Orthopedics & Biomechanics Thieme

Effect of Footwear on Dynamic Stability during Single-leg

Jump Landings

Authors Abs tr ac t
Bradley J Bowser1, William C. Rose2, Robert McGrath3, Jilian Salerno3,
Barefoot and minimal footwear running has led to greater interest in
Joshua Wallace2, Irene S. Davis4
the biomechanical effects of different types of footwear. The effect of
running footwear on dynamic stability is not well understood. The pur-
Affiliations
pose of this study was to compare dynamic stability and impact loading
1 Health and Nutritional Science, South Dakota State University,
across 3 footwear conditions; barefoot, minimal footwear and standard
Brookings, United States
running shoes. 25 injury free runners (21 male, 4 female) completed 5
2 Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware,
single-leg jump landings in each footwear condition. Dynamic stability
Newark, United States
was assessed using the dynamic postural stability index and its direc-
3 Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, United States
tional components (mediolateral, anteroposterior, vertical). Peak ver-
4 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard
tical ground reaction force and vertical loadrates were also compared
Medical School, Boston, United States
across footwear conditions. Dynamic stability was dependent on foot-

Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.

Key word wear type for all stability indices (ANOVA, p < 0.05). Post-hoc tests
minimal footwear, barefoot running, proprioception, balance showed dynamic stability was greater when barefoot than in running
shoes for each stability index (p < 0.02) and greater than minimal foot-
accepted after revision 25.01.2017 wear for the anteroposterior stability index (p < 0.01). Peak vertical force
and average loadrates were both dependent on footwear (p ≤ 0.05).
Bibliography
Dynamic stability, peak vertical force, and average loadrates during
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-103090
single-leg jump landings appear to be affected by footwear type. The
Published online: 2017
results suggest greater dynamic stability and lower impact loading
Int J Sports Med
when landing barefoot or in minimal footwear.
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
ISSN 0172-4622

Correspondence
Dr. Bradley J Bowser, PhD
Health and Nutritional Science
South Dakota State University
Box 2203 SBA116
57007-2201, Brookings
United States
Tel.: + 1/605/688 4829, Fax: + 1/605/688 6110
bradley.bowser@sdstate.edu

Introduction
The use of minimal footwear over the last 5–10 years has grown in
popularity. In part, the increase in popularity is likely due to the
benefits of minimal and barefoot running reported by several re-
searchers. Some of the reported benefits of wearing minimal or no
footwear include increased vertical jump height [14], increased
running economy [1, 8], improved static balance [33], improved
Achilles tendon stiffness and size [12] and greater dynamic stabil-
ity [31]. In addition to benefits to performance, advocates of wear-
ing minimal or no footwear during exercise claim that injuries may
be reduced when running or jumping in little or no footwear. These
claims are based on the reduction of vertical impact forces and
loadrates observed in running with minimal footwear compared
to traditionally shod [15, 20, 26]. Furthermore, leg stiffness and
loading rates have also been reported to decrease during running,
hopping and jump landings as footwear decreases [2, 20, 25].
While the direct link between injury risk and the use of minimal
footwear has yet to be established, loading impacts, leg stiffness
and dynamic instability have all been linked to common athletic
injuries [3, 6, 16, 17, 19, 32]. Subsequently, decreasing loading im-
pacts, leg stiffness and improving dynamic stability by wearing
minimal or no footwear may be associated with a reduced risk of
injury.
One factor suggested to explain the differences reported is
greater sensory input to the foot during barefoot and minimal foot-
wear conditions. Foot position awareness in young men has been
reported to be better when barefoot than shod [22, 24]. Hijmans
reviewed several studies that reported negative effects of footwear
on proprioception in older individuals as well [9]. Robbins and
Hanna suggest that wearing shoes can diminish sensory feedback
from the glabrous epithelium of the foot potentially decreasing dy-
namic stability and increasing injury risk [21]. However, it remains

Bowser BJ et al. Effect of Footwear on … Int J Sports Med 2017; 38: 1–6
 Orthopedics & Biomechanics
unclear if wearing minimal or no footwear will translate into better
dynamic stability.
Currently, there are only 2 known studies that have examined
the effect of footwear on dynamic stability. Using the dynamic pos-
tural stability index (DPSI) developed by Wikstrom [30], Wyon,
et al. observed dancers to have greater dynamic stability during
single-leg jump landings when minimal (midsole thickness < 2 mm)
or no footwear was worn [31]. They also reported that as midsole
thickness of dance shoes increased, dynamic stability decreased
[31]. These findings suggest that utilizing minimal or no footwear
can improve dynamic stability in dancers. In contrast, Zech, et al.
found no significant effects of running footwear on time to stabili-
zation during single-leg jump landings [33]. However, they only
measured time to stabilization in the mediolateral and anteropos-
terior directions [33]. The dynamic postural stability index (DPSI),
utilized by Wyon, et al., provides a measure of dynamic stability
that is sensitive to movements in all 3 directions [27]. DPSI and its
directional components may be more sensitive in detecting differ-
ences in dynamic stability during single-leg jump landings when
performed across different footwear conditions.
Footwear also plays an important role in leg stiffness and land-
ing impacts. Humans have an innate ability to adjust their leg spring
according to the stiffness of the surface they encounter. Bishop re-
ported significantly greater leg stiffness when landing in a cush-
ioned shoe vs. barefoot or in a minimal type shoe [2]. Ferris, et al.
also reported greater leg stiffness when running along a soft track
compared with a hard one [7]. Increased leg stiffness has been as-
sociated with greater vertical impact loading. Shultz and colleagues
found that performing drop landings barefoot resulted in less hip
joint stiffness and lower peak force than when wearing running
shoes [25]. As impact peaks and their associated loadrates have
been linked to injuries, footwear conditions that reduce these im-
pacts during landings may be beneficial.
Running is a dynamic activity comprised of sequential single-leg
landings. Determining the effect of running footwear on DPSI and
vertical impact forces during single-leg jump landings may provide
further insight into the dynamic stability of running with minimal
or no footwear. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to com-
pare dynamic stability, using DPSI and its directional components,
across 3 running footwear conditions; barefoot, minimalist shoes
and standard running shoes. We hypothesized that dynamic sta-
bility would be highest when barefoot, less in minimal shoes and
least stable in running shoes. Our second aim was to examine the
effect of footwear on vertical impacts during landing. We expect-
ed that peak vertical forces and their associated loadrates would
be greatest in traditional shoes, less in minimal shoes and the low-
est when landing barefoot.
Methods
Participants
25 healthy individuals (21 male, 4 female, barefoot mass
77.7 ± 14.6 kg, age 24 ± 5 yrs) participated in the study. Participants
were injury free at the time of the study and had no history of mod-
erate or severe ankle sprains. All were accustomed to wearing both
standard running shoes and minimalist footwear when participat-
Thieme
ing in activities that included running and jumping. The mean du-
ration of use of Vibram 5-Fingers (minimal footwear) across all par-
ticipants, was 11.9 months (range: 1.5 to 55 months). This study
was conducted in accordance to ethical guidelines and internation-
al standards [10] and approved by the University’s Institutional Re-
view Board. All participants provided written informed consent
prior to participation.
Protocol
Dynamic stability was assessed as participants completed a sin-
gle-leg jump landing. Each subject balanced briefly on their dom-
inant (preferred for kicking) leg on a 10 cm high platform posi-
tioned 70 cm from the edge of a force plate. The subject then
jumped onto the center of the force plate, landing on the non-dom-
inant leg, typically used for stability. Subjects were instructed to
stabilize as quickly as possible then stand quietly and motionless
on the landing leg for 10 s. This protocol is similar to that developed
and used by Wikstrom, et al. [28]. However, in order to have a jump
Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.
landing that is more similar to typical running and to improve eco-
logical validity, participants simply jumped down from a 10 cm high
box and were not required to jump up to strike an overhead target.
A rest period was given between jumps to prevent fatigue. The pro-
tocol was repeated for 3 footwear conditions: barefoot, wearing
their own Vibram 5-Finger shoes, and wearing Nike Pegasus run-
ning shoes supplied by the investigators. Footwear order was ran-
domized across participants. Subjects were weighed in each type
of footwear. Force plate data were collected as each subject com-
pleted 5 successful jumps in each type of footwear, for a total of 15
jumps. A jump was considered successful if the subject did not shift
the foot after landing and was able to maintain a single-leg stance.
Variables
A customized Labview (National Instruments, Austin, TX) program
was developed to analyze the force plate data from the jump land-
ings. Forces were recorded at 1 000 Hz and filtered using a second
order recursive Butterworth low pass filter with a cutoff frequency
of 50 Hz. The dynamic postural stability index (DPSI), and its verti-
cal (VSI), anteroposterior (APSI) and medial-lateral (MLSI) compo-
nents, were then calculated following the method outlined by Wik-
strom, et al. [27]. We first computed the square root of the mean
squared deviation of force from the baseline value for 3 s beginning
at the time of landing, as shown in ▶Fig. 1. The baseline value was
zero for APSI and MLSI, and was equal to body weight (including
footwear) for VSI. A 3-s long interval was used, as recommended
by Wikstrom, et al., for studies of athletic performance [27]. The
square root of the mean squared force was divided by the body
weight (in each type of footwear) to get APSI, MLSI, and VSI. The
total dynamic postural stability index (DPSI) was then computed
as the composite of the individual stability components, given in
equation 1. APSI, MLSI, VSI, and DPSI were computed for 5 jump
landings in each individual in each type of footwear. The average
values for the 5 trials were then computed for each individual. A
lower stability index indicates greater dynamic stability.
DPSI = APSI2 + MLSI2 + VSI2 (1)
Bowser BradleyJ et al. Effect of Footwear on … Int J Sports Med

100
75
50
25
Fx (N)
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
▶Fig. 1 The mediolateral stability index was computed as the
square root of the mean squared medial-lateral force, normalized by
body weight, for 3 s after landing. This time window is shown by the
shaded region between the cursors. The anteroposterior and vertical
stability indices were computed similarly.
For each landing, the peak vertical GRF and its associated load-
rates were computed and scaled to body weight (BW). Vertical
loadrates were determined by taking the derivative of the vertical
GRF with respect to time. The average value of the derivative be-
tween 10 % and 90 % of peak force was defined as the average load
rate (VALR), whereas the max. value during this same time period
was defined as the instantaneous load rates (VILR). The VALR rep-
resents the average slope of the force curve during the loading
phase of the landing, whereas the VILR represents the highest
sample-to-sample loading rate during that same portion of the
landing [17].
Statistical analysis
A one-way within-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVA) were con-
ducted with the factor being footwear condition and the depend-
ent variables being the stability and GRF measures. Significant foot-
wear effects (p < 0.05) were followed up with pairwise post-hoc
comparisons. Wilks’s Λ and η2 were calculated for each ANOVA and
Cohen’s d was calculated for each pairwise comparison. All statis-
tical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Program for the
Social Sciences (Version 22.0, IBM® SPSS® Statistics, Chicago, IL,
USA).
Results
Mean values of each stability index in each footwear type, are
shown in ▶Fig. 2a–d. The results of the ANOVA indicated a signif-
icant footwear effect for DPSI (Wilk’s Λ = 0.53, p < 0.001, multivar-
iate η 2 = 0.47), VSI (Wilk’s Λ = 0.55, p = 0.001, multivariate
η2 = 0.45), APSI (Wilk’s Λ = 0.57, p = 0.002, multivariate η2 = 0.43),
and MLSI (Wilk’s Λ = 0.77, p = 0.05, multivariate η2 = 0.23). Post-hoc
pairwise tests indicated that DPSI, VSI, APSI, and MLSI were all sig-
nificantly less in bare feet than in standard running shoes (p < 0.05).
All stability values for landing in Vibrams were in between those of
running shoe and barefoot conditions, with the exception of APSI.
Bowser BradleyJ et al. Effect of Footwear on … Int J Sports Med
APSI in Vibrams was greater than the other 2 conditions, but only
significantly greater than the barefoot condition (▶Fig. 2c).
Means of the peak vertical forces and their associated load rates
are reported in ▶Fig. 3a–c. Results of the ANOVA indicate a signif-
icant footwear effect for peak vertical force (Wilk’s Λ = 0.77,
p = 0.05, multivariate η2 = 0.47) and VALR (Wilk’s Λ = 0.44, p < 0.001,
multivariate η2 = 0.56). Post-hoc pairwise tests indicated that the
barefoot condition had significantly lower peak vertical force com-
pared to the Vibram and Shoe conditions (▶ Fig. 3a). The Barefoot
and Vibram conditions both displayed significantly lower average
load rates compared to the Shoe condition (▶ Fig. 3c). No other
pairwise differences for GRFs were detected.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of footwear
on dynamic stability and impact loading during single-leg landings.
The results of our study confirm our prediction that dynamic sta-
Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.
bility would improve, while impact loading would decrease as the
amount of footwear worn decreases. Dynamic stability, measured
with the DPSI and its components (MLSI, APSI, & VSI), was greatest
when landing barefoot, less in Vibrams, and least when landing in
running shoes. We also found that peak vertical forces were signif-
icantly lower in the barefoot condition compared to both the min-
imal and traditional running shoes. Finally, VALR was lower in both
the barefoot and minimal footwear conditions compared to the
traditional shoe.
Our findings suggest that dynamic postural stability is improved
as the amount of footwear worn is reduced. These findings are con-
sistent with Wyon, et al. who reported dynamic stability during sin-
gle-leg landings improves as sole thickness of dance shoes decrease
[31]. Given that the standard running shoes provide the largest
base of support, it might seem reasonable to assume that the run-
ning shoe condition would result in greater dynamic stability. How-
ever, there appear to be other factors influencing dynamic stabili-
ty that may play a more prominent role than the size of the base of
support. Research indicates that when balancing on softer surfac-
es there appear to be greater distal movements of the foot and larg-
er center of pressure excursions when compared to balancing on
harder surfaces [13]. It is likely that there would also be an increased
in distal movements of the foot during a landing on a softer sur-
face. The increased movements of the foot during the single-leg
landing would help explain the greater values for each of the sta-
bility indices found in the shod condition. Wyon and colleagues at-
tributed the improved stability reported in their study to better
sensory feedback from the foot in the barefoot condition [31]. Ac-
tivation of the proprioceptive mechanoreceptors of the foot have
been deemed critically important in helping athletes maintain bal-
ance and dynamic stability during sports related movements [5].
Robbins suggests that with increased cushioning there is a suppres-
sion of the mechanoreceptors of the foot that can negatively affect
dynamic stability [21]. Although sensory feedback of the foot was
not measured in our study, it is possible that the reduced dynamic
stability during the running shoe condition may be due to increased
filtering of sensory input caused by additional material between
the foot and the ground.
 Orthopedics & Biomechanics Thieme

a b
0.29 p < 0.001; d = 0.92 0.25 p < 0.001; d = 0.89

0.285 0.245
0.24
0.28
0.235
0.275
0.23
0.27 0.225
DPSI

VSI
0.265 0.22
0.215
0.26
0.21
0.255
0.205
0.25 0.2
0.245 0.195
Barefoot Vibram Shoes Barefoot Vibram Shoes
c d
0.15 p = 0.001; d = 0.72 0.025 p = 0.02; d = 0.49

p = 0.008; p = 0.03;

Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.

0.148 0.024
d = 0.57 d = 0.46
0.146 0.023

0.144 0.022
MLSI
APSI

0.142 0.021

0.14 0.02

0.138 0.019

0.136 0.018
Barefoot Vibram Shoes Barefoot Vibram Shoes

▶Fig. 2 Dynamic stability measures in 3 types of footwear: a total dynamic postural stability index (DPSI); b vertical stability index (VSI); c anteri-
or-posterior stability index (APSI); and d medial-lateral stability index (MLSI). A lower stability index indicates greater stability. Significant pairwise
differences, their associated p values, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are shown. Note that dynamic stability was significantly better in bare feet than in
running shoes for each of the 4 measures. Anterior-posterior stability was significantly better in bare feet than in Vibrams. Error bars are standard
error of the mean; n = 25 in each case.

Prior to this study, only one other study had examined the influ-
ence of different types of running footwear on dynamic stability.
In that study Zech, et al. found no effect of footwear on dynamic
postural stability during single-leg landings [33]. One potential rea-
son for the difference between our findings and those reported by
Zech, et al. may be due to the dynamic stability measure used. The
time to stabilization (TTS) technique utilized by Zech and col-
leagues has been reported to have less precision, lower reliability,
and to be a less valid measure for dynamic stability than the DPSI
[29, 30]. Unlike the DPSI, TTS utilizes baseline values collected dur-
ing quiet standing. These baseline values are reported to have a
propensity to be influenced by group differences in postural sway
during quiet standing creating unequal group comparisons [29].
This poses a problem for Zech, et al. who reported significant dif-
ferences in postural sway during quiet standing among footwear
conditions [33]. It is possible that the differences in postural sway
during quiet standing reported by Zech, et al. could have impact-
ed their ability to find significant differences for dynamic stability
utilizing the TTS measure.
Additionally, unlike the DPSI, the TTS does not provide a com-
posite measure of dynamic stability that combines all 3 ground re-
action force directions. Our findings suggest that the DPSI score
may be more sensitive in detecting group difference for dynamic
stability during single-leg jump landings. Furthermore, it is impor-
tant to note that our results indicate that the effect of footwear was
statistically more significant (lower p-value for ANOVA) for DPSI,
the aggregate measure of dynamic stability, and displayed a larg-
er effect size, than for the individual components (APSI, MLSI, VSI).
The pairwise difference between bare feet and running shoes also
displayed the greatest effect size for DPSI than for the individual
components. These findings add to our confidence that the DPSI is
the appropriate measure for determining dynamic stability and
that effect of footwear on dynamic stability is real.
Our secondary aim of this study was to examine the effect of
footwear on vertical impacts during landing. Our results indicated
that the peak vertical force was significantly lower in the barefoot
condition compared to the minimal and standard shoe conditions
(▶Fig. 3). These data are consistent with Shultz, et al. who report-
ed significantly lower peak vertical force during drop landings when

Bowser BradleyJ et al. Effect of Footwear on … Int J Sports Med

 a barefoot compared to wearing running shoes [25]. In addition, our
p = 0.049; d = 0.41
2.9 results indicate that VALR was significantly lower in the barefoot
and minimal shoe conditions compared to the standard running
p = 0.049;
2.8 d = 0.40
shoe condition. While kinematics were not collected during the
landings, most single-leg landings are performed with a forefoot
strike pattern [18, 23]. As such our findings would be consistent
2.7
Peak Vertical Force (BW)

with Rice, et al. who found that runners habituated to a FFS pattern
in minimal shoes exhibit significantly lower loadrates than those
2.6 habituated to a FFS pattern in traditional running shoes [20]. Ad-
ditionally, Hashish, et al. reported that forefoot strike runners have
2.5
lower impact load rates when barefoot compared to when wearing
running shoes [12]. In the context of injury, both retrospective and
prospective running studies indicate that increased loading during
2.4
impact can lead to several different overuse running injuries
[4, 17, 19]. Davis, et al. found that the odds of being diagnosed with
2.3 an overuse running injury were 2.72 times more likely when aver-
Barefoot Vibram Shoes
age vertical load rates are greater than 66 body weights/second
b
180 (BW/s) [4]. While the barefoot and minimal conditions in this study

Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.

were well below 66 BW/s (43 and 49 BW/s, respectively), the mean
160
VALR in the shoe condition was 62 BW/s, potentially indicating in-
140 creased injury risk in the shoe condition. More research is still need-
ed to determine whether higher VALR during single-leg jump land-
120
ings is associated with increased injury rates among runners.
There are limitations to this study that should be considered.
VILR (BW/s)

100
First, landing kinematics were not collected. Variations in jump
80 height and foot strike pattern can influence dynamic stability and
60
vertical loading. However, the standardize box height and instruct-
ing participants to jump forward without jumping up helps to min-
40 imize potential variation that can be attributed to differences in
jump height. Furthermore, research indicates that drop landing are
20
performed with a forefoot strike pattern [18, 23], minimizing the
0 potential variation that could be attributed to different foot strike
Barefoot Vibram Shoes
patterns. Additionally, sensory input to the foot and propriocep-
c tion were not directly measured. Although dynamic stability and
p < 0.001; d = 1.08
70
impact loading improved as footwear decreased for participants in
p = 0.001; our study, it is unknown whether the changes were due to chang-
60
d = 0.79 es in sensory input to the foot and enhanced proprioceptive sense.

50
Summary and Conclusion
In summary, dynamic stability and vertical loading during single-leg
VALR (BW/s)

40
jump landings improve as the amount of footwear decreases. This is
30 the first time these findings have been reported in runners. Con-
sidering that running can be thought of as a series of consecutive
20 single-leg landings, the improvements during the barefoot and
minimal footwear conditions may have significant implications in
10 running. Being barefoot was associated with the greatest improve-
ments. The minimal shoe condition resulted in significantly im-
0 proved dynamic stability and lower loadrates compared to the tra-
Barefoot Vibram Shoes ditional shoe. These results suggest that, with proper transitioning,
running barefoot or in minimal footwear may result in lower injury
▶Fig. 3 Comparisons of a Peak vertical force, b vertical instantane- risk. However, additional long-term, prospective studies are need-
ous load rate (VILR), and c vertical average load rate (VALR) across all ed to determine this.
3 footwear conditions. Units are in body weights (BW) and body
weights per second (BW/s). Significant pairwise differences, their
associated p values, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are shown. Error bars
are standard deviation of the mean; n = 25 in each case.

Bowser BradleyJ et al. Effect of Footwear on … Int J Sports Med

 Orthopedics & Biomechanics
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
[1] Berrones AJ, Kurti SP, Kilsdonk KM, Cortez DJ, Melo FF, Whitehurst M.
Barefoot running reduces submaximal oxygen cost in female distance
runners. J Strength Cond Res 2016; 30: 2348–2353
[2] Bishop M, Fiolkowski P, Conrad B, Brunt D, Horodyski M. Athletic
footwear, leg stiffness, and running kinematics. J Athl Train 2006; 41:
387–392
[3] Brown CN, Bowser B, Orellana A. Dynamic postural stability in females
with chronic ankle instability. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42:
2258–2263
[4] Davis IS, Bowser BJ, Mullineaux DR. Greater vertical impact loading in
female runners with medically diagnosed injuries: a prospective
investigation. Br J Sports Med 2015; 31: 1–7
[5] Do MC, Bussel B. BreniereY. Influence of plantar cutaneous afferents
on early compensatory reactions to forward fall. Exp Brain Res 1990;
79: 319–324
[6] Duprey KM, Liu K, Cronholm PF, Reisman AS, Collina SJ, Webner D,
Kaminski TW. Baseline time to stabilization identifies anterior cruciate
ligament rupture risk in collegiate athletes. Am J Sport Med 2016; 44:
1487–1491
[7] Ferris DP, Liang K, Farley CT. Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first
step on a new running surface. J Biomech 1999; 32: 787–794
[8] Hanson NJ, Berg K, Deka P, Meendering JR, Ryan C. Oxygen cost of
running barefoot vs. shod. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 401–406
[9] Hijmans JM, Geertzen JHB, Dijkstra PU, Postema K. A systematic review
of the effects of shoes and other ankle or foot appliances on balance in
older people and people with peripheral nervous system disorders.
Gait Posture 2007; 25: 316–323
[10] Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science
research: 2016 update. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 1121–1124
[11] Hashish R, Samarawickrame SD, Powers CM, Salem GJ. Lower limb
dynamics vary in shod runners who acutely transition to barefoot
running. J Biomech 2016; 284–288
[12] Histen K, Arntsen J, L’Hereux L, Heeren J, Wicki B, Saint S, Aerni G,
Denegar CR, Joseph MF. Achilles tendon properties in minimalist and
traditionally shod runners. J Sport Rehabil 2016; 24: 1–16 [Epub ahead
of print]
[13] Iglesias M, Vallejo R, Peña DP. Impact of soft and hard insole density
on postural stability in older adults. Geriatr Nur 2012; 33: 264–271
[14] LaPorta JW, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Galpin AJ, Tufana JJ, Cazas VL, Tan JS.
Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters.
J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 733–737
[15] Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D’Andrea S,
Davis IS, Mang’Eni RO, Pitsiladis Y. Foot strike patterns and collision
forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 2010; 463:
531–538
Thieme
[16] Lorimer AV, Hume PA. Stiffness as a risk factor for achilles tendon
injury in running athletes. Sports Med 2016 [Epub ahead of print]
[17] Milner CE, Ferber R, Pollard CD, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical
factors associated with tibial stress fractures in female runners. Med
Sci Exerc Sport 2006; 38: 323–328
[18] Nordin AD, Dufek JS. Neuromechanical synergies in single-leg landing
reveal changes in movement control. Hum Mov Sci 2016; 49: 66–78
[19] Pohl MB, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical and anatomic factors
associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners. Clin J
Sport Med 2009; 18: 372–376
[20] Rice HM, Jamison ST, Davis IS. Footwear matters: influence of footwear
and strike on loadrates during running. Med Sci Exerc Sport 2016; 48:
2462–2468
[21] Robbins SE, Hanna AM. Running-related injury prevention through
barefoot adaptations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1987; 19: 148–156
[22] Robbins SE, Waked E, McClaran J. Proprioception and stability: foot
position awareness as a function of age and footwear. Age Ageing
1995; 24: 67–72
[23] Rosen AB, Ko J, Simpson KJ, Kim SH, Brown CN. Lower extremity
kinematics during a drop jump in individuals with patellar tendinopa-
Downloaded by: National University of Singapore. Copyrighted material.
thy. Orthop J Sports Med 2015; 3: 1–8
[24] Sekizawa K, Sandrey MA, Ingersoll CD, Cordova ML. Effects of shoe
sole thickness on joint position sense. Gait Posture 2001; 13: 221–228
[25] Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ, Tritsch AJ, Montgomery MM. Methodological
considerations of task and shoe wear on joint energetics during
landing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2012; 22: 124–130
[26] Squadrone R, Gallozzi C. Biomechanical and physiological comparison
of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2009; 49: 6–13
[27] Wikstrom EA, Tillman MD, Borsa PA. Detection of dynamic stability
deficits in subjects with functional ankle instability. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2005; 37: 169–175
[28] Wikstrom EA, Tillman MD, Chmielewski TL, Cauraugh JH, Naugle KE,
Borsa PA. Dynamic postural control but not mechanical stability differs
among those with and without chronic ankle instability. Scand J Med
Sci Sports 2010; 20: e137–e144
[29] Wikstrom EA, Tillman MD, Schenker SM, Borsa PA. Jump–landing
direction influences dynamic postural stability scores. J Sci Med Sport
2008; 11: 106–111
[30] Wikstrom EA, Tillman MD, Smith AN, Borsa PA. A new force-plate
technology measure of dynamic postural stability: the dynamic
postural stability index. J Athl Train 2005; 40: 305–309
[31] Wyon MA, Cloak R, Lucas J, Clarke F. Effects of midsole thickness of
dance shoes on dynamic postural stability. Med Probl Perform Art
2013; 28: 195–198
[32] Zadpoor AA, Nikooyan AA. The relationship between lower-extremity
stress fractures and the ground reaction force: a systematic review.
Clin Biomech 2011; 26: 23–28
[33] Zech A, Argubi-Wollesen A, Rahlf AL. Minimalist, standard and no
footwear on static and dynamic postural stability following jump
landing. Eur J Sport Sci 2015; 15: 279–285
Bowser BradleyJ et al. Effect of Footwear on … Int J Sports Med