Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39253099›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2024

Perception of Running Shoe Cushioning: Determining the Correspondence between Subjective Assessment and In-vitro Measurement.

Bahador Keshvari, Juergen Mitternacht, Nick Schubert, Veit Senner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of exercise science, 2024. 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

4 authors.

Bahador KeshvariSchool of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, GERMANY.
Juergen MitternachtSchool of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, GERMANY.
Nick SchubertSchool of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, GERMANY.
Veit SennerSchool of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, GERMANY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Running shoes, and in particular insoles, are the first interface between runners and running surface. Different insole attenuation properties may vary perception of cushioning and, accordingly, the effect on muscle adaptation. The aim of this study is to find the just noticeable difference between four insole materials, and investigate the parameters of in-vitro measurement of impact testing to predict cushioning comfort. Nineteen (n = 19) male participants were recruited from the sports center at the Technical University of Munich with a mean age of 23.89 (SD = 2.31), weight of 73.52 kg (SD =3.08), and height 178.84 cm (SD =2.81). Four insole samples, one with the highest peak acceleration (EPDM =17.9g), one with the lowest (S.Tk = 8.3g) and the two materials with middle range magnitudes (IP.GL= 11.5g and S.Tn = 12.2g), were selected to use in the subjective measurement. We used the impact testing method to evaluate the in-vitro physical properties of insoles in running shoes. In addition, two parameters of peak acceleration were measured as follows: Jolt α was calculated at a slope of between 5-20 % of inertial impact force and Jolt β was calculated at a slope of between 0-88 Newtons of inertial impact force. Participants performed six pairwise comparison tests with shoes which were equipped with one of the four insoles in a random order. A minimum 6% increase in cushioning properties, notably between 11.5g (S.Tn) and 12.2g (IP.Gl), was discerned through the paired tests. In simpler terms, participants were able to detect a mere 0.7g as the just noticeable difference. In addition, our findings revealed that an increase of Jolt α and Jolt β resulted in a reduction in perception of comfort. There was a negative and significant correlation between Jolt α and perceived cushioning and, similarly, between Jolt β and perceived cushioning r (10) = -0.93, p = 0.00001. No correlation was found between peak acceleration and cushioning comfort (p = 0.1). These discoveries may facilitate a better understanding of how human adaptation can occur with different cushioning.

Indexed as

Insolejust noticeable differencepairwise comparison test

Identifiers

PMID39253099
PMCPMC11382782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.