Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Universitat Jaume I, 12071 Castellón de la Plana, Spain.
Departmental Section of Podiatry, Nursing Department, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
Sensors (Basel). 2023 Jul 28;23(15):6744. doi: 10.3390/s23156744.
In-shoe models are required to extend the clinical application of current multisegment kinetic models of the bare foot to study the effect of foot orthoses. Work to date has only addressed marker placement for reliable kinematic analyses. The purpose of this study is to address the difficulties of recording contact forces with available sensors. Ten participants walked 5 times wearing two different types of footwear by stepping on a pressure platform (ground contact forces) while wearing in-shoe pressure sensors (foot sole contact forces). Pressure data were segmented by considering contact cells' anteroposterior location, and were used to compute 3D moments at foot joints. The mean values and 95% confidence intervals were plotted for each device per shoe condition. The peak values and times of forces and moments were computed per participant and trial under each condition, and were compared using mixed-effect tests. Test-retest reliability was analyzed by means of intraclass correlation coefficients. The curve profiles from both devices were similar, with higher joint moments for the instrumented insoles at the metatarsophalangeal joint (26%), which were lower at the ankle (8%) and midtarsal (~15%) joints, although the differences were nonsignificant. Not considering frictional forces resulted in ~20% lower peaks at the ankle moments compared to previous studies, which employed force plates. The device affected both shoe conditions in the same way, which suggests the interchangeability of measuring joint moments with one or the other device. This hypothesis was reinforced by the intraclass correlation coefficients, which were higher for the peak values, although only moderate-to-good. In short, both considered alternatives have drawbacks. Only the instrumented in-soles provided direct information about foot contact forces, but it was incomplete (evidenced by the difference in ankle moments between devices). However, recording ground reaction forces offers the advantage of enabling the consideration of contact friction forces (using force plates in series, or combining a pressure platform and a force plate to estimate friction forces and torque), which are less invasive than instrumented insoles (which may affect subjects' gait).
鞋内模型需要将当前裸足多节动力学模型的临床应用扩展到研究足矫形器的效果。迄今为止的工作仅解决了可靠运动分析的标记放置问题。本研究的目的是解决使用现有传感器记录接触力的困难。十名参与者穿着两种不同类型的鞋子进行 5 次行走,在穿着鞋内压力传感器(足底接触力)的同时在压力平台上(地面接触力)进行了测试。通过考虑接触单元的前后位置对压力数据进行分段,并用于计算足部关节的 3D 力矩。对于每种设备,针对每种鞋的情况绘制了平均值和 95%置信区间。针对每种条件下的每个参与者和试验计算了力和力矩的峰值和时间,并使用混合效应测试进行了比较。使用组内相关系数分析了测试 - 重测可靠性。两种设备的曲线形态相似,带有仪器化鞋垫的关节力矩更高(跖趾关节约 26%),而踝关节(约 8%)和中跗关节(约 15%)较低,尽管差异无统计学意义。与之前使用力板的研究相比,不考虑摩擦力会导致踝关节力矩的峰值降低约 20%。该设备以相同的方式影响两种鞋的情况,这表明使用一种或另一种设备测量关节力矩具有可互换性。这一假设通过组内相关系数得到了加强,尽管仅为中等到良好,但峰值的组内相关系数更高。简而言之,这两种替代方案都有缺点。只有仪器化鞋垫提供了有关足底接触力的直接信息,但信息不完整(通过设备之间的踝关节力矩差异证明)。然而,记录地面反作用力具有的优势是能够考虑接触摩擦力(使用力板串联,或结合压力平台和力板来估计摩擦力和扭矩),这比仪器化鞋垫(可能会影响受试者的步态)侵入性更小。