Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34938429›Full record

ArticleInterface focus2021

Consistent inconsistencies in braking: a spatial analysis.

Alexandra G Hammerberg, Patricia Ann Kramer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interface focus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Alexandra G HammerbergPrimate Evolutionary Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3100, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1219-5007
Patricia Ann KramerPrimate Evolutionary Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-3100, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6435-9130

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The dynamic system that is the bipedal body in motion is of interest to engineers, clinicians and biological anthropologists alike. Spatial statistics is more familiar to public health researchers as a way of analysing disease clustering and spread; nonetheless, this is a practical approach to the two-dimensional topography of the foot. We quantified the clustering of the centre of pressure (CoP) on the foot for peak braking and propulsive vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) over multiple, contiguous steps to assess the consistency of the location of peak forces on the foot during walking. The vertical GRFs of 11 participants were collected continuously via a wireless insole system (MoticonReGo AG) across various experimental conditions. We hypothesized that CoPs would cluster in the hindfoot for braking and forefoot for propulsion, and that braking would demonstrate more consistent clustering than propulsion. Contrary to our hypotheses, we found that CoPs during braking are inconsistent in their location, and CoPs during propulsion are more consistent and clustered across all participants and all trials. These results add to our understanding of the applied forces on the foot so that we can better predict fatigue failures and better understand the mechanisms that shaped the modern bipedal form.

Indexed as

anthroengineeringcentre of pressurehuman movementspatial statistics

Identifiers

PMID34938429
PMCPMC8361576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.