{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043256997455470736, 'fraction_numerical': 0.041348600508905854, 'mean_word_length': 5.096899224806202, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Physiological and Biomechanical Analysis of a Foot‐Tapping Device

Fidgeting may be effective to increase daily energy expenditure. The purpose of this study was to describe the effects of foot tapping using a variable resistance device in subjects in different age ranges with no lower extremity limitations. The subjects were young, 19–34 years (M: 7, F: 7), middle aged, 35–54 years (M: 4, F: 3), and older, >;55 years (M: 4, F: 4) adults. Movement factors of the limb were measured with accelerometry, goniometry, and electromyography and whole body metabolic cost was assessed. Subjects performed eight 5‐minute conditions (toe and heel, low resistance versus higher resistance, and speed, 100 bpm and 140 bpm) with each separated by a recovery period. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA at an alpha level of 0.05. There were no statistical differences in either mean or peak shank acceleration, tibialis anterior or gastrocnemius average Integrated EMG, ankle range of motion, or metabolic cost for younger and middle aged subjects. For older adults, METs were statistically different in Toe‐Low Resistance‐100 (TL100) versus Heel‐High Resistance‐140 (HH140), TL100 at 1.06±0.17 versus HH140 1.27±0.28. The TL100 versus HH140 comparison was at the extreme of the conditions, lowest contrasted with highest. However, the slight increase in the mean values of 0.19 METs probably would not have a consequential effect on metabolic cost. At the average weight of the older adult subjects tested, approximately two kilocalories per minute would be expended.