Picture of a black hole

Strathclyde Open Access research that creates ripples...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of research papers by University of Strathclyde researchers, including by Strathclyde physicists involved in observing gravitational waves and black hole mergers as part of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) - but also other internationally significant research from the Department of Physics. Discover why Strathclyde's physics research is making ripples...

Strathprints also exposes world leading research from the Faculties of Science, Engineering, Humanities & Social Sciences, and from the Strathclyde Business School.

Discover more...

Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different

Wearing, S.C. and Urry, S.R. (2005) Arch indexes from ink footprints and pressure platforms are different. Foot, 15 (2). pp. 68-73. ISSN 0958-2592

Full text not available in this repository. (Request a copy from the Strathclyde author)

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.