Measurement and Feature Analysis of Plantar Pressure Center in Athletes under Different Exercise Modes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking and running, two essential exercises in daily training for athletes, are major causes to foot injuries. The plantar pressure center (PPC) can accurately reflect the gait process, and effectively measure the function of foot. This paper measures the PPC trajectories of a total of 45 athletes during the support period of walking and running, and analyzes their regularities under different exercise modes. The time percentage of PPC trajectory and foot progression angle were selected as the main observation indices. The support period under each exercise mode was divided into four phases: the initial contact phase (ICP), the forefoot contact phase (FFCP), the foot flat phase (FFP), and the forefoot push off phase (FFPOP). The statistical analysis shows that: Under the running mode, the time of the heel landing on the ground and the relative load on the heel decrease with the growing speed. Under the same exercise mode, the left and right feet differ slightly in the PPC trajectory; the foot progression angle peaks in FFPOP and minimizes in FFP. In ICP and FFPOP, the foot progression angle under running is smaller than that under walking; in FFP and FFCP, the foot progression angle under running is larger than that under walking. The research results provide the scientific basis for the reasonable arrangement of athlete training.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".