Limits...
Validation of windows for examining kinematics of the foot with respect to the shoe using a multi-segment foot model

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Shoes designed for specific foot types are speculated to decrease running injuries by encouraging different foot kinematics... One method to test this hypothesis is to track reflective markers affixed to the foot via windows cut in the shoe... The objective of this study was to validate window sizes for five different locations in the shoe: calcaneus, navicular, first metatarsal, fifth metatarsal and hallux using an optical tracking system... For the first 10 trials, the shoe was intact with a heel and toe markers affixed to the shoe... The deformation of the shoe was assessed using the toe and heel markers on the shoe, and lateral malleolus marker... The foot was tracked as five individual segments... The forefoot and hindfoot with respect to the midfoot (frontal plane) and the height/length ratio of the medial longitudinal arch were measured and compared for each window size... Shoe deformation was assessed by mean differences between window sizes each compared to the intact shoe at the instant of heel raise... Foot kinematics differences were compared as mean differences between the first hole size and the following three hole sizes at heel raise... Sensitivity of the system was considered to be less than 3°... Any mean difference below 3° was considered insignificant... Results show that the 2.5 cm holes were a valid window sizes in the three shoes... The first marker size was not chosen since larger windows increased camera visibility of the markers on the foot and the decreased the possibility of marker-shoe contact... Future investigation of different shoes during different movements should be conducted since window size is speculated to depend on shoe type, shoe brand and activity.

No MeSH data available.


All mean differences for the 2.5 cm hole are below 3°.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2562109&req=5

Figure 1: All mean differences for the 2.5 cm hole are below 3°.

Mentions: Both the shoe and the foot calculations demonstrated that a window size of less than 2.5 cm diameter was appropriate for all three shoes. Window sizes above this deviated from the original motion of the foot. Shoe motion generally remained constant. The forefoot graph is shown in Figure 1 as an example.


Validation of windows for examining kinematics of the foot with respect to the shoe using a multi-segment foot model
All mean differences for the 2.5 cm hole are below 3°.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2562109&req=5

Figure 1: All mean differences for the 2.5 cm hole are below 3°.
Mentions: Both the shoe and the foot calculations demonstrated that a window size of less than 2.5 cm diameter was appropriate for all three shoes. Window sizes above this deviated from the original motion of the foot. Shoe motion generally remained constant. The forefoot graph is shown in Figure 1 as an example.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Shoes designed for specific foot types are speculated to decrease running injuries by encouraging different foot kinematics... One method to test this hypothesis is to track reflective markers affixed to the foot via windows cut in the shoe... The objective of this study was to validate window sizes for five different locations in the shoe: calcaneus, navicular, first metatarsal, fifth metatarsal and hallux using an optical tracking system... For the first 10 trials, the shoe was intact with a heel and toe markers affixed to the shoe... The deformation of the shoe was assessed using the toe and heel markers on the shoe, and lateral malleolus marker... The foot was tracked as five individual segments... The forefoot and hindfoot with respect to the midfoot (frontal plane) and the height/length ratio of the medial longitudinal arch were measured and compared for each window size... Shoe deformation was assessed by mean differences between window sizes each compared to the intact shoe at the instant of heel raise... Foot kinematics differences were compared as mean differences between the first hole size and the following three hole sizes at heel raise... Sensitivity of the system was considered to be less than 3°... Any mean difference below 3° was considered insignificant... Results show that the 2.5 cm holes were a valid window sizes in the three shoes... The first marker size was not chosen since larger windows increased camera visibility of the markers on the foot and the decreased the possibility of marker-shoe contact... Future investigation of different shoes during different movements should be conducted since window size is speculated to depend on shoe type, shoe brand and activity.

No MeSH data available.