The Influence of High Heeled Shoes on Kinematics, Kinetics, and Muscle EMG of Normal Female Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a graded response in gait kinematics, kinetics, and EMG occurs as shoe heel height increases. Four different shoes, including one flat shoe and three shoes with high heels, were tested in this investigation. The average heel heights of the four shoes were 1.4 cm, 3.7 cm, 5.4 cm, and 8.5 cm. Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle EMG were measured during the stance phase of gait on 13 healthy female subjects while wearing each of these 4 shoes. Systematic increases in the active vertical, propulsive, and braking forces were found as shoe height increased. Ankle and knee flexion and soleus and rectus femoris activity showed a graded response as heel height increased. One surprising result was the behavior of the maximal vertical impact force peak and the maximal loading rate during heel impact. The vertical impact force peaks and the maximal vertical loading rates were highest for the shoe with 3.7 cm heel height and lowest for the flat shoe and the shoe with heel height of 8.5 cm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".