Limits...
Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods.

Lee YC, Lin G, Wang MJ - J Foot Ankle Res (2014)

Bottom Line: The results were also compared with the ISO 20685 criteria.The participant's sex and the measurement method were found (p < 0.05) to exert significant effects on the measured six foot dimensions.The precision of the 3D scanning measurement method with mean absolute difference values between 0.73 to 1.50 mm showed the best performance among the four measurement methods.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Section 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013 Taiwan.

ABSTRACT

Background: Foot dimension information on different user groups is important for footwear design and clinical applications. Foot dimension data collected using different measurement methods presents accuracy problems. This study compared the precision and accuracy of the 3D foot scanning method with conventional foot dimension measurement methods including the digital caliper, ink footprint and digital footprint.

Methods: Six commonly used foot dimensions, i.e. foot length, ball of foot length, outside ball of foot length, foot breadth diagonal, foot breadth horizontal and heel breadth were measured from 130 males and females using four foot measurement methods. Two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the sex and method effect on the measured foot dimensions. In addition, the mean absolute difference values and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used for precision and accuracy evaluation. The results were also compared with the ISO 20685 criteria.

Results: The participant's sex and the measurement method were found (p < 0.05) to exert significant effects on the measured six foot dimensions. The precision of the 3D scanning measurement method with mean absolute difference values between 0.73 to 1.50 mm showed the best performance among the four measurement methods. The 3D scanning measurements showed better measurement accuracy performance than the other methods (mean absolute difference was 0.6 to 4.3 mm), except for measuring outside ball of foot length and foot breadth horizontal. The ICCs for all six foot dimension measurements among the four measurement methods were within the 0.61 to 0.98 range.

Conclusions: Overall, the 3D foot scanner is recommended for collecting foot anthropometric data because it has relatively higher precision, accuracy and robustness. This finding suggests that when comparing foot anthropometric data among different references, it is important to consider the differences caused by the different measurement methods.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The sex differences in six foot dimensions among measuring methods (unit in mm).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4215017&req=5

Fig2: The sex differences in six foot dimensions among measuring methods (unit in mm).

Mentions: Males had significantly greater foot dimensions than females regardless of the measurement method. The differences between the sexes were about 22.4 mm (range 21.2 to 23.2 mm) in foot length, 16.1 mm (range 15.1 to 17.6 mm) in ball of foot length, 14.1 mm (range 12.1 to 15.6 mm) in outside ball of foot length, 9.4 mm (range 8.1 to 10.7 mm) in foot breadth diagonal, 8.9 mm (range 8.1 to 10.4 mm) in foot breadth horizontal and 4.4 mm (range 3.6 to 5.7 mm) in heel breadth dimension among the four different measurement methods (as shown in Figure 2).Figure 2


Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods.

Lee YC, Lin G, Wang MJ - J Foot Ankle Res (2014)

The sex differences in six foot dimensions among measuring methods (unit in mm).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4215017&req=5

Fig2: The sex differences in six foot dimensions among measuring methods (unit in mm).
Mentions: Males had significantly greater foot dimensions than females regardless of the measurement method. The differences between the sexes were about 22.4 mm (range 21.2 to 23.2 mm) in foot length, 16.1 mm (range 15.1 to 17.6 mm) in ball of foot length, 14.1 mm (range 12.1 to 15.6 mm) in outside ball of foot length, 9.4 mm (range 8.1 to 10.7 mm) in foot breadth diagonal, 8.9 mm (range 8.1 to 10.4 mm) in foot breadth horizontal and 4.4 mm (range 3.6 to 5.7 mm) in heel breadth dimension among the four different measurement methods (as shown in Figure 2).Figure 2

Bottom Line: The results were also compared with the ISO 20685 criteria.The participant's sex and the measurement method were found (p < 0.05) to exert significant effects on the measured six foot dimensions.The precision of the 3D scanning measurement method with mean absolute difference values between 0.73 to 1.50 mm showed the best performance among the four measurement methods.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, National Tsing Hua University, No. 101, Section 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013 Taiwan.

ABSTRACT

Background: Foot dimension information on different user groups is important for footwear design and clinical applications. Foot dimension data collected using different measurement methods presents accuracy problems. This study compared the precision and accuracy of the 3D foot scanning method with conventional foot dimension measurement methods including the digital caliper, ink footprint and digital footprint.

Methods: Six commonly used foot dimensions, i.e. foot length, ball of foot length, outside ball of foot length, foot breadth diagonal, foot breadth horizontal and heel breadth were measured from 130 males and females using four foot measurement methods. Two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the sex and method effect on the measured foot dimensions. In addition, the mean absolute difference values and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used for precision and accuracy evaluation. The results were also compared with the ISO 20685 criteria.

Results: The participant's sex and the measurement method were found (p < 0.05) to exert significant effects on the measured six foot dimensions. The precision of the 3D scanning measurement method with mean absolute difference values between 0.73 to 1.50 mm showed the best performance among the four measurement methods. The 3D scanning measurements showed better measurement accuracy performance than the other methods (mean absolute difference was 0.6 to 4.3 mm), except for measuring outside ball of foot length and foot breadth horizontal. The ICCs for all six foot dimension measurements among the four measurement methods were within the 0.61 to 0.98 range.

Conclusions: Overall, the 3D foot scanner is recommended for collecting foot anthropometric data because it has relatively higher precision, accuracy and robustness. This finding suggests that when comparing foot anthropometric data among different references, it is important to consider the differences caused by the different measurement methods.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus