Renmin University of China Effects of Different Collars Summary Essay

Writing Services You Can Trust

Renmin University of China Effects of Different Collars Summary Essay

Description

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Renmin University of China Effects of Different Collars Summary Essay
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Paper instructions : Rubric for assignment:

  • What to include in your summary:
  • o Introduction: What the article was about, what’s it purpose was, what it was they were trying to figure out or explain.

    o Body: This is where you summarize the main points of the article. You

    may want to use subheadings if they were used in the article itself

    (Subjects, Methods, Results, Conclusion, etc..)

    o Conclusion: What were the overall results or conclusions of the

    article? Did they find what they expected to find? What conclusions did

    they make? What future research needs to be done?

    o Your Thoughts: Give at least 5 sentences about what your thoughts were

    on the article. What did you learn from it? Why did you pick it in the

    first place? Were there any problems with the study?

    o Reference: Include a complete reference for the article. It doesn’t

    matter which format you choose (AMA, MLA, etc), just make sure all of

    the information is included – author, title, year, edition, page

    numbers…

    Things to Keep in Mind:

  • Be clear in your explanations
  • Do not copy the information, this is – you will receive a
  • zero. If you do choose to include direct quotes because it’s needed,

    make sure you put the words in quotations and provide a reference in

    parentheses right after it.

  • I will read the article in addition to your summary, so make sure you
  • summarize every main part of the article. Don’t skip important

    information.

  • Grammar is important as part of a collegiate assignment. This is not
  • an English class, however, consideration will be given to the use of

    correct spelling and grammar.

  • Make sure the article you choose is recent – this means published within the last 10 years
  • The length of your summary will be dependent upon the length of the
  • article. It may only need to be 2 pages, or it may need to be 4.

    Grading:

    20 Organization/clarity

    15 Content

    5 Appropriate topic from peer-reviewed source

    5 Citation

    5 Your Thoughts

    50 pts

    Article to be reviewed below

    Tang, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Wei, S., Pan, J., & Liu,

    Y. (2020). Effect of football shoe collar type on ankle biomechanics and

    dynamic stability during anterior and lateral single-leg jump landings.

    Applied Sciences, 10(10), 3362. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103362

    Abstract

    In this study, we investigated the effects of football shoes with

    different collar heights on ankle biomechanics and dynamic postural

    stability. Fifteen healthy college football players performed anterior

    and lateral single-leg jump landings when wearing high collar, elastic

    collar, or low collar football shoes. The kinematics of lower limbs and

    ground reaction forces were collected by simultaneously using a

    stereo-photogrammetric system with markers (Vicon) and a force plate

    (Kistler). During the anterior single-leg jump landing, a high collar

    shoe resulted in a significantly smaller ankle dorsiflexion range of

    motion (ROM), compared to both elastic (p = 0.031, dz = 0.511) and low

    collar (p = 0.043, dz = 0.446) types, while also presenting lower total

    ankle sagittal ROM, compared to the low collar type (p = 0.023, dz =

    0.756). Ankle joint stiffness was significantly greater for the high

    collar, compared to the elastic collar (p = 0.003, dz = 0.629) and low

    collar (p = 0.030, dz = 1.040). Medial-lateral stability was

    significantly improved with the high collar, compared to the low collar

    (p = 0.001, dz = 1.232). During the lateral single-leg jump landing,

    ankle inversion ROM (p = 0.028, dz = 0.615) and total ankle frontal ROM

    (p = 0.019, dz = 0.873) were significantly smaller for the high collar,

    compared to the elastic collar. The high collar also resulted in a

    significantly smaller total ankle sagittal ROM, compared to the low

    collar (p = 0.001, dz = 0.634). Therefore, the high collar shoe should

    be effective in decreasing the amount of ROM and increasing the dynamic

    stability, leading to high ankle joint stiffness due to differences in

    design and material characteristics of the collar types.

    Keywords: collar height; kinematics; kinetics; dynamic stability; ankle injury

    1. Introduction

    Football is the most popular sport in the world, has the largest number

    of participants, and is associated with a high risk of injury at the

    professional, amateur, and youth levels during practices and matches

    [1,2,3,4,5]. It is estimated that somewhere between 13 and 35 players

    get injured every 1000 competitive hours. The most common incidence of

    injuries occurs in the lower limbs, mostly ankle sprains [1,5,6]. Dvorak

    et al. studied injury incidences in the 2010 International Federation

    of Association Football World Cup. They found that ankle sprains were

    the most prevalent injury in practices or matches [6]. The impacts of

    ankle sprains can be severe and include considerable medical expenses,

    decreased fitness or endurance levels, and missed matches. Furthermore, a

    common complication of ankle sprains is chronic ankle instability,

    which results in episodes of the ankle giving way, recurrent sprains,

    and persistent symptoms such as pain, swelling, limited motion,

    weakness, and diminished self-reported function. This includes

    functional and mechanical impairments in isolation, or both [7].

    In order to lower football injury risk, shoe manufacturers have

    attempted to design different cleat configurations that can handle a

    variety of field conditions, such as turf or grass. In an early study,

    researchers reported that decreasing the number of cleats and their size

    may reduce the risk of knee injury [8]. Queen et al. determined that

    turf cleats could decrease the pressure and force beneath the forefoot,

    compared to other types of cleats that might minimize metatarsal injury

    risk on grass [9]. However, Torg et al. examined the mechanical

    properties of rotational torsion resistance to explain the relation

    between turf shoes and surface conditions at five temperatures,

    suggesting that only flat turf football shoes could lower the sprain

    risk incidence under all conditions [10]. Adjusting cleat configurations

    could potentially minimize the risk of injuries such as knee sprains

    and stress fractures on specific field conditions. However, at present,

    no clear experimental evidence exists to determine the positive effect

    of cleat configurations on improved ankle stability or decreased ankle

    sprains.

    Increased ankle stability and the prevention of ankle sprains by

    increasing the shoe collar height have been examined for basketball

    shoes [11,12,13,14,15]. High collar basketball shoes exhibit a smaller

    ankle inversion range of motion (ROM), smaller ankle inversion and

    external rotation at initial contact, and smaller peak inversion

    velocity, compared to low collar shoes, but no significant difference in

    kinetic parameters during side-step cutting are observed [11,12].

    During jumping tasks, research has revealed that ankle joints show a

    smaller peak plantarflexion moment and power when wearing basketball

    shoes with high collars, compared to low collars [13]. According to

    other research, high collar basketball shoes result in delayed

    pre-activation timing and decreased amplitude of muscle activity [14].

    Therefore, high collar basketball shoes are one factor used to reduce

    injury potential [16].

    Based on the experience with basketball shoes, similar footwear

    technology has been implemented in football shoes in an attempt to

    mitigate injury risk. Researchers have observed the ankle inversion

    between high and low collar football shoes using an inversion platform,

    which can be rotated 35° to induce a sudden ankle inversion [17]. This

    research has indicated that high collar shoes significantly reduce the

    amount and rate of inversion. Additionally, using an arthrometer foot

    plate, researchers have found that high collar shoes are more effective

    in decreasing inversion ROM and velocity [18]. However, the research

    method employed in these previous studies does not accurately portray

    real-world practices and matches when only the ankle inversion is

    available. Additionally, although the peak ankle plantarflexion moment

    and power are significantly smaller in high collar, compared to low

    collar basketball shoes during landing jumps [13], knowledge of the

    effects of football shoe collar types on ankle dorsiflexion/plantar

    flexion movement is currently limited. Furthermore, according to

    previous studies, around 31% to 46% of football injuries, especially for

    the knee and ankle, are induced by losing balance or inducing a sprain

    after landing [19,20]. Hence, for football shoes, questions remain

    regarding how ankle kinematics and kinetics behave in both

    dorsiflexion-plantarflexion and inversion-eversion dynamic movements

    when performing jumping and landing maneuvers.

    It should be noted that postural stability has been used to examine the

    risk of ankle sprain [21,22], and a deficiency in postural stability

    could play a significant role in increasing ankle sprain risk [20]. A

    study has found that high collar boots have smaller postural sway,

    compared to low collar boots, and thereby collar height might have a

    positive effect on postural control [23]. In a recent study, however, a

    high collar football shoe did not enhance static postural stability,

    compared to a low collar shoe [18]. Thus, limited research is available

    regarding the effects of shoe collars on postural stability. Evidence

    from a psychological study shows that elastic ankle taping or stiff

    ankle bracing provides beneficial effects by increasing the feeling of

    confidence and stability during dynamic-balance tasks [24]. However,

    direct evidence is conflicting on the beneficial impact on dynamic

    balance [25,26,27,28]. The lack of consistent findings may be due to a

    lack of measuring more sensitive parameters. The dynamic postural

    stability index (DPSI) measures three directional components of the

    ground reaction force during single-leg jump landings. Furthermore, DPSI

    and its directional components can detect differences in dynamic

    stability in different football collar types [29]. Therefore, DPSI

    provides a measure of dynamic stability that has high precision and

    reliability [30].

    Determining the effect of high collar football shoes on ankle

    biomechanics and DPSI during single-leg jump landings might provide

    further insight into the biomechanics and dynamic stability of playing

    football. The purpose of the study aims to determine differences in shoe

    collar types (i.e., low collar, elastic collar, and high collar) on

    ankle biomechanics and DPSI during anterior and lateral single-leg jump

    landings. Our first hypothesis was that smaller ankle ROM, moment, and

    joint stiffness would result from the high collar football shoe,

    compared to the elastic or low collar shoes, in both tasks. Our second

    hypothesis was that dynamic stability would improve when wearing a high

    collar football shoe, compared to an elastic or low collar shoe, in both

    tasks.

    2. Materials and Methods

    2.1. Participants

    Fifteen healthy male college football players (age: 21.2 ± 2.0 years;

    height: 172.4 ± 5.3 cm; body mass: 66.5 ± 9.7 kg) were recruited in this

    study. The inclusion criteria were (1) at least three years football

    training experience; (2) foot length of U.S. size 8 for heel-to-toe

    length; (3) right leg dominant (preferred for kicking); (4) not having

    sustained a lower limb injury within the past 12 months, including ankle

    sprain, fractures, or surgeries; and (5) no history of neural or

    vestibular diseases. The University Ethics Board approved this study,

    and all participants gave written informed consent before they

    participated in this study.

    2.2. Equipment

    Three commercially available football shoes (U.S. size 8, Vapor

    Untouchable 3; Nike, Portland, OR, USA), which are very popular for

    football players, were tested in the current study. All shoes were built

    on the same shoe platform and had identical lightweight upper sections,

    carbon fiber, thermoplastic polyurethane plates, and cleats, but

    different shoe collar types: high collar (mass: 300 g; collar height: 70

    mm; material: high intensity knitted fabric), elastic collar (mass: 310

    g; collar height: 35 mm; material: low intensity knitted fabric), and

    low collar (mass: 300 g; collar height: 0 mm, material: nil) (Figure 1).

    Applsci 10 03362 g001 550Figure 1. Football shoes used in the current

    study. (a) high collar shoe, (b) elastic collar shoe, (c) low collar

    shoe.

    The testing environment was an indoor artificial turf-top football

    ground. The three-dimensional kinematics were measured using a

    ten-camera Vicon Vantage motion capture system (Vantage 8; Vicon,

    Oxford, UK), which was arranged around the artificial turf football

    ground, at a sampling rate of 200 Hz. These cameras are widely used to

    capture motion trajectory in sports science and biomechanics to optimize

    human movement [31,32]. The ground reaction force, which was measured

    for the dominant lower limb, was collected simultaneously using a 600 ×

    900 mm force plate (9287C; Kistler, Winterthur, Switzerland), which was

    recessed in the middle of the artificial turf football ground, at a

    sampling rate of 1000 Hz. The force plate was also used to record the

    forces exerted by the foot when standing, walking, or running [31,32]. A

    900 × 600 × 10 mm artificial turf cover was fixed on the surface of the

    force plate through screws at each corner (Figure 2). The kinematics

    and kinetic data were collected and synchronized using a Nexus Lock

    (Lock +; Vicon, Oxford, UK) with Nexus software (Nexus 2.6.1; Oxford,

    UK). The Nexus Lock is Vicon’s control box for connecting, integrating,

    and synchronizing third-party devices with the Vicon motion capture

    system.

    Applsci 10 03362 g002 550Figure 2. Experimental setup.

    Thirty-six retroreflective markers (diameter: 14 mm) were attached to

    the lower limbs using bio-adhesive tapes. The reflective markers were

    placed on both the right and left limbs of the iliac crest; anterior

    superior iliac spine; posterior superior iliac spine; lateral/medial

    prominence of the lateral femora epicondyle; proximal tip of the head of

    the fibula; anterior border of the tibial tuberosity; lateral/medial

    prominence of the lateral malleolus; dorsal margin of the first, second,

    and fifth metatarsal head; and four four-marker rigid clusters were

    attached bilaterally onto the thigh and shank.

    2.3. Protocol

    Each participant performed two tasks, anterior and lateral single-leg

    jump landings, in one day. Therefore, participants were asked to

    implement either the anterior single-leg jump landing or the lateral

    single-leg jump landing, while wearing either low, elastic, or high

    collar football shoes. All of the tasks were first randomized, and then

    the shoe order was randomized. Prior to data collection, anatomical and

    tracking reflective markers were placed on the lower limbs, according to

    the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli (IOR) lower limb model [31]. Meanwhile,

    the shoelaces were tied by an experimenter and the same type of sport

    socks were worn, in order to avoid the effects of various shoelaces and

    socks on the results. Participants were provided five practice trials

    for each task, to become familiar with the reflective markers and tasks.

    The anterior and lateral single-leg jump landings were normalized by

    jump distance according to body height, which was 40% and 33% of body

    height, respectively [33,34]. Additionally, 30 cm and 15 cm hurdles were

    placed at 10 cm from the edge of the force plate in anterior and

    lateral single-leg jump landings, respectively. During data collection,

    participants were positioned at a normalized distance, then they jumped

    onto the center of the force plate and landed on their dominant leg

    after receiving the “start” signal from the researcher. For each

    condition, each participant was required to stabilize as quickly as

    possible, place their hands on their waist during landing, and remain

    motionless on the landing leg for 10 s. Trials were discarded and

    repeated for the following reasons: (1) moving the foot before jumping,

    (2) touching or collapsing the hurdle during jumping, or (3) losing

    balance or removing hands from the waist during landing. To prevent

    fatigue, 2 min and 5 min breaks were provided between trials and tasks.

    Trials of each condition were collected for three successful jump

    landings tasks.

    2.4. Data Analysis

    Visual3D software (C-motion, Inc.; Germantown, MD, USA) was used to

    analyze the marker positions and force plate data, which were filtered

    with a low-pass Butterworth filter with cut-off frequencies of 14 Hz and

    50 Hz, respectively. The ankle joint angle was defined using the

    segment coordinate system for the virtual foot segment, which set the

    ankle joint angle to zero degrees in the static standing, to be aligned

    with the segment coordinate system for the shank. The ankle joint moment

    was calculated using Newton–Euler inverse dynamics with the proximal

    segment of the shank as the reference segment, which was normalized to

    each participant’s body mass. Ankle joint stiffness was calculated as

    the change in ankle joint moment divided by the change in ankle joint

    angle from initial contact to peak dorsiflexion [35].

    The DPSI is the composite of the vertical (VSI), anteroposterior (APSI),

    and medial-lateral (MLSI) components, and was computed following the

    method of Wikstrom et al. [30] using the customized Visual3D software.

    The square root of the mean square deviation of force, which was the

    fluctuation from the baseline along each axis of the force plate, was

    calculated. The APSI and MLSI were assessed using the fluctuations from

    0, and the VSI was calculated using the fluctuation from the subject’s

    body weight. The square root of the sum of the squares of APSI, MLSI,

    and VSI constituted total DPSI.

    These variables were calculated using the first 3 s following initial

    contact, identified as the force threshold exceeding 10 N. The time

    interval of 3 s is recommended by Wikstrom et al. for studies of sports

    performance [36]. For anterior single-leg jump landings, the variables

    of interest included: (1) ankle dorsiflexion ROM, which refers to the

    total ankle dorsiflexion excursion; (2) ankle eversion ROM, which refers

    to the total ankle eversion excursion; (3) total ankle ROM in the

    sagittal and frontal planes, which refers to the total angle changes in

    the ankle joint in both planes; (4) peak ankle plantarflexion moment,

    which refers to the maximum plantarflexion moment; (5) peak ankle

    inversion moment, which refers to the maximum inversion moment; (6)

    ankle joint stiffness; and (7) APSI, MLSI, VSI, and DPSI, which refer to

    the assessments of dynamic postural stability. For lateral single-leg

    jump landings, the variables of interest were similar to the anterior

    single-leg jump landing, but with two extra variables: (1) ankle

    inversion ROM, which is the total ankle inversion excursion; and (2)

    peak eversion moment, which is the maximum eversion moment. The

    variables of interest are listed in Table 1 and Table 2.

    Table 1. Mean (standard deviation) of biomechanical variables and

    pairwise post hoc p-value (Cohen’s dz) in ankle joint during tasks in

    the high-, elastic-, and low collar shoe conditions.

    Table

    Table 2. Mean (standard deviation) of dynamic postural stability index

    and pairwise post hoc p-value (Cohen’s dz) during tasks in the high-,

    elastic-, and low collar shoe conditions.

    Table

    2.5. Statistical Analyses

    The residual of each dependent variable was assessed for normality using

    a one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (α = 0.05). Differences between

    shoe conditions were examined using two (for anterior and lateral

    single-leg jump landings) one-way within-subject analyses of variance

    (ANOVA). Pairwise post hoc analyses were conducted to assess significant

    differences in the main effects. Wilks’s Λ and effect size (ηp2) were

    calculated, and Cohen’s dz effect sizes were used to interpret the

    effect of pairwise comparisons. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for

    statistical analysis. SPSS (19.0, IBM Inc.; Chicago, IL, USA) was used

    to conduct all statistical analyses.

    3. Results

    All the variables of interest were normally distributed. Mean (standard

    deviation) values of each ankle biomechanical variable and the stability

    index for each collar type, which were estimated intra-subject first

    and then inter-subject, are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

    3.1. Anterior Single-Leg Jump Landing

    The result of the ANOVA indicated a significant shoe effect on

    dorsiflexion ROM (F2,28 = 3.829, p = 0.035, Wilks’s Λ = 0.675, ηp2 =

    0.639), total ROM in the sagittal plane (F2,28 = 7.554, p = 0.006,

    Wilks’s Λ = 0.590, ηp2 = 0.854), ankle joint stiffness (F2,28 = 7.431, p

    = 0.009, Wilks’s Λ = 0.445, ηp2 = 0.810), and MLSI (F2,28 = 7.418, p =

    0.004, Wilks’s Λ = 0.382, ηp2 = 0.884). Post hoc pairwise tests

    indicated that the high collar resulted in a significantly smaller

    dorsiflexion ROM, compared to the elastic collar (p = 0.031, dz = 0.511)

    and low collar (p = 0.043, dz = 0.446) (Table 1), while a significantly

    smaller total ROM was observed for the high collar, compared to the low

    collar (p = 0.023, dz = 0.756) in the sagittal plane (Figure 3). The

    ankle joint stiffness was significantly larger for the high collar,

    compared to the low collar (p = 0.030, dz = 1.040) and elastic collar (p

    = 0.003, dz = 0.629) (Figure 4). MLSI was significantly smaller for the

    shoe with the high collar, compared to the low collar (p = 0.004, dz =

    1.232) (Table 2). No other main effects of shoe conditions were detected

    (Table 1 and Table 2).

    Applsci 10 03362 g003 550Figure 3. Range of motion (ROM) in the sagittal

    (a) and frontal (b) planes for both anterior and lateral jump landings

    in three shoe conditions: high collar, elastic collar, and low collar. *

    indicates a significant pairwise difference between the high collar and

    low collar; # indicates a significant pairwise difference between the

    high collar and elastic collar.

    Applsci 10 03362 g004 550Figure 4. Ankle joint stiffness for both

    anterior and lateral jump landings in three shoe conditions: high

    collar, elastic collar, and low collar. * indicates a significant

    pairwise difference between the high collar and low collar; # indicates a

    significant pairwise difference between the high collar and elastic

    collar.

    3.2. Lateral Single-Leg Jump Landing

    There were significant differences in inversion ROM (F2,28 = 4.344, p =

    0.029, Wilks’s Λ = 0.690, ηp2 = 0.658), total ROM in both sagittal

    (F2,28 = 6.404, p = 0.009, Wilks’s Λ = 0.373, ηp2 = 0.813) and frontal

    (F2,28 = 6.655, p = 0.006, Wilks’s Λ = 0.571, ηp2 = 0.846) planes, ankle

    joint stiffness (F2,28 = 3.783, p = 0.040, Wilks’s Λ = 0.703, ηp2 =

    0.610), and MLSI (F2,28 = 7.554, p = 0.041, Wilks’s Λ = 0.664, ηp2 =

    0.601) between shoe conditions. Post hoc pairwise tests indicated that

    inversion ROM was significantly smaller for the high collar, compared to

    the elastic collar (p = 0.028, dz = 0.615) shoe (Table 1). The high

    collar resulted in a significantly smaller total ROM, compared to the

    low collar (p = 0.001, dz = 0.634) in the sagittal plane (Figure 3),

    while the elastic collar resulted in a significantly larger ROM,

    compared to the high collar (p = 0.019, dz = 0.873) in the frontal plane

    (Figure 3). No other pairwise differences were observed for ankle joint

    stiffness and MLSI (Table 1 and Table 2).

    4. Discussion

    In the present study, we determined the effects of football shoes with

    different collar conditions on dynamic stability and ankle biomechanical

    characteristics during anterior and lateral single-leg jump landings.

    Our results indicate that the high collar football shoe resulted in

    smaller dorsiflexion ROM and total ROM in the sagittal plane during the

    anterior single-leg jump landing, while it also decreased inversion ROM

    and total ROM in the sagittal and frontal planes during the lateral

    single-leg jump landing. We also found that ankle joint stiffness was

    significantly larger for the high collar football shoe during anterior

    and lateral single-leg jump landings, which contradicted our original

    hypothesis. For dynamic stability, only MLSI showed significant

    differences during both landing tasks, which was greater when wearing

    the high collar football shoe and lesser in other conditions; this is

    partly consistent with our original hypothesis.

    The ankle ROM during the anterior single-leg jump landing suggested that

    the high collar significantly constrained ankle movement, compared to

    the elastic and low collars. These findings are consistent with Yang et

    al. and Rowson et al., who reported that peak ankle dorsiflexion or

    total ankle ROM during a sagittal maneuver was reduced as collar height

    increases [13,37]. They suggested that collar height and material play

    an important role in influencing the flexibility and deformation of the

    whole shoe [13,37]. Additionally, the high collar basketball shoes with

    strips of plastic that are positioned at the collar’s anterior and

    posterior to the medial and lateral malleoli showed a more restricted

    ROM of the ankle joint in the sagittal and frontal planes, compared to

    no plastic condition [16]. It is noteworthy that the elastic collar

    could not constrain the ankle movement, which might have been due to the

    low rigidity or high elasticity of the collar material. However, there

    was no significant change in the frontal plane’s ROM. One possible

    reason is that our healthy participants might have had few

    inversion-eversion movements during the anterior single-leg jump

    landings, because our results detected significant differences in

    inversion and total ankle ROM in the frontal plane between the high and

    elastic collar, but not between the high and low collar during lateral

    single-leg jump landings. The elastic collar, similar to ankle taping,

    likely provides a feeling of confidence and stability [18,24]. This

    result, in our perspective, is in disagreement with a recent report that

    indicated that high collar basketball shoes do not restrict the peak

    inversion angle (29.3° vs. 28.3°) and ROM (17.4° vs. 15.2°) in a

    self-initiated drop landing on an inversion platform [14]. However, our

    findings are supported by Richard et al., who found that a high collar

    football shoe effectively reduces the amount of inversion by 4.5° (38.1°

    vs. 42.6°) after an inversion platform drop [17]. It is possible that a

    self-initiated drop landing on an inversion platform does not reach the

    limitation boundary of the inversion for a high collar basketball shoe.

    During side-step cutting, Liu et al. and Lam et al. found that the

    ankle inversion angle, peak inversion velocity, and total inversion ROM

    are reduced as collar height increases [11,12]. Therefore, there is a

    restricted angle for an inverted ankle joint position, which might

    effectively increase ankle joint stability and reduce the risk of ankle

    sprain injury [11,12]. In our study, the dorsiflexion and total sagittal

    ROM showed moderate-to-large effect sizes with the high collar,

    compared to the other collars. Therefore, the football shoe’s higher

    collar height used in this study could constrain ankle dorsiflexion and

    the inversion angle during both longitude and widthwise tasks,

    potentially reducing the risk of ankle sprain injury.

    Several prior studies have examined the effect of collar conditions on

    ankle kinetics. Lam et al. detected no difference from collar conditions

    on the ankle inversion moment during side-step cutting [12]. In

    addition, Yang et al. reported that high collar basketball shoes could

    reduce the plantarflexion moment during lay-up jumps, but not drop jumps

    [13]. The authors suggested that these differential findings were

    caused by different upper limb positions, movement patterns, and force

    requirements, as well as the coordination of active and antagonist

    muscles [13]. These findings are in agreement with our results showing

    either no significant change or a small effect size in the ankle

    inversion moment for both tasks; however, different jump maneuvers that

    are high-frequency and risky during practices or matches still need to

    be tested. Interestingly, ankle joint stiffness was significantly

    increased when wearing the high collar football shoe, compared to the

    other shoes. Theoretically, ankle joint stiffness is calculated using

    the change in joint moment divided by the change in joint angle [35].

    Although the change in ankle moment was not measured in our study, it is

    possible that the enhanced ankle joint stiffness from the high collar

    football shoe may be due to a decrease in total ankle ROM in the

    sagittal plane. Given the primary role that joint stiffness plays in

    lower limb injuries [38], overuse injuries at the ankle joint might

    increase as collar height increases.

    Our findings also suggest that MLSI is improved as the height of the

    football shoe collar increases. A couple of studies have examined the

    effect of collar height on static or dynamic postural stability [18,39].

    However, according to previous research, adequate dorsiflexion ROM is

    essential for dissipating the ground reaction force [40] and has a

    positive influence on DPSI [30]; these findings conflict with the

    results of our study. However, evidence from ankle taping and bracing

    indicate an increased sense of confidence and stability [24].

    Inconsistent findings across studies regarding the dynamic stability of

    ankle taping or bracing might be due to subjects with or without injury

    [25,26,27,28]. Furthermore, although the current study showed a

    significant difference in MLSI between shoe conditions during lateral

    single-leg jump landings, post hoc analysis indicated no pairwise

    difference, and small effect size. Therefore, this phenomenon still

    needs to be confirmed, and additional quantitative studies on DPSI are

    warranted.

    There are some limitations to the present study. First, only healthy

    male college football players were recruited as subjects. Players with

    functional ankle instability may have different responses to shoe collar

    conditions, especially for DPSI. Second, it should be noted that our

    current findings were limited to anterior and lateral single-leg jump

    landings. Future studies should investigate other typical movements that

    have high injury risk, such as side-step cutting. Third, different

    types of shoes may have different mass, which could affect biomechanical

    responses. A better-controlled experiment is to match the shoe mass

    across conditions. Fourth, the long-term effect of shoe collar

    conditions on the incidence of lower limb injuries has yet to be

    examined. Long-term prospective studies are needed. Finally, the current

    study only focused on the biomechanical changes at the ankle joint,

    while knee and hip joint kinematics and kinetics and muscle activity

    data were not collected.

    5. Conclusions

    In the current study, the association between the collar condition of

    football shoes and ankle biomechanics and dynamic postural stability was

    analyzed. Ankle joint ROM and MLSI during a single-leg jump landing

    were reduced and improved as the height of the collar increased,

    respectively. In addition, higher ankle joint stiffness was found for

    the high collar, compared to the low collar football shoe. Ankle

    biomechanics and MLSI information from different collar types may be

    useful in designing football footwear and implementing training. Future

    prospective investigations are warranted to determine the influence of

    different shoe collar heights, ankle kinematics/kinetics, and DPSI on

    lower extremity risks.

    Do My Homework

    Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP