Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, School of Physical Education, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy, Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Brazil.
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gait Posture. 2022 Jan;91:48-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.10.001. Epub 2021 Oct 6.
The Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) and Oxford Foot Model (OFM) are used to analyze segmented foot kinematics with independent tracking markers. Alternatively, rigid marker clusters can be used to improve markers' visualization and facilitate analyzing shod gait.
Are there differences in angles from the RFM and OFM, obtained with independent and clustered tracking markers, during the stance phase of walking?
Walking kinematics of 14 non-disabled participants (25.2 years (SD 2.8)) were measured at self-selected speed. Rearfoot-shank and forefoot-rearfoot angles were measured from two models with two tracking methods: RFM, OFM, RFM-cluster, and OFM-cluster. In RFM-cluster and OFM-cluster, the rearfoot and forefoot tracking markers were rigidly clustered, fixed on rods' tips attached to a metallic base. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVAs and SPM Paired t-tests were used to compare waveforms. Coefficients of Multiple Correlation (CMC) quantified the similarity between waveforms. One-way Repeated Measures ANOVAs were conducted to compare the ranges of motion (ROMs), and pre-planned contrasts investigated differences between the models and tracking methods. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were computed to verify the similarity between ROMs.
Differences occurred mostly in small parts of the stance phase for the cluster vs. non-cluster comparisons and the RFM vs. OFM comparisons. ROMs were slightly different between the models and tracking methods in most comparisons. The curves (CMC ≥ 0.71) were highly similar between the models and tracking methods. The ROMs (ICC ≥ 0.67) were moderatetly to highly similar in most comparisons. RFM vs. RFM-cluster (forefoot-rearfoot angle - transverse plane), OFM vs. OFM-cluster and RFM vs. OFM (forefoot-rearfoot angle - frontal plane) were not similar (non-significant).
Rigid clusters are an alternative for tracking rearfoot-shank and forefoot-rearfoot angles during the stance phase of walking. However, specific differences should be considered to contrast results from different models and tracking methods.
Rizzoli 足部模型（RFM）和牛津足部模型（OFM）用于分析带有独立跟踪标记的分段足部运动学。或者，可以使用刚性标记簇来改善标记的可视化效果，并便于分析穿鞋步态。
在行走的站立阶段，使用独立和聚类跟踪标记获得的 RFM 和 OFM 之间的角度是否存在差异？
以自我选择的速度测量了 14 名非残疾参与者（25.2 岁（SD 2.8））的步行运动学。后足-小腿和前足-后足角度通过两种模型和两种跟踪方法进行测量：RFM、OFM、RFM-集群和 OFM-集群。在 RFM-集群和 OFM-集群中，后足和前足跟踪标记被刚性地聚类，并固定在附接到金属底座的杆的尖端上的棒上。使用统计参数映射（SPM）单向重复测量方差分析和 SPM 配对 t 检验来比较波形。多元相关系数（CMC）量化了波形之间的相似性。进行单向重复测量方差分析以比较运动范围（ROM），并进行预计划对比以研究模型和跟踪方法之间的差异。计算组内相关系数（ICC）以验证 ROM 之间的相似性。
集群与非集群比较以及 RFM 与 OFM 比较，差异主要发生在站立阶段的小部分。在大多数比较中，模型和跟踪方法之间的 ROM 略有不同。在大多数比较中，曲线（CMC≥0.71）在模型和跟踪方法之间高度相似。在大多数比较中，ROM（ICC≥0.67）在中等至高度相似。RFM 与 RFM-集群（前足-后足角度-横平面）、OFM 与 OFM-集群和 RFM 与 OFM（前足-后足角度-额状面）不相似（无显著性）。
刚性集群是在行走的站立阶段跟踪后足-小腿和前足-后足角度的另一种选择。然而，应该考虑特定差异，以对比来自不同模型和跟踪方法的结果。
