Cargando…
Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying gait variables
INTRODUCTION: Pressure-measuring insoles can provide a portable alternative to existing gait analysis tools. However, there is disagreement among researchers on their accuracy and the appropriate calibration methods. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the validity of pressure-measuring...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31191923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055668317752088 |
_version_ | 1783409371807481856 |
---|---|
author | DeBerardinis, Jessica Dufek, Janet S Trabia, Mohamed B Lidstone, Daniel E |
author_facet | DeBerardinis, Jessica Dufek, Janet S Trabia, Mohamed B Lidstone, Daniel E |
author_sort | DeBerardinis, Jessica |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Pressure-measuring insoles can provide a portable alternative to existing gait analysis tools. However, there is disagreement among researchers on their accuracy and the appropriate calibration methods. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the validity of pressure-measuring insoles for calculating stance time and support-phase impulse during walking using two calibration procedures, and (2) examine the effect of insole size on the results. METHODS: Data were collected from 39 participants (23.5 ± 3.24 yrs, 66.7 ± 17.5 kg, 1.64 ± 0.09 m), each wearing appropriately sized insoles as they walked over two consecutive force platforms. Two calibration methods were evaluated: (1) manufacturer’s recommendation, and (2) a participant weight-based approach. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations were conducted. RESULTS: The results indicated that the insoles measured longer stance times than the force platform (differences are less than 10%). Both calibration methods resulted in inaccurate impulse values (differences are 30 and 50% for the two calibration methods, respectively). The results showed that when using the first calibration method, impulse values depended on insole size. The second calibration consistently underestimated the impulse. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that while the insoles provide acceptable qualitative representation of the gait, the two studied calibration methods may lead to a misleading quantitative assessment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6453056 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64530562019-06-12 Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying gait variables DeBerardinis, Jessica Dufek, Janet S Trabia, Mohamed B Lidstone, Daniel E J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng Special Collection: Wearable Technologies for Active Living and Rehabilitation INTRODUCTION: Pressure-measuring insoles can provide a portable alternative to existing gait analysis tools. However, there is disagreement among researchers on their accuracy and the appropriate calibration methods. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the validity of pressure-measuring insoles for calculating stance time and support-phase impulse during walking using two calibration procedures, and (2) examine the effect of insole size on the results. METHODS: Data were collected from 39 participants (23.5 ± 3.24 yrs, 66.7 ± 17.5 kg, 1.64 ± 0.09 m), each wearing appropriately sized insoles as they walked over two consecutive force platforms. Two calibration methods were evaluated: (1) manufacturer’s recommendation, and (2) a participant weight-based approach. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations were conducted. RESULTS: The results indicated that the insoles measured longer stance times than the force platform (differences are less than 10%). Both calibration methods resulted in inaccurate impulse values (differences are 30 and 50% for the two calibration methods, respectively). The results showed that when using the first calibration method, impulse values depended on insole size. The second calibration consistently underestimated the impulse. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that while the insoles provide acceptable qualitative representation of the gait, the two studied calibration methods may lead to a misleading quantitative assessment. SAGE Publications 2018-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6453056/ /pubmed/31191923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055668317752088 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Special Collection: Wearable Technologies for Active Living and Rehabilitation DeBerardinis, Jessica Dufek, Janet S Trabia, Mohamed B Lidstone, Daniel E Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying gait variables |
title | Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying
gait variables |
title_full | Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying
gait variables |
title_fullStr | Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying
gait variables |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying
gait variables |
title_short | Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying
gait variables |
title_sort | assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying
gait variables |
topic | Special Collection: Wearable Technologies for Active Living and Rehabilitation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31191923 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2055668317752088 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT deberardinisjessica assessingthevalidityofpressuremeasuringinsolesinquantifyinggaitvariables AT dufekjanets assessingthevalidityofpressuremeasuringinsolesinquantifyinggaitvariables AT trabiamohamedb assessingthevalidityofpressuremeasuringinsolesinquantifyinggaitvariables AT lidstonedaniele assessingthevalidityofpressuremeasuringinsolesinquantifyinggaitvariables |