Influence of basketball shoe midsole inserts featuring different mechanical rebound properties on biomechanical loading and subjective perception during a side-cutting maneuver. (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pan, Jing W; Sterzing, Thorsten; Pang, Jun W; Chua, YaoHui K; Kong, Pui W
• Is Part Of: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Volume 236:Number 1(2022)
• Page Start: 24
• Page End: 35
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: Weight acceptance -- push off -- visual analogue scale -- forefoot -- rearfoot; Sports sciences -- Periodicals; Sporting goods -- Design and construction -- Periodicals; Sports -- Technological innovations -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; 613.71
• DOI: 10.1177/1754337120901984
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1754-3371

Abstract

This study examined the influence of basketball shoe midsole inserts with different forefoot and rearfoot rebound properties on biomechanical loading and subjective perception during a side-cutting maneuver. Eleven male basketball players executed side cutting in four shoe conditions mechanically characterized for their rearfoot/forefoot rebound: compliant/compliant, springy/springy, compliant/springy, and springy/compliant. Lower extremity kinetics and kinematics (normalized to body mass), as well as subjective perception, were measured. During the weight-acceptance phase, there were no differences between shoes in all biomechanical variables, except a slightly greater ankle range of motion (1.2° greater than the other three shoes) in the frontal plane for shoe compliant/springy. During the push-off phase, shoe springy/springy led to a greater ankle plantarflexion moment (1.21 Nm/kg greater than the other three shoes, p < 0.001) and knee internal rotation moment (0.09 Nm/kg greater than the other three shoes, p = 0.012), while shoe compliant/springy resulted in a greater ankle range of motion in the frontal plane (1.4° greater than the other three shoes, p < 0.001). Perception data showed no statistically significant difference among any shoes. In conclusion, springy inserts of basketball shoe midsoles induced a biomechanical loading effect. Perception of players being unaffected indicates the importance of biomechanical evaluation to examine the effects of the given shoe modifications during side cutting.