under barefoot and shod conditions. Methods: Fourteen experienced AJRS participants were randomly assigned to wear jump rope shoes or be barefoot (BF) during the AJRS at a self-selected speed. The Qualisys motion capture system and Kistler force platform were used to synchronously collect the ground reaction forces and trajectory data of the hip, knee, ankle, and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints. One-dimensional statistical parameter mapping was used to analyze the kinematics and kinetics of the lower extremity under both conditions using paired t-tests. Results: Wearing shoes resulted in a significant decrease in the ROM (p < 0.001) and peak angular velocity (p < 0.001) of the MTP joint during the landing phase. In addition, the MTP joint power (p < 0.001) was significantly larger under shod condition at 92–100% of the landing phase. Moreover, wearing shoes reduced the peak loading rate (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The findings suggest that wearing shoes during AJRS could provide better propulsion during push-off by increasing the MTP plantarflexion joint power. In addition, our results emphasize the significance of the ankle and MTP joint by controlling the ankle and MTP joint angle.

1. Introduction

Jump rope is a popular high-intensity aerobic exercise among sports enthusiasts due to its convenient spatial requirements and ease of execution [1,2]. The activity has gained significant global recognition, with over 50 countries boasting professional jump rope clubs [3]. Jump rope is a highly favored physical activity among adolescents, as evidenced by the annual participation of approximately 1 million students from 4000 schools in Canada [4]. Moreover, numerous educational institutions in Asia integrate rope skipping into their students’ athletic endeavors [5]. Jump rope skipping is even incorporated into the Middle School Entrance Examination of physical education in China [6].
Jump rope has gained popularity among athletes and school-aged students. As such, enhancing jump rope performance has emerged as a focus for both athletes and school-aged students. Biomechanists have been studying ways to optimize sports equipment to improve athletic outcomes. This has led to a growing interest in understanding the biomechanics of jump rope movements and identifying factors that can positively impact performance [1,7,8]. There are various types of rope skipping, but they all involve continuous vertical jumps at a relatively low height. The most common technique used in rope skipping is known as alternating jump rope skipping (AJRS). The AJRS refers to jumping with one foot at a time and landing with the other foot alternately. For instance, one would jump with the left foot and land with the right foot and then switch to jumping with the right foot and landing with the left foot [9]. In addition, it is a complex cyclic movement that necessitates the synchronization of the upper and lower extremities to accomplish the rotation of the rope. It entails the consecutive landing of the left and right feet with a minimal jumping height and requires the lower extremity muscle to generate propulsion. The lateral edge of the forefoot and midfoot serves as the primary impact region during AJRS [7], with the ankle joint demonstrating the most joint power and range of motion (ROM) [8] among the lower extremity joints. AJRS had a greater hip flexion angle than bounced jump in the sagittal plane and a smaller hip adduction angle in the frontal plane [9]. It also had a greater GRF and loading rate than bounced jump [2,9]. Upon the foot making contact with the ground at the end of the take-off stage, the lower extremity initiates a response by adapting the stiffness of the lower extremity. This involves the adaptation of muscles of the lower extremity [9].
In addition to the triceps surae muscles, the plantar flexor muscles positioned at the rear of the ankle joint are also essential for propulsion, contracting at the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint to generate propulsion during jumping and running [9,10,11]. Taking a training perspective, coaches emphasize the importance of training the ROM of the MTP joint and the strength of the toe flexors in jumping events [12,13]. Such coaches posited that stabilizing the MTP joint through targeted exercises can increase the strength output of adjacent joints and strengthen the control of the MTP joint angle, leading to improved athletic performance. The contribution of the MTP joint in AJRS is thus crucial.
Efficient execution of the AJRS demands optimal interplay among the lower extremity joints and the integration of the lower extremity as a functional entity [14]. As a medium of the foot and ground, footwear has been shown to have the potential to enhance athletic performance [15,16,17]. Footwear designed with a higher stiffness has been observed to alter the transmission ratio of the ankle joint during running, which in turn can enhance running performance [18,19]. Similarly, Yu et al. [1,7] found that jump rope shoes with a low degree of toe uplift and a thin sole could significantly affect jump rope performance. Footwear that reduces plantar pressure may be more beneficial for long-term jump rope exercise [8].
Barefoot (BF) exercise, which represents a special footwear condition, has been recognized as a fundamental basis for exploring specialized footwear, particularly because BF exercise denotes an unimpeded state. Comparing the effects of BF exercise with those of shod exercise can aid in understanding how footwear impacts movement [20]. Srs et al. reported that some athletes choose to perform rope skipping under barefoot conditions to strengthen the stabilizer muscles in their feet and ankles, which leads to improved stability and balance [21,22]. However, the potential difference in AJRS under shod and BF conditions, and whether such differences may enhance athletic performance, remain inconclusive. In addition, there remains a paucity of research on the biomechanics of the “foot–shoe complex” in AJRS [23], and a consensus on whether discrepancies in lower extremity joint biomechanics exist between jump rope with and without shoes, and if the latter can promote performance, has yet to be established.
Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effect of footwear on the biomechanics of the lower extremity joints—specifically, the ankle and MTP joints—and determine whether it can improve AJRS performance. We hypothesized that compared with barefoot conditions, wearing shoes would result in reduced ground contact and flight times during AJRS, decreased ROM and peak angular velocity of the ankle and MTP joints, and increased ankle and MTP joint power.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Fifteen experienced male AJRS participants were recruited for this study [24] (Table 1). The inclusion criteria required that the participants possess more than three years of trained experience, with the ability to execute five consecutive AJRS and perform more than 140 jumps per minute. Furthermore, all participants were asked to test with a dominant leg, defined as the preferred kicking leg [25], and to not have experienced any lower extremity injuries or related illnesses within the past six months and not engage in strenuous exercise for 24 h before the study. Before the experim ents, all participants were required to provide informed consent and signed an informed consent form. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Shanghai University of Sports (No. 102772023RT029).

2.2. Instrumentation

An eight-camera motion capture system (Qualisys Motion Capture System® (QUALISYS MEDICAL AB, Gothenburg, Sweden)) was used to collect kinematic data at a sampling rate of 200 Hz. Ground reaction force (GRF) data were measured using one 90 cm × 60 cm × 10 cm force platform (Kistler, Type 9287B, Switzerland) at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz. The kinematics and GRF data were simultaneously collected using the Qualisys system. Jump rope shoes (39 mm toe height, 7 mm heel-to-toe drop, 1.8 N·m shoe stiffness, 192 g, China) were used as experimental shoes (Figure 1).

2.3. Procedures

Before conducting the formal experiment, the laboratory personnel conducted a pre-experiment. All members of the experimental team were well acquainted with the experimental procedure, standard operating protocols, and equipment calibration. They also ensured the availability of experimental supplies and set up the experimental site. At the beginning of the experiment, participants were provided with uniform clothing, including a vest, shorts, and socks. Following a 30 s warm-up consisting of rope skipping under both conditions, the participants wore tight shorts and had reflective markers affixed to designated locations on their lower extremities [26,27]. To define the hip, knee, ankle, and MTP joints, 36 infrared retroreflective markers were bilaterally attached [9,28]. The anatomical locations of the markers were the right/left ilium crest tubercle, right/left posterior superior iliac spine, right/left femur greater trochanter, right/left anterior superior iliac spine, right/left femur lateral epicondyle, right/left femur medial epicondyle, right/left fibula apex of the lateral malleolus, right/left tibia apex of the medial malleolus, right/left head of the fifth metatarsals, right/left head of the first metatarsus, right/left posterior surface of the calcaneus, and right/left big toes [9]; the tracking markers were placed on the thigh and shank (Figure 2). The placement of markers was performed by an experienced researcher (5 years) majoring in Biomechanics. The MTP joint was considered as a single joint rotating about an axis oblique to the sagittal plane defined by the first and fifth metatarsal markers (Figure 3). The MTP angle was defined as the angle between the forefoot and rearfoot segments in relation to a standing calibration for a reference measurement in the sagittal plane [28] (Figure 4). After the collection of the static posture, the participants selected a self-selected speed, and the order of barefoot vs. shod skipping was randomized during the test to avoid learning or fatigue effects. If errors occurred during the test, adjustments were made to ensure complete and stable data collection for at least five consecutive stable trials within a 30 s AJRS process. If necessary, the test was repeated after a period of rest until the data collection requirements were met.

2.4. Data Processing

The 3D coordinates of the reflective markers were filtered through a Butterworth fourth-order, low-pass filter at a cut-off frequency of 7 Hz with V3D software (v3, C-Motion, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA) [29]. The GRF data were filtered at a cut-off frequency of 100 Hz [27,29]. The initial contact was defined as the time at which the GRF exceeded 50 N [3].
The joints selected for analysis were the ankle and MTP joints. The three-dimensional kinematics data of these joints and GRF data were processed and analyzed during the landing phase. Specifically, the selected performance variables include the center of mass displacement and ground contact time. The selected kinematic variables include the ROM of the ankle and MTP joints, the peak angular velocity of the ankle and MTP joint, and the ankle and MTP joint angle during the landing phase. The selected kinetic variables include the GRF, peak loading rate, lower extremity stiffness, joint moment, and joint power of the ankle and MTP. A reliability test was conducted in the pilot experiment using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)) of multiple measurements taken by the same experimenter. The experimenter conducted two measurements on the same set of participants for the same variable [30,31]. The repeated measurements were conducted on different days (2.5 ± 1.3). The results showed the good reliability of the MTP angle collected and calculated using this model and measurement during AJRS (ICC = 0.9332).
The following are the definitions and specific calculation methods of the selected variables (Table 2):

2.5. Statistics

SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to complete the statistical analysis, and all data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Data normality was first examined with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare the influence of barefoot and shod conditions on each parameter; otherwise, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used. One-dimensional statistical parameter mapping (SPM), a statistical analysis methodology (SPM1d version 0.4, https://www.spm1d.org, accessed on 23 September 2021) founded on time-space smoothing and standardized data testing, was used for the statistical analysis of the kinematics and kinetics of the lower extremity joints [34]. The 95% confidence intervals and effect size (Cohen’s d) of each parameter in this study were calculated. A Bonferroni correction was conducted to avoid type I errors for the paired sample t-test and Pearson correlation and adjust the significance level to 0.004. All analyses were performed using Matlab R2022a (Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Performance

Compared with the BF condition, the ground contact time and the center of mass displacement have no significant difference under shod conditions (Table 3).

3.2. Kinematics

During the landing phase, compared with the BF condition, in the sagittal plane, the ROM of the ankle joint was similar under both conditions, while the ROM of the MTP was significantly decreased (p < 0.001) in the shod condition (Table 4). Interestingly, significant differences in the ankle dorsi-plantar flexion angle were observed in 10–100% of the landing phase (p < 0.001), with a greater dorsiflexion angle observed in the shod condition (Figure 5). Additionally, the ROM of the MTP joint was significantly decreased in the shod condition (p < 0.001) of the landing phase.
During the landing phase, in the sagittal plane, the peak angular velocities of MTP joints (p < 0.001) decreased in the shod condition (Table 4).

3.3. Kinetics

Compared with the BF condition, the peak loading rate was significantly smaller under shod conditions (p = 0.002) (Table 5), whereas no significant differences were detected in the peak joint moment of the ankle and MTP joint. The ankle joint exhibited a high power output both in the BF and shod conditions, while the MTP joints had relatively smaller peak power outputs. But there were no significant differences in the peak power outputs of the ankle and MTP joint between the two conditions. The SPM analysis showed no significant differences in the landing phase of the joint power of the ankle, but the MTP Dorsi-Plantar Flexion Power was significantly smaller than that under shod conditions in the last 8% of the landing phase (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of BF and shod conditions on lower extremity joint biomechanics during AJRS. The results supported our hypothesis that the MTP dorsi-plantar flexion power was increased in the shod condition. However, there were no significant differences in the duration of the landing phase and the center of mass displacement. Previous studies found that the performance of skipping rope is influenced by various factors such as the ground contact time, flight time, center of mass displacement, and joint angles [35,36]. Jump rope athletes aim to complete as many jumps as possible within 30 s, and thus, the recommended strategy that controls the joint angle of the lower extremities during competition is to minimize the duration of the flight and landing phases in order to increase the number of jumps [35,36]. Although, in this study, it was observed that the ground contact time and center of mass displacement showed no significant differences under both conditions, significant differences were observed in the ankle and MTP joint angles and the power. In other words, they employed different jump rope strategies under both conditions, especially during push-off.
According to research findings, significant variations in spatiotemporal variables were observed in shod conditions as compared with BF conditions [20,37]. Generally, kinematic alternations predominantly manifest in the knee joint, ankle joint, and foot under shod conditions [37,38]. Athletes with shoes mainly adjust their jump rope strategy by modulating the joint angles of their lower limbs at touchdown. In this study, compared with the BF condition, shod AJRS led to a significant increase in the joint angle of the ankle joint. This finding may indicate the influence of footwear on the AJRS pattern of the ankle joint. The support and stability provided by the footwear could lead to adjustment in the ankle joint angle to accommodate the AJRS in shod conditions [17,39].
Compared with the BF condition, significant decreases were observed in the ROM of the MTP joint. Specifically, the ROM decreased by 26.6%. This change was consistent with previous reports in other sports [13,40,41] and was confirmed by SPM analysis. However, the change in the MTP joint during AJRS was greater than that in running, which might be attributed to the mechanics of AJRS, wherein AJRS required propulsion through the forefoot [27]. Therefore, the effect of wearing shoes on the dorsiflexion of the MTP joint was more pronounced. In addition, Kim et al. reported that training focused on controlling the ankle and MTP joint improved jump rope performance, with the skilled group demonstrating significantly less ankle dorsiflexion compared with the unskilled group [35].
Although no significant differences were found in the peak angular velocity of the ankle joint under both conditions (p = 0.082), the SPM results showed that the joint power of the MTP was significantly greater at push-off under BF conditions (Figure 6), which suggests that wearing shoes may enhance the joint’s ability to generate force during push-off. This finding implies that wearing shoes improves the control and force generation capacity, leading to more efficient utilization of joint power during AJRS, thus promoting better jump rope performance. Therefore, it could be proposed that wearing shoes can enhance the propulsion at the push-off [42,43]. This decrease may indicate that wearing shoes restricts the natural movement of the MTP joint, which could affect the coordination and flexibility of AJRS, potentially leading to decreased agility or restricted performance [13]. This highlights the importance of the MTP joint during AJRS and emphasizes the need for careful consideration when choosing footwear for jump rope activities, and the design of jump rope shoes should take into account the MTP joint. In addition, wearing shoes during AJRS could shift the forefoot propulsion point forward, extending the dynamic arm and increasing the longitudinal bending stiffness of the ankle joint [44,45,46]. This finding suggested a potential mechanism for improving AJRS performance.
According to previous studies, vertical GRFmax is significantly reduced under BF conditions [47,48,49]. Although there was no significant difference in the GRFmax and time series of GRF under both conditions, the observed results indicated a reduction of 28.5% in the peak loading rate under shod conditions (Table 5), which suggests that wearing shoes may provide a better buffer during AJRS, and this strategy was achieved by adjusting the angle of the lower extremity. It suggests that the interaction between the “foot–shoe complex” plays a significant role in AJRS, potentially influencing joint stability, shock absorption, and performance [50,51]. Yu et al. found that modern jump rope shoes utilize elastic materials to absorb impact, which showed a lower plantar pressure than other shoes during jump rope [1,7]. In theory, the stiffness of the lower extremity during exercise plays a crucial role in the storage and release of elastic energy, which can significantly impact the exercise technique and performance, particularly in activities involving jumping and running [17,52]. Efficient storage and recoiling elastic energy is believed to enhance the efficiency of movements, allowing athletes to achieve higher jumps and perform explosive actions more effectively. In this study, it was observed that there was no significant difference in lower extremity stiffness between the two conditions. These results suggest that the tested footwear, likely designed with specific shock-absorbing capabilities, may effectively dampen the impact forces generated during AJRS, leading to comparable lower extremity stiffness as compared to the barefoot condition [53].
This study has certain limitations. First, while the participants underwent a similar level of AJRS and were provided with an adaptation to BF skipping before the trial, it is important to consider that there may still be individual differences in lower extremity biomechanics. This is because all participants were inexperienced in barefoot AJRS, and they may not have fully adapted to the BF condition. In addition, this study focused exclusively on a widely acknowledged jump rope shoe that is commercially available. However, it is suggested that subsequent research endeavors aim to examine a diverse set of jump rope footwear, encompassing different levels of rigidity and variations in the differential between the toe and heel, or alternatively, they concentrate specifically on the malleability and reactivity of jump rope shoes to augment athletes’ foot flexibility and sensory perception [54]. Finally, the measurement of the MTP joint angle using the marker set of the MTP joints under shod conditions could not acquire the real skeletal motion.

5. Conclusions

Based on the variables examined in this study, it was observed that wearing shoes was insufficient to enhance AJRS performance compared to the BF condition, but it did alter the biomechanics of AJRS. Specifically, wearing shoes during AJRS increased the MTP plantarflexion joint power and ankle dorsi-plantar flexion angle and decreased the ROM and peak angle velocity of the MTP joint during the landing phase. These findings emphasize the significance of the ankle and MTP joint during AJRS and suggest the importance of controlling the ankle and MTP joint angles to provide better propulsion during push-off.

Author Contributions

J.L. and K.W. designed this study, drafted the manuscript, and equally contributed to this article. Conceptualization, W.F. and J.L.; methodology, W.F., J.L., K.W. and J.W.; software, J.L. and D.Y.; validation, W.F.; formal analysis, W.F., J.L., and K.W.; investigation, W.F., J.L., and K.W.; resources, W.F.; data curation, W.F., J.L., and K.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.; writing—review and editing, W.F., and L.D.; visualization, J.L. and K.W.; supervision, W.F.; project administration, W.F.; funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2019YFF0302100), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12272238), and the ‘Outstanding Young Scholar’ Program of Shanghai Municipal.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai University of Sport (protocol code 102772023RT029).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yu, H.B.; Tai, W.H.; He, B.X.; Li, J.; Zhang, R.; Hao, W.Y. Effects of Footwear Selection on Plantar Pressure and Neuromuscular Characteristics during Jump Rope Training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2023, 20, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mullerpatan, R.; Shetty, T.; Singh, Y.; Agarwal, B. Lower extremity joint loading during Bounce rope skip in comparison to run and walk. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2021, 26, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bruce, O.L.; Ramsay, M.; Kennedy, G.; Edwards, W.B. Lower-limb joint kinetics in jump rope skills performed by competitive athletes. Sports Biomech. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Heart&Stroke. Jump Rope for Heart. Available online: https://www.heartandstroke.ca/how-you-can-help/events/jump-rope-for-heart (accessed on 10 January 2021).
  5. Ha, A.S.; Burnett, A.; Sum, R.; Medic, N.; Ng, J.Y. Outcomes of the Rope Skipping ‘STAR’ Programme for Schoolchildren. J. Hum. Kinet. 2015, 45, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Li, P.; Xiao, X. The feasibility of implementing a jump rope curriculum in shanghai middle school students. Contemp. Sports Technol. 2013, 3, 104–105. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yu, H.B.; Li, J.; Zhang, R.; Hao, W.Y.; Lin, J.Z.; Tai, W.H. Effects of Jump-Rope-Specific Footwear Selection on Lower Extremity Biomechanics. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yu, H.B.; Tai, W.H.; Li, J.; Zhang, R.; Hao, W.Y.; Lin, J.Z. Effects of Shoe Midsole Hardness on Lower Extremity Biomechanics during Jump Rope in Healthy Males. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lin, Y.; Lu, Z.; Cen, X.; Thirupathi, A.; Sun, D.; Gu, Y. The Influence of Different Rope Jumping Methods on Adolescents’ Lower Limb Biomechanics during the Ground-Contact Phase. Children 2022, 9, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yamauchi, J.; Koyama, K. The mechanical role of the metatarsophalangeal joint in human jumping. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0268634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Smith, R.; Lichtwark, G.; Farris, D.; Kelly, L. Examining the intrinsic foot muscles’ capacity to modulate plantar flexor gearing and ankle joint contributions to propulsion in vertical jumping. J. Sport. Health Sci. 2022, S2095–2546, 00076-X. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Goldmann, J.P.; Sanno, M.; Willwacher, S.; Heinrich, K.; Bruggemann, G.P. The potential of toe flexor muscles to enhance performance. J. Sports Sci. 2013, 31, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang, F.; Ye, D.; Zhang, X.; Sun, X.; Zhang, S.; Wang, S.; Fu, W. Influence of Shod and Barefoot Running on the In Vivo Kinematics of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 892760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Koustav Kanjilal, S.S.M. A Review of applications and Developments of Biomechanics in Sports. Mech. Mech. Eng. 2017, 17, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  15. Nielsen, A.; Franch, J.; Heyde, C.; de Zee, M.; Kersting, U.; Larsen, R.G. Carbon Plate Shoes Improve Metabolic Power and Performance in Recreational Runners. Int. J. Sports Med. 2022, 43, 804–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nigg, B.M.; Cigoja, S.; Nigg, S.R. Teeter-totter effect: A new mechanism to understand shoe-related improvements in long-distance running. Br. J. Sports Med. 2021, 55, 462–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sun, X.; Lam, W.-K.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Fu, W. Systematic Review of the Role of Footwear Constructions in Running Biomechanics- Implications for Running-Related Injury and Performance. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020, 19, 20–37. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ray, S.F.; Takahashi, K.Z. Gearing Up the Human Ankle-Foot System to Reduce Energy Cost of Fast Walking. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hoogkamer, W.; Kipp, S.; Kram, R. The Biomechanics of Competitive Male Runners in Three Marathon Racing Shoes: A Randomized Crossover Study. Sports Med. 2019, 49, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cranage, S.; Perraton, L.; Bowles, K.A.; Williams, C. A comparison of young children’s spatiotemporal measures of walking and running in three common types of footwear compared to bare feet. Gait Posture 2020, 81, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Srs, E. Jump Rope Barefoot—Benefits & Considerations—Elite SRS. Available online: https://elitesrs.com/blogs/guides/jump-rope-barefoot-benefits-considerations (accessed on 25 May 2022).
  22. Hererope. Should You Jump Rope Barefoot. Available online: https://hererope.com/blogs/news/should-you-jump-rope-barefoot (accessed on 9 February 2022).
  23. Song, Y.; Cen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Bíró, I.; Ji, Y.; Gu, Y. Development and Validation of a Subject-Specific Coupled Model for Foot and Sports Shoe Complex: A Pilot Computational Study. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, X.; Xia, R.; Dai, B.; Sun, X.; Fu, W. Effects of Exercise-Induced Fatigue on Lower Extremity Joint Mechanics, Stiffness, and Energy Absorption during Landings. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2018, 17, 640–649. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Yeow, C.H.; Lee, P.V.; Goh, J.C. Effect of landing height on frontal plane kinematics, kinetics and energy dissipation at lower extremity joints. J. Biomech. 2009, 42, 1967–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Oh, K.; Park, S. The bending stiffness of shoes is beneficial to running energetics if it does not disturb the natural MTP joint flexion. J. Biomech. 2017, 53, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lorke, N.; Keller, S.; Rein, R.; Zedler, M.; Drescher, C.; Weil, P.; Schwerhoff, M.; Braunstein, B. Speed Rope Skipping—Performance and Coordination in a Four-Limb Task. J. Mot. Behav. 2022, 54, 599–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Smith, G.; Lake, M.; Lees, A.; Worsfold, P. Measurement procedures affect the interpretation of metatarsophalangeal joint function during accelerated sprinting. J. Sports Sci. 2012, 30, 1521–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, X.; Deng, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, L.; Fu, W. Acute shoe effects on Achilles tendon loading in runners with habitual rearfoot strike pattern. Gait Posture 2020, 82, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shrout, P.E.; Fleiss, J.L. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 420–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yeager, M.S.; Cook, D.J.; Cheng, B.C. Reliability of computer-assisted lumbar intervertebral measurements using a novel vertebral motion analysis system. Spine J. Off. J. North. Am. Spine Soc. 2014, 14, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kulmala, J.P.; Kosonen, J.; Nurminen, J.; Avela, J. Running in highly cushioned shoes increases leg stiffness and amplifies impact loading. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 17496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hof, A.L. An explicit expression for the moment in multibody systems. J. Biomech. 1992, 25, 1209–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alhossary, A.; Pataky, T.; Ang, W.T.; Chua, K.S.G.; Kwong, W.H.; Donnelly, C.J. Versatile clinical movement analysis using statistical parametric mapping in MovementRx. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kim, D.Y.; Jang, K.H.; Lee, M.G.; Son, M.J.; Kim, Y.K.; Kim, J.H.; Youm, C.H. Analysis of Kinematics and Kinetics according to Skill Level and Sex in Double-under Jump Rope Technique. Korean J. Sport Biomech. 2017, 27, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jang, K.H.; Son, M.J.; Kim, D.Y.; Lee, M.G.; Kim, Y.K.; Kim, J.H.; Youm, C.H. Effects of Skill Level and Feet Width on Kinematic and Kinetic Variables during Jump Rope Single Under. Korean J. Sport Biomech. 2017, 27, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Franklin, S.; Grey, M.J.; Heneghan, N.; Bowen, L.; Li, F.X. Barefoot vs. common footwear: A systematic review of the kinematic, kinetic and muscle activity differences during walking. Gait Posture 2015, 42, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sinclair, J. Effects of barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear on knee and ankle loading during running. Clin. Biomech. 2014, 29, 395–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Roggio, F.; Trovato, B.; Zanghì, M.; Petrigna, L.; Testa, G.; Pavone, V.; Musumeci, G. Running Footwear and Impact Peak Differences in Recreational Runners. Biology 2022, 11, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jia, S.W.; Lam, W.K.; Huang, Z.; Baker, J.S.; Ugbolue, U.C.; Gu, Y. Influence of metatarsophalangeal joint stiffness on take-off performances and lower-limb biomechanics in jump manoeuvres. J. Sports Sci. 2022, 40, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McClelland, J.A.; Allan, J.J.; Auhl, M.; Buldt, A.K.; Landorf, K.B.; Cicuttini, F.M.; Roddy, E.; Menz, H.B.; Munteanu, S.E. Effects of Shoe-Stiffening Inserts on Lower Extremity Kinematics in Individuals With First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2021, 74, 1849–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kazuaki, K.; Ishida, K.; Hashimoto, M.; Nakao, H.; Nishizawa, Y.; Shibanuma, N.; Kurosaka, M.; Otsuki, S. The effects of vertical trunk supportability improvement on one-leg rebound jump efficiency. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0267460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kariyama, Y. Effect of Jump Direction on Joint Kinetics of Take-Off Legs in Double-Leg Rebound Jumps. Sports 2019, 7, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Willwacher, S.; Konig, M.; Braunstein, B.; Goldmann, J.P.; Bruggemann, G.P. The gearing function of running shoe longitudinal bending stiffness. Gait Posture 2014, 40, 386–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ortega, J.A.; Healey, L.A.; Swinnen, W.; Hoogkamer, W. Energetics and Biomechanics of Running Footwear with Increased Longitudinal Bending Stiffness: A Narrative Review. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 873–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carrier, D.R.; Heglund, N.C.; Earls, K.D. Variable gearing during locomotion in the human musculoskeletal system. Science 1994, 265, 651–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Delgado, T.L.; Kubera-Shelton, E.; Robb, R.R.; Hickman, R.; Wallmann, H.W.; Dufek, J.S. Effects of foot strike on low back posture, shock attenuation, and comfort in running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2013, 45, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lieberman, D.E.; Venkadesan, M.; Werbel, W.A.; Daoud, A.I.; D’Andrea, S.; Davis, I.S.; Mang’eni, R.O.; Pitsiladis, Y. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 2010, 463, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hollander, K.; Liebl, D.; Meining, S.; Mattes, K.; Willwacher, S.; Zech, A. Adaptation of Running Biomechanics to Repeated Barefoot Running: A Randomized Controlled Study. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 1975–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Smith, R.E.; Paquette, M.R.; Harry, J.R.; Powell, D.W.; Weiss, L.W. Footwear and Sex Differences in Performance and Joint Kinetics During Maximal Vertical Jumping. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 1634–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chan, Z.Y.S.; Au, I.P.H.; Lau, F.O.Y.; Ching, E.C.K.; Zhang, J.H.; Cheung, R.T.H. Does maximalist footwear lower impact loading during level ground and downhill running? Eur. J. Sport. Sci. 2018, 18, 1083–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Markovic, G.; Mikulic, P. Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports Med. 2010, 40, 859–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rawcliffe, A.J.; Graham, S.M.; Simpson, R.J.; Moir, G.L.; Martindale, R.J.J.; Psycharakis, S.G.; Connaboy, C. The Effects of British Army Footwear on Ground Reaction Force and Temporal Parameters of British Army Foot Drill. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 754–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Okholm Kryger, K.; Mutamba, K.; Mitchell, S.; Miller, S.C.; Forrester, S. Physical performance and perception of foot discomfort during a soccer-specific match simulation. A comparison of football boots. J. Sports Sci. 2021, 39, 1046–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bioengineering 10 01154 g001
Figure 1. Experimental footwear.
Figure 1. Experimental footwear.
Bioengineering 10 01154 g001
Bioengineering 10 01154 g002
Figure 2. Marker set used in this study.
Figure 2. Marker set used in this study.
Bioengineering 10 01154 g002
Bioengineering 10 01154 g003
Figure 3. Marker set of the ankle and MTP joints under shod conditions.
Figure 3. Marker set of the ankle and MTP joints under shod conditions.
Bioengineering 10 01154 g003
Bioengineering 10 01154 g004
Figure 4. Marker set of the MTP joints under barefoot conditions.
Figure 4. Marker set of the MTP joints under barefoot conditions.
Bioengineering 10 01154 g004
Bioengineering 10 01154 g005
Figure 5. SPM analysis of the joint angle on the sagittal plane of the ankle (Mean, SD); BF in black, shod in red.
Figure 5. SPM analysis of the joint angle on the sagittal plane of the ankle (Mean, SD); BF in black, shod in red.
Bioengineering 10 01154 g005
Bioengineering 10 01154 g006
Figure 6. SPM analysis of the sagittal joint power of the MTP Dorsi-Plantar Flexion. SD is the standard deviation. Barefoot in black, shod in red.
Figure 6. SPM analysis of the sagittal joint power of the MTP Dorsi-Plantar Flexion. SD is the standard deviation. Barefoot in black, shod in red.
Bioengineering 10 01154 g006
Table 1. The basic information of the participants (mean ± SD).
Table 1. The basic information of the participants (mean ± SD).
No.Age (Years)Height (cm)Weight (kg)Rope Skipping Level (n/min)
1525.3 ± 2.972.3 ± 6.7175.7 ± 3.8140.6 ± 5.1
Table 2. The definitions or calculations of the selected variables.
Table 2. The definitions or calculations of the selected variables.
No.VariableDefinition or Calculation
1Center of mass displacementthe movement or shift of the center of mass of the participant during AJRS
2Ground contact timethe duration of time in which the feet make contact with the ground during each AJRS
3Peak angular velocitythe maximum rotational speed or rate of change of the angular displacement at a joint during the landing phase of AJRS
4ROMthe range of motion of the lower extremity joints during the landing phase
5Peak loading ratecalculated as the peak rate of change of the ground reaction force (GRF) during the landing phase of AJRS [32]
6Lower extremity stiffness (kleg)lower extremity stiffness was calculated by taking the ratio of the leg vector projected ground reaction force (GRFproj) to the compression of the leg (legcomp) at the instant when the compression was maximal [32]: kleg = GRFproj/legcomp
7Joint momentcalculated by inverse dynamics according to Hof [33,34]
8Joint powercalculated as the dot product of the normalized joint moment and joint angular velocity
Table 3. Comparison of performance variables during the landing phase under the barefoot and shod conditions.
Table 3. Comparison of performance variables during the landing phase under the barefoot and shod conditions.
VariablesShoe Conditionsp-Value95% CICohen’s d
BarefootShod
Ground contact time (ms)263 ± 40239 ± 360.031[6.59; 41.33]0.62
Center of mass displacement (cm)9.7 ± 1.58.7 ± 1.70.01[0.10; 1.86]0.76
Note: 95% CI = 95% confident interval.
Table 4. Comparison of kinematic variables under the barefoot and shod conditions.
Table 4. Comparison of kinematic variables under the barefoot and shod conditions.
VariablesShoe Conditionsp-Value95% CICohen’s d
BarefootShod
ROMankle (°)28.7 ± 4.127.1 ± 4.10.044[0.05; 2.78]0.57
ROMMTP (°)27.2 ± 5.616.7 ± 4.4<0.001 *[6.74; 13.33]0.89
ωankle_max (°·s−1)162.7 ± 20.2145.3 ± 36.50.082[−2.75; 37.54]0.69
ωMTP_max (°·s−1)98.7 ± 15.162.17 ± 23.0<0.001 *[22.56; 50.41]0.86
Note: 95% CI = 95% confident interval; ROMankle and ROMMTP are the ROM of the ankle and MTP joints, respectively, in the sagittal plane; ωankle_max and ωMTP_max are the peak angular velocities of the ankle and MTP joint in the sagittal plane; * p < 0.004, which indicates significant differences in barefoot and shod conditions.
Table 5. Comparison of the kinetic variables during the landing phase under the barefoot and shod conditions.
Table 5. Comparison of the kinetic variables during the landing phase under the barefoot and shod conditions.
VariablesShoe Conditionsp-Value95% CICohen’s d
BarefootShod
GRFmax (BW)2.8 ± 0.32.9 ± 0.30.237[−0.26; 0.07]0.237
Peak loading rate (BW/s)62.0 ± 12.344.3 ± 13.90.002 *[8.38; 31.07]0.82
kleg (BW/m)30.2 ± 6.535.4 ± 10.70.033[−10.13; −0.49]0.33
Peak ankle Dorsi-Plantar flexion moment (N·m/BW)2.4 ± 0.82.8 ± 0.60.057[−0.79; 0.05]0.57
Peak MTP Dorsi-Plantar flexion moment (N·m/BW)0.6 ± 0.40.5 ± 0.30.377[−0.14; 0.24]0.28
Peak ankle Dorsi-Plantar flexion power (W/BW)9.1 ± 1.710.9 ± 2.70.049[−3.64; −0.007]0.69
Peak MTP Dorsi-Plantar flexion power (W/BW)0.8 ± 0.70.7 ± 0.50.779[−0.20; 0.26]0.71
Note: GRFmax is the peak GRF; BW is the body weight; * p < 0.004, which indicates significant differences in barefoot and shod conditions.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, J.; Wu, K.; Ye, D.; Deng, L.; Wang, J.; Fu, W. Effects of Barefoot and Shod Conditions on the Kinematics and Kinetics of the Lower Extremities in Alternating Jump Rope Skipping—A One-Dimensional Statistical Parameter Mapping Study. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101154

AMA Style

Li J, Wu K, Ye D, Deng L, Wang J, Fu W. Effects of Barefoot and Shod Conditions on the Kinematics and Kinetics of the Lower Extremities in Alternating Jump Rope Skipping—A One-Dimensional Statistical Parameter Mapping Study. Bioengineering. 2023; 10(10):1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101154

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Jun, Kaicheng Wu, Dongqiang Ye, Liqin Deng, Jichao Wang, and Weijie Fu. 2023. "Effects of Barefoot and Shod Conditions on the Kinematics and Kinetics of the Lower Extremities in Alternating Jump Rope Skipping—A One-Dimensional Statistical Parameter Mapping Study" Bioengineering 10, no. 10: 1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101154

APA Style

Li, J., Wu, K., Ye, D., Deng, L., Wang, J., & Fu, W. (2023). Effects of Barefoot and Shod Conditions on the Kinematics and Kinetics of the Lower Extremities in Alternating Jump Rope Skipping—A One-Dimensional Statistical Parameter Mapping Study. Bioengineering, 10(10), 1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10101154

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop