Open AccessKinetics and perception of basketball landing in various heights and footwear cushioning
Author(s) -
Qiang Wang,
Zhao Wang,
Jeonghyun Woo,
Jacobus Noel Liebenberg,
Sang-Kyoon Park,
Jiseon Ryu,
Wing-Kai Lam
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0201758
Subject(s) - cushioning , kinematics , ankle , accelerometer , basketball , heel , impact , biomechanics , mathematics , orthodontics , range of motion , touchdown , materials science , physics , medicine , engineering , structural engineering , physical therapy , anatomy , geography , archaeology , classical mechanics , quantum mechanics
Background The previous studies on basketball landing have not shown a systematic agreement between landing impacts and midsole densities. One plausible reason is that the midsole densities alone used to represent the cushioning capability of a shoe seems over simplified. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of different landing heights and shoes of different cushioning performance on tibial shock, impact loading and knee kinematics of basketball players. Methods Nineteen university team basketball players performed drop landings from different height conditions (0.45m vs. 0.61m) as well as with different shoe cushioning properties (regular, better vs. best-cushioned). For each condition, tibial acceleration, vertical ground reaction force and knee kinematics were measured with a tri-axial accelerometer, force plate and motion capture system, respectively. Heel comfort perception was indicated on the 150-mm Visual Analogue Scale. A 2 (height) x 3 (footwear) ANOVA with repeated measures was performed to determine the effects of different landing heights and shoe cushioning on the measured parameters. Results We did not find significant interactions between landing height and shoe conditions on tibial shock, impact peak, mean loading rate, maximum knee flexion angle and total ankle range of motion. However, greater tibial shock, impact peak, mean loading rates and total ankle range of motion were determined at a higher landing height ( P < 0.01). Regular-cushioned shoes demonstrated significantly greater tibial shock and mean loading rate compared with better- and best-cushioned shoes ( P < 0.05). The correlation analysis indicated that the heel comfort perception was fairly associated with impact peak and mean loading rate regardless of heights ( P < 0.05), but not associated with tibial shock. Conclusions Determination of shoe cushioning performance, regardless of shoe midsole materials and constructions, would be capable in order to identify optimal shoe models for better protection against tibial stress fracture. Subjective comfort rating could estimate the level of impact loading in non-laboratory based situations.