Picture of athlete cycling

Open Access research with a real impact on health...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the Physical Activity for Health Group based within the School of Psychological Sciences & Health. Research here seeks to better understand how and why physical activity improves health, gain a better understanding of the amount, intensity, and type of physical activity needed for health benefits, and evaluate the effect of interventions to promote physical activity.

Explore open research content by Physical Activity for Health...

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.