Attackers then went on to steal data from infected systems…
Read More
Monthly Archives: May 2023
mRNA technology for vaccines and more: An Ars Frontiers recap
The tech has lots of applications beyond the one we’ve already been injected with…
Read More
Beating the heat: These plant-based iridescent films stay cool in the sun
Cellulose is sustainable, biocompatible, and ideal for radiative cooling applications…
Read More
What to expect at WWDC 2023: Reality Pro, iOS 17, and new MacBooks
Apple is set to announce its first new major platform in years…
Read More
Humans evolved to walk with an extra spring in our step, shows foot arch study
Hexbyte Glen Cove
A new study has shown that humans may have evolved a spring-like arch to help us walk on two feet. Researchers studying the evolution of bipedal walking have long assumed that the raised arch of the foot helps us walk by acting as a lever which propels the body forward.
But a global team of scientists have now found that the recoil of the flexible arch repositions the ankle upright for more effective walking. The effects in running are greater, which suggests that the ability to run efficiently could have been a selective pressure for a flexible arch that made walking more efficient too. This discovery could even help doctors improve treatments for present-day patients’ foot problems.
“We thought originally that the spring-like arch helped to lift the body into the next step,” said Dr. Lauren Welte, first author of the study in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, who conducted the research while at Queen’s University and is now affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It turns out that instead, the spring-like arch recoils to help the ankle lift the body.”
Hexbyte Glen Cove Step by step
The evolution of our feet, including the raised medial arch which sets us apart from great apes, is crucial to bipedal walking. The arch is thought to give hominins more leverage when walking upright: the mechanism is unclear, but when arch motion is restricted, running demands more energy. Arch recoil could potentially make us more efficient runners by propelling the center mass of the body forward, or by making up for mechanical work that muscles would otherwise have to do.
To investigate these hypotheses, the team selected seven participants with varying arch mobility, who walked and ran while their feet were being filmed by high-speed X-ray motion capture cameras. The height of each participant’s arch was measured, and their right feet were CT-scanned.
The scientists created rigid models and compared them to the measured motion of the foot bones to test the effect of arch mobility on adjacent joints. They also measured which joints contributed the most to arch recoil, and the contribution of arch recoil to center of mass and ankle propulsion.
Hexbyte Glen Cove Leaning into bipedalism
Although the scientists expected to find that arch recoil helped the rigid lever of the arch to lift the body up, they discovered that a rigid arch without recoil either caused the foot to leave the ground early, likely decreasing the efficiency of the calf muscles, or leaned the ankle bones too far forward.
The forward lean mirrors the posture of walking chimpanzees, rather than the upright stance characteristic of human gait. The flexible arch helped reposition the ankle upright, which allows the leg to push off the ground more effectively. This effect is even greater when running, suggesting that efficient running may have been an evolutionary pressure in favor of the flexible arch.
The scientists also found that the joint between two bones in the medial arch, the navicular and the medial cuneiform, is crucial to the arch’s flexibility. Changes to this joint could help us track the development of bipedalism in the hominin fossil record.
“The mobility of our feet seems to allow us to walk and run upright instead of either crouching forward or pushing off into the next step too soon,” said Dr. Michael Rainbow of Queen’s University, senior author.
Hexbyte Glen Cove Therapeutic potential
These findings also suggest therapeutic avenues for people whose arches are rigid due to injury or illness: supporting the flexibility of the arch could improve overall mobility.
“Our work suggests that allowing the arch to move during propulsion makes movement more efficient,” said Welte. “If we restrict arch motion, it’s likely that there are corresponding changes in how the other joints function.”
“At this stage, our hypothesis requires further testing because we need to verify that differences in foot mobility across the population lead to the kinds of changes we see in our limited sample,” said Rainbow. “That said, our work sets the stage for an exciting new avenue of investigation.”
More information:
Michael Rainbow et al, Mobility of the human foot’s medial arch enables upright bipedal locomotion, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (2023). DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1155439
% %item_read_more_button%% Hexbyte Glen Cove Educational Blog Repost With Backlinks — #metaverse #vr #ar #wordpress
Rocket Report: Europe has a rocket problem, FAA testing safety of methane
SpaceX continues to totally redefine the world’s access to space…
Read More
Neuralink says it has the FDA’s OK to start clinical trials
Company isn’t enrolling patients yet, but it has cleared a major hurdle…
Read More
The curious case of the brie made from nuts that caused a multi-state outbreak
Health officials cracked the case starting with just two cases…
Read More
People in Old Testament Jerusalem suffered from widespread dysentery, study finds
Study results indicate “long-term presence” of Giardia parasite in Near East populations…
Read More
Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one—new research into when people want to share experiences
Hexbyte Glen Cove
People will often sacrifice a better experience and opt for one that’s less enjoyable if it means they can do it alongside a loved one—whether that’s a romantic partner, close friend or relative. That’s the main finding of our research published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in April 2023.
For example, when taking a flight, two friends might decide to sit in adjacent seats in coach rather than accept a free upgrade to nonadjacent seats in first class. Failing to choose togetherness can have consequences, as in the “Seinfeld” episode in which Elaine suffers the indignities of economy class, leading to rage against Jerry after he chooses to accept an upgrade.
We conducted five studies in a variety of settings and featuring different social bonds, including friendships and romantic relationships. In one study, just over half of people chose two adjacent seats far from the stage over two nonadjacent seats closer to the stage when imagining they were attending a Cirque du Soleil performance with a close friend, compared with only about one-third who chose the adjacent seats when imagining attending with an acquaintance.
In another study, we asked students whether they wanted to eat one chocolate with another person—either a new friend or a stranger—or two chocolates alone. Half the people chose the shared experience—but only if the other person was a friend. Fewer people—38%—opted for the shared experience if the other person was a stranger.
One reason people prioritize physical proximity with close partners is because they want to create shared memories. Importantly, people believe that physical distance can disrupt the creation of shared memories, and so they forgo enjoyable experiences apart from their loved one.
This also matters for companies seeking to improve customer experience, such as an airline offering free upgrades or shorter wait times. Our findings suggest that, for example, consumers traveling with a companion might not take advantage of services like TSA PreCheck, an airline VIP lounge or a free upgrade if it is available only for themselves. It also helps explain why consumers do not like when airlines split up families in their seat assignments.
However, we also tested a few initiatives marketers can use to encourage people to choose a higher-quality experience that requires them to be apart from their companion. In another experiment, we described a train ride as either a fun part of an excursion or as a practical way to reach a final destination. More participants accepted a free upgrade—even though it required sitting apart from their romantic partner—when they perceived the train ride as utilitarian. That’s because they cared less about creating shared memories during the experience.
We still don’t know how this preference affects relationship quality.
For example, when can time apart from your partner actually strengthen the relationship? And how should couples split their time between lower-quality activities done together and higher-quality activities done alone? One option for separate activities, for example, might be when one partner‘s desired activity does not interest the other.
Also, given that people believe physical proximity is a prerequisite for creating shared memories, how can partners who live in different places also cultivate shared memories? This question is especially important in light of how COVID-19 has enabled more people to work and study remotely.
More information:
Ximena Garcia‐Rada et al, A desire to create shared memories increases consumers’ willingness to sacrifice experience quality for togetherness, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2023). DOI: 10.1002/jcpy.1352
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Citation:
Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one—new research into when people want to share experiences (2023, May 28)
retrieved 29 May 2023
from https://phys.org/news/2023-05-onenew-people.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
% %item_read_more_button%% Hexbyte Glen Cove Educational Blog Repost With Backlinks — #metaverse #vr #ar #wordpress