Changes in foot and lower limb coupling due to systematic variations in step width
Pohl, M.B. Messenger, N.
Pohl, M.B.
Messenger, N.
Publication Date
2006-02
End of Embargo
Supervisor
Rights
Peer-Reviewed
Yes
Open Access status
Accepted for publication
2005-09-19
Institution
Department
Awarded
Embargo end date
Additional title
Abstract
Motion at the midfoot joints can contribute significantly to overall foot motion during gait. However, there is little
information regarding the kinematic coupling relationship at the midfoot. The purpose of the present study was to determine
whether the coupling relationship at the midfoot and subtalar joints was affected when step width was manipulated during running.
Twelve subjects ran over-ground at self-selected speeds using three different step widths (normal, wide, cross-over).
Coupling at the midfoot (forefoot relative to rearfoot) and subtalar (rearfoot relative to shank) joints was assessed using cross-correlation techniques.
Rearfoot kinematics were significantly different from normal running in cross-over running (P < 0.05) but not in wide
running. However, coupling between rearfoot eversion/inversion and shank rotation was consistently high (r > 0.917), regardless of
step width. This was also the case for coupling between rearfoot frontal plane motion and forefoot sagittal plane (r < 0.852) and
forefoot transverse plane (r > 0.946) motion. There was little evidence of coupling between rearfoot frontal plane motion and forefoot
frontal plane motion in any of the conditions.
Forefoot frontal plane motion appeared to have little effect on rearfoot frontal plane motion and thus, had no
effect on motion at the subtalar joint. The strong coupling of forefoot sagittal and transverse plane motions with rearfoot frontal
plane motion suggests that forefoot motion exerts an important influence on subtalar joint kinematics.
Version
No full-text in the repository
Citation
Pohl MB, Messenger N and Buckley JG (2006) Changes in foot and lower limb coupling due to systematic
variations in step width. Clinical Biomechanics. 21(2): 175-183.
Link to publisher’s version
Link to published version
Link to Version of Record
Type
Article