Football boot insoles and sensitivity to extent of ankle inversion movement

G Waddington, R Adams, G Waddington, R Adams

Abstract

Background: The capacity of the plantar sole of the foot to convey information about foot position is reduced by conventional smooth boot insoles, compared with barefoot surface contact.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that movement discrimination may be restored by inserting textured replacement insoles, achieved by changing footwear conditions and measuring the accuracy of judgments of the extent of ankle inversion movement.

Methods: An automated testing device, the ankle movement extent discrimination apparatus (AMEDA), developed to assess active ankle function in weight bearing without a balance demand, was used to test the effects of sole inserts in soccer boots. Seventeen elite soccer players, the members of the 2000 Australian Women's soccer squad (34 ankles), took part in the study. Subjects were randomly allocated to start testing in: bare feet, their own football boots, own football boot and replacement insole, and on the left or right side. Subjects underwent six 50 trial blocks, in which they completed all footwear conditions. The sole inserts were cut to size for each foot from textured rubber "finger profile" sheeting.

Results: Movement discrimination scores were significantly worse when subjects wore their football boots and socks, compared with barefoot data collected at the same time. The substitution of textured insoles for conventional smooth insoles in the football boots was found to restore movement discrimination to barefoot levels.

Conclusions: The lower active movement discrimination scores of athletes when wearing football boots with smooth insoles suggest that the insole is one aspect of football boot and sport shoe design that could be modified to provide the sensory feedback needed for accurate foot positioning.

References

    1. Cortex. 1978 Jun;14(2):250-8
    1. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1981;374:855-64
    1. J Gerontol. 1991 Nov;46(6):M196-203
    1. Aust J Physiother. 1999;45(1):7-13
    1. Br J Sports Med. 1995 Dec;29(4):242-7
    1. Exp Brain Res. 1989;78(2):419-24
    1. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999 Jun;54(6):M281-7
    1. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992 Jun;24(6):695-701
    1. J Sci Med Sport. 2001 Jun;4(2):196-211
    1. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999 Dec;29(12):718-26
    1. Br J Sports Med. 2001 Apr;35(2):103-8
    1. Age Ageing. 1995 Jan;24(1):67-72
    1. Clin J Sport Med. 2001 Jan;11(1):2-9
    1. Disabil Rehabil. 1994 Apr-Jun;16(2):58-62
    1. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Jul;31(7 Suppl):S421-8
    1. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991 Feb;23(2):217-24
    1. Neuroreport. 1998 Oct 5;9(14):3247-52
    1. Cortex. 1987 Mar;23(1):157-9
    1. Br J Sports Med. 1997 Dec;31(4):299-303
    1. Aust J Physiother. 2000;46(2):103-112
    1. Aust J Physiother. 1999;45(2):95-101

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever