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

Measuring foot breadth horizontal dimension by using (a) scanning image and (b) digital caliper.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig3: Measuring foot breadth horizontal dimension by using (a) scanning image and (b) digital caliper.

Mentions: The results from this study indicated that the foot dimensions collected from the 3D scanner were greater than the foot dimensions collected from the other three methods. This was because the 3D scanner detects the outermost point of the metatarsal head easier than manual methods when measuring the ball of foot length, outside ball of foot length and the two foot breadth (diagonal and horizontal) dimensions (as shown in Figure 3). The experimenter palpates the metatarsal point protrusion during using the digital caliper method which may not be the outer most point for taking foot dimension measurements. Another reason may be that the experimenter may compress the soft tissue surrounding the landmark while using digital calipers to take measurements. Thus, measurement procedure standardization and adequate training for the measurer should be emphasized.Figure 3


Comparing 3D foot scanning with conventional measurement methods.

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

Measuring foot breadth horizontal dimension by using (a) scanning image and (b) digital caliper.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig3: Measuring foot breadth horizontal dimension by using (a) scanning image and (b) digital caliper.
Mentions: The results from this study indicated that the foot dimensions collected from the 3D scanner were greater than the foot dimensions collected from the other three methods. This was because the 3D scanner detects the outermost point of the metatarsal head easier than manual methods when measuring the ball of foot length, outside ball of foot length and the two foot breadth (diagonal and horizontal) dimensions (as shown in Figure 3). The experimenter palpates the metatarsal point protrusion during using the digital caliper method which may not be the outer most point for taking foot dimension measurements. Another reason may be that the experimenter may compress the soft tissue surrounding the landmark while using digital calipers to take measurements. Thus, measurement procedure standardization and adequate training for the measurer should be emphasized.Figure 3

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