Search for: All records

Kinematic coupling between the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) and midtarsal joints is evident during gait and other movement tasks, however kinetic foot coupling during walking has not been examined. Furthermore, contributing factors to foot coupling are still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate kinematic and kinetic coupling within the foot by restricting MTP motion during overground walking. We hypothesized that when the MTP joint was prevented from fully extending, the midtarsal joint would achieve less peak motion and generate less positive work compared to walking with normal MTP motion.

Twenty‐six individuals participated in this randomized cross‐over study. Using motion capture to track motion, participants walked at 1.3 m/s while wearing a brace that restricted MTP motion in a neutral (BR_NT) or extended (BR_EX) position. Additionally, participants walked while wearing the brace in a freely moveable setting (BR_UN) and with no brace (CON). A pressure/shear sensing device was used to capture forces under each foot segment. During stance, peak joint motion and work were calculated for the MTP and midtarsal joints using inverse dynamics. A series of ANOVAs and Holm post hoc tests were performed for all metrics (alpha = 0.05).

The brace successfully decreased peak MTP motion by 19% compared to BR_UN and CON. This was coupled with 9.8% less midtarsal motion. Kinetically, the work absorbed by the MTP joint (26–51%) and generated by the midtarsal joint (30–38%) were both less in BR_EX and BR_NT compared to BR_UN.

Implications and sources of coupling between the MTP and midtarsal joints are discussed within the context of center of pressure shifts and changes to segmental foot forces. Our results suggest that interventions aimed at modulating MTP negative work (such as footwear or assistive device design) should not ignore the midtarsal joint.

Previous research shows kinematic and kinetic coupling between the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) and midtarsal joints during gait. Studying the effects of MTP position as well as foot structure on this coupling may help determine to what extent foot coupling during dynamic and active movement is due to the windlass mechanism. This study's purpose was to investigate the kinematic and kinetic foot coupling during controlled passive, active, and dynamic movements.

After arch height and flexibility were measured, participants performed four conditions: Seated Passive MTP Extension, Seated Active MTP Extension, Standing Passive MTP Extension, and Standing Active MTP Extension. Next, participants performed three heel raise conditions that manipulated the starting position of the MTP joint: Neutral, Toe Extension, and Toe Flexion. A multisegment foot model was created in Visual 3D and used to calculate ankle, midtarsal, and MTP joint kinematics and kinetics.

Kinematic coupling (ratio of midtarsal to MTP angular displacement) was approximately six times greater in Neutral heel raises compared to Seated Passive MTP Extension, suggesting that the windlass only plays a small kinematic role in dynamic tasks. As the starting position of the MTP joint became increasingly extended during heel raises, the amount of negative work at the MTP joint and positive work at the midtarsal joint increased proportionally, while distal‐to‐hindfoot work remained unchanged. Correlations suggest that there is not a strong relationship between static arch height/flexibility and kinematic foot coupling.

Our results show that there is kinematic and kinetic coupling within the distal foot, but this coupling is attributed only in small measure to the windlass mechanism. Additional sources of coupling include foot muscles and elastic energy storage and return within ligaments and tendons. Furthermore, our results suggest that the plantar aponeurosis does not function as a rigid cable but likely has extensibility that affects the effectiveness of the windlass mechanism. Arch structure did not affect foot coupling, suggesting that static arch height or arch flexibility alone may not be adequate predictors of dynamic foot function.