Cross Step Research Articles

Effect of toe contact condition during forward stepping on the ground reaction forces during turning movement.

[Purpose] This study aimed to classify the plantar contact condition during forward stepping by focusing on the medial and lateral toes and to elucidate the relationship between the classification and turning movement. [Participants and Methods] The participants were 38 females. The plantar contact condition during forward stepping was evaluated for all participants, and the results were used for the group classification. In all the classified participants, the ground reaction force (GRF) during turning movement was measured. [Results] At sidestep (SS) and cross-step (CS), the peak medial-lateral GRF was significantly smaller in the medial floating toe (MFT) group than in the contact toe (CT) group. At SS, the peak times of the medial-lateral GRF in the MFT and lateral floating toe groups were significantly lesser than those in the CT group. At CS, the push-off peak time of the anterior-posterior GRF was significantly lesser in the MFT group than in the CT group. [Conclusion] The results of this study confirmed that each group classified according to the floating toe classification during forward stepping has different characteristics with respect to the ground reaction force during the turning movement, particularly the medial-lateral ground reaction force and its peak time.

Comparison of support leg kinetics between side-step and cross-step cutting techniques

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the support leg joint moment and moment power between side-step (SS) and cross-step (CS) cutting techniques with a prescribed 90° cutting angle. Ground reaction forces (1,000 Hz) and three-dimensional kinematics (250 Hz) of SS and CS cutting techniques were collected from 20 male college athletes. Normalised peak knee extension moment was larger in the SS technique than in the CS technique (0.40 ± 0.10 in SS; 0.26 ± 0.08 in CS). In the SS technique, the knee extensors ( − 0.10 ± 0.06 in SS; − 0.02 ± 0.04 in CS) and ankle plantarflexors ( − 0.12 ± 0.05 in SS; − 0.07 ± 0.03 in CS) did significantly more negative work (normalised). The direction change angle (40.5 ± 8.7° in SS; 33.0 ± 6.8° in CS) and the decrease in horizontal velocity of the centre of mass ( − 0.63 ± 0.23 m/s in SS; − 0.31 ± 0.23 m/s in CS) were significantly larger in the SS technique. These results suggest that the SS technique is an effective means of changing running direction at the expense of velocity of the centre of mass and that the CS technique is better for minimising the reduction in horizontal velocity of the centre of mass.