여성들의 구두 힐 높이변화와 지면조건에 따른 보행동작의 운동역학적 특성분석

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the kinetic characteristics according to the shoe's heel heights and ground conditions during gait in women(study Ⅰ: level, study Ⅱ: stair, study Ⅲ: ground conditions & shoe's heel heights). Participants selected as the subject were consisted of young women(study Ⅰ: n=10, age: 23.90±0.99yrs, height: 166.00±2.15cm, body mass: 54.12±3.59kg, foot length: 23.33±0.46cm, foot width: 8.47±0.35cm, study Ⅱ: n=10, age: 22.30±0.48yrs, height: 166.60±2.58cm, body mass: 57.02±3.60kg, foot length: 23.63±0.57cm, foot width: 8.85±0.31cm) and divided into 3-types of shoe's heel heights(0cm/bare foot, 6cm, 9cm) according to ground conditions(level walking, upward and downward stairs). The variables analyzed were consisted of the lower extremity joint angle(hip, knee, ankle), dynamic postural stability(1 step length, displacement of Y axis COM position, COM velocity, front-rear angle[FR angle], left-right angle[LR angle], front-rear angle excursion[F-RAE], left-right angle excursion[L-RAE], center of pressure variables[COPx, COPy, COP area], and dynamic postural stability index[MLSI, APSI, VSI, DPSI]) and ground reaction force variables(anterior-posterior GRF[Fy 1, Fy 2], maximum vertical GRF, impact loading rate). One force-plate was used to collect GRF(AMTI OR6-7, USA) data at a sample rate of 1000 Hz. Also, 4 camcorder(HDR-HC7/HDV 1080i, Sony Corp, Japen) were used to capture gait motion at rate of 60 frames/sec. The raw data were collected form Kwon3D XP motion analysis package ver 4.0 program(Visol, Korea) during gait. As a result, the following conclusions obtained were as follows.

Study Ⅰ: level walking & shoe's heel heights 1) lower extremity joint angle ① Angle of ankle showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking at IC, HTO and TTO. ② Angle of knee didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking at IC, HTO and TTO. ③ Angle of hip didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking at IC, HTO and TTO.

2) Dynamic postural stability ① Length of 1 step didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ② Displacement of Y axis COM position showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ③ Velocity of COM position showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking at IC and HTO. ④ Front-rear, left-right angle of trunk didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ⑤ F-RAE and L-RAE didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ⑥ COPx, COP area showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ⑦ MLSI, APSI, VSI and DPSI didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking.

3) GRF variables ① Anterior-posterior(Fy 1) of GRF didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ② Anterior-posterior(Fy 2) of GRF didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ③ Max. vertical GRF didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking. ④ Impact loading rate didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during level walking.

Study Ⅱ: stairs walking & shoe's heel heights 1) lower extremity joint angle ① Angle of ankle showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs(IC, HTO) and downward stairs(IC, HTO, TTO). ② Angle of knee showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs(TTO) and downward stairs(IC, TTO). ③ Angle of hip didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs.

2) Dynamic postural stability ① Length of 1 step didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ② Displacement of Y axis of COM didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ③ Velocity of COM didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ④ Front-rear, left-right angle of trunk didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ⑤ F-RAE and L-RAE didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ⑥ COP variables showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs(COPx, COPy, COP area) and downward stairs(COPx, COP area). ⑦ MLSI, APSI, VSI and DPSI didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs.

3) GRF variables ① Anterior-posterior(Fy 1) of GRF showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs, but downward stairs were not significant. ② Anterior-posterior(Fy 2) of GRF didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ③ Max. vertical GRF didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs and downward stairs. ④ Impact loading rate didn't show significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights during upward stairs, but downward stairs were significant.

Study Ⅲ: ground conditions & shoe's heel heights

1) lower extremity joint angle ① Angle of ankle showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights and ground conditions at IC, HTO and TTO, but interaction didn't show. ② Angle of knee showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights and ground conditions at IC and TTO, but interaction didn't show. ③ Angle of hip showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights(HTO) and ground conditions(IC, HTO, TTO), but interaction didn't show.

2) Dynamic postural stability ① Length of 1 step showed significant difference according to the ground conditions, but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show. ② Displacement of Y axis COM position showed significant difference according to the ground conditions, but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show. ③ Velocity of COM position showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights(IC) and ground conditions(IC, HTO, TTO), but interaction didn't show. ④ Front-rear angle of trunk showed significant difference according to the ground conditions(IC, HTO, TTO), but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show. ⑤ Left-right angle of trunk showed significant difference according to the ground conditions(IC, HTO, TTO), but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show. ⑥ F-RAE and L-RAE showed significant difference according to the ground conditions, but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show. ⑦ COPx, COPy and COP area showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights(IC) and ground conditions, and also interaction showed significant difference at COPx(H>G). ⑧ MLSI, APSI, VSI and DPSI showed significant difference according to the ground conditions, but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show.

3) GRF variables ① Anterior-posterior(Fy 1 and Fy 2) of GRF showed significant difference according to the ground conditions and also interaction showed significant difference at Fy 1(G>H). ② Max. vertical GRF showed significant difference according to the ground conditions, but shoe's heel heights and interaction didn't show. ③ Impact loading rate showed significant difference according to the shoe's heel heights and ground conditions and also interaction showed significant difference at loading rate(G>H).