Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different

S.C. Wearing, S.R. Urry

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    21 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Footprints from force sensitive resistor (FSR) type pressure platforms have been shown to differ from ink prints, leading to a relative distortion of the arch index (AI). This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform relative to ink footprints. Area measurements (heel, midfoot, forefoot, hallux and lesser toes) were acquired simultaneously from ink footprints and a pressure platform. Difference between paired values revealed relative measurement error. The platform overestimated heel area (2.2%), but underestimated midfoot area (10.2%), and lesser toe area (17.7 %). The mean AIs were 0.206 (platform) and 0.230 (ink prints). The pressure platform closely estimated contact areas for the heel and forefoot. Midfoot areas were underestimated sufficiently to bias the AI towards lower values. Therefore, the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform is not the same as that from an ink footprint, and the two should not be used interchangeably. Feet classified according to AI from a pressure platform may be categorised differently than they would by using ink footprints. Pressure platform data cannot be used to determine AI with confidence until relative measurement error for isolated foot regions has been determined, or appropriate normative values established.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages68-73
    Number of pages5
    JournalFoot
    Volume15
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2005

    Fingerprint

    Ink
    Pressure
    Heel
    Toes
    Foot
    Hallux

    Keywords

    • footprint
    • arch index
    • pressure platform
    • contact area
    • long plantar angle

    Cite this

    Wearing, S.C. ; Urry, S.R. / Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. In: Foot. 2005 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 68-73.
    @article{dcbb670d784e455981f4d2a24ae2a194,
    title = "Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different",
    abstract = "Footprints from force sensitive resistor (FSR) type pressure platforms have been shown to differ from ink prints, leading to a relative distortion of the arch index (AI). This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform relative to ink footprints. Area measurements (heel, midfoot, forefoot, hallux and lesser toes) were acquired simultaneously from ink footprints and a pressure platform. Difference between paired values revealed relative measurement error. The platform overestimated heel area (2.2{\%}), but underestimated midfoot area (10.2{\%}), and lesser toe area (17.7 {\%}). The mean AIs were 0.206 (platform) and 0.230 (ink prints). The pressure platform closely estimated contact areas for the heel and forefoot. Midfoot areas were underestimated sufficiently to bias the AI towards lower values. Therefore, the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform is not the same as that from an ink footprint, and the two should not be used interchangeably. Feet classified according to AI from a pressure platform may be categorised differently than they would by using ink footprints. Pressure platform data cannot be used to determine AI with confidence until relative measurement error for isolated foot regions has been determined, or appropriate normative values established.",
    keywords = "footprint, arch index, pressure platform, contact area, long plantar angle",
    author = "S.C. Wearing and S.R. Urry",
    year = "2005",
    month = "6",
    doi = "10.1016/j.foot.2005.02.001",
    language = "English",
    volume = "15",
    pages = "68--73",
    journal = "Foot",
    issn = "0958-2592",
    number = "2",

    }

    Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. / Wearing, S.C.; Urry, S.R.

    In: Foot, Vol. 15, No. 2, 06.2005, p. 68-73.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different

    AU - Wearing, S.C.

    AU - Urry, S.R.

    PY - 2005/6

    Y1 - 2005/6

    N2 - Footprints from force sensitive resistor (FSR) type pressure platforms have been shown to differ from ink prints, leading to a relative distortion of the arch index (AI). This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform relative to ink footprints. Area measurements (heel, midfoot, forefoot, hallux and lesser toes) were acquired simultaneously from ink footprints and a pressure platform. Difference between paired values revealed relative measurement error. The platform overestimated heel area (2.2%), but underestimated midfoot area (10.2%), and lesser toe area (17.7 %). The mean AIs were 0.206 (platform) and 0.230 (ink prints). The pressure platform closely estimated contact areas for the heel and forefoot. Midfoot areas were underestimated sufficiently to bias the AI towards lower values. Therefore, the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform is not the same as that from an ink footprint, and the two should not be used interchangeably. Feet classified according to AI from a pressure platform may be categorised differently than they would by using ink footprints. Pressure platform data cannot be used to determine AI with confidence until relative measurement error for isolated foot regions has been determined, or appropriate normative values established.

    AB - Footprints from force sensitive resistor (FSR) type pressure platforms have been shown to differ from ink prints, leading to a relative distortion of the arch index (AI). This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform relative to ink footprints. Area measurements (heel, midfoot, forefoot, hallux and lesser toes) were acquired simultaneously from ink footprints and a pressure platform. Difference between paired values revealed relative measurement error. The platform overestimated heel area (2.2%), but underestimated midfoot area (10.2%), and lesser toe area (17.7 %). The mean AIs were 0.206 (platform) and 0.230 (ink prints). The pressure platform closely estimated contact areas for the heel and forefoot. Midfoot areas were underestimated sufficiently to bias the AI towards lower values. Therefore, the AI derived from a capacitance pressure platform is not the same as that from an ink footprint, and the two should not be used interchangeably. Feet classified according to AI from a pressure platform may be categorised differently than they would by using ink footprints. Pressure platform data cannot be used to determine AI with confidence until relative measurement error for isolated foot regions has been determined, or appropriate normative values established.

    KW - footprint

    KW - arch index

    KW - pressure platform

    KW - contact area

    KW - long plantar angle

    UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2005.02.001

    U2 - 10.1016/j.foot.2005.02.001

    DO - 10.1016/j.foot.2005.02.001

    M3 - Article

    VL - 15

    SP - 68

    EP - 73

    JO - Foot

    T2 - Foot

    JF - Foot

    SN - 0958-2592

    IS - 2

    ER -