Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29213246›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2017

The Influence of Footwear on the Modular Organization of Running.

Alessandro Santuz, Antonis Ekizos, Lars Janshen, Vasilios Baltzopoulos, Adamantios Arampatzis

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04166136 (Efficacy of the Transition of the Foot Strike Pattern From Rearfoot to Midfoot or Forefoot During Running on Pain and Disability in Cadets With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04166136 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of the Transition of the Foot Strike Pattern From Rearfoot to Midfoot or Forefoot During Running on Pain and Disability in Cadets With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentro Universitário Augusto MottaRan2019 to 2020Enrolled25ConditionsChronic Musculoskeletal PainArmsTransition from the Rearfoot to the Forefoot and Midfoot, Usual Treatment Group, Muscle Strengthening Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alessandro SantuzDepartment of Training and Movement Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Antonis EkizosDepartment of Training and Movement Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lars JanshenDepartment of Training and Movement Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Vasilios BaltzopoulosResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Adamantios ArampatzisDepartment of Training and Movement Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For most of our history, we predominantly ran barefoot or in minimalist shoes. The advent of modern footwear, however, might have introduced alterations in the motor control of running. The present study investigated shod and barefoot running under the perspective of the modular organization of muscle activation, in order to help addressing the neurophysiological factors underlying human locomotion. On a treadmill, 20 young and healthy inexperienced barefoot runners ran shod and barefoot at preferred speed (2.8 ± 0.4 m/s). Fundamental synergies, containing the time-dependent activation coefficients (motor primitives) and the time-invariant muscle weightings (motor modules), were extracted from 24 ipsilateral electromyographic activities using non-negative matrix factorization. In shod running, the average foot strike pattern was a rearfoot strike, while in barefoot running it was a mid-forefoot strike. In both conditions, five fundamental synergies were enough to describe as many gait cycle phases: weight acceptance, propulsion, arm swing, early swing and late swing. We found the motor primitives to be generally shifted earlier in time during the stance-related phases and later in the swing-related ones in barefoot running. The motor primitive describing the propulsion phase was significantly of shorter duration (peculiarity confirmed by the analysis of the spinal motor output). The arm swing primitive, instead, was significantly wider in the barefoot condition. The motor modules demonstrated analogous organization with some significant differences in the propulsion, arm swing and late swing synergies. Other than to the trivial absence of shoes, the differences might be deputed to the lower ankle gear ratio (and the consequent increased system instability) and to the higher recoil capabilities of the longitudinal foot arch during barefoot compared to shod running.

Indexed as

barefoot runningEMGfootwearlocomotionmotor controlmuscle synergiesrunning

Identifiers

PMID29213246
PMCPMC5702634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.