Limits...
Foot motion in children and adults

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

No MeSH data available.


Marker set.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2562106&req=5

Figure 1: Marker set.

Mentions: Normal feet of 30 children aged 4–11 years (mean 7.8 yrs) and of 24 adults aged 19–51 years (mean 32.4 yrs) have been examined by instrumented gait analysis using the Heidelberg foot measurement method (HFMM) [4] with the marker set illustrated in Figure 1. In this method, the motion of the hind foot is described relative to the tibia by tibio-talar (ankle) flexion and subtalar rotation. For mid- and forefoot motion, functional parameters are evaluated which are relevant for a clinical evaluation forming together a standardized set of 12 angles. The ROM in each angle has been determined across the gait cycle as a "dynamic" evaluation. Further, these parameters have been evaluated in mid swing to find "static" differences with respect to age in the geometry of the unloaded foot. A student T-Test was used to evaluate differences between the feet of children and adults.


Foot motion in children and adults
Marker set.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2562106&req=5

Figure 1: Marker set.
Mentions: Normal feet of 30 children aged 4–11 years (mean 7.8 yrs) and of 24 adults aged 19–51 years (mean 32.4 yrs) have been examined by instrumented gait analysis using the Heidelberg foot measurement method (HFMM) [4] with the marker set illustrated in Figure 1. In this method, the motion of the hind foot is described relative to the tibia by tibio-talar (ankle) flexion and subtalar rotation. For mid- and forefoot motion, functional parameters are evaluated which are relevant for a clinical evaluation forming together a standardized set of 12 angles. The ROM in each angle has been determined across the gait cycle as a "dynamic" evaluation. Further, these parameters have been evaluated in mid swing to find "static" differences with respect to age in the geometry of the unloaded foot. A student T-Test was used to evaluate differences between the feet of children and adults.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

No MeSH data available.