Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativity with GW250114.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

The Ruminant Farm Systems (RuFaS) model is a platform to support future research and actions for sustainable dairy farming.

JDS communications·2026
Same author

Radiomic signatures to estimate survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: Cancer and Leukemia Group B 80802 (Alliance).

ESMO open·2025
Same author

Adverse events associated with sequential immune checkpoint inhibitor and alectinib in patients with ALK-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

ESMO open·2025
Same author

GW250114: Testing Hawking's Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Unifying measurement schemes in 2D terahertz spectroscopy.

The Journal of chemical physics·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 13, 2026

Lower-Limb Biomechanical Characteristics Associated with Unplanned Gait Termination Under Different Walking Speeds
05:52

Lower-Limb Biomechanical Characteristics Associated with Unplanned Gait Termination Under Different Walking Speeds

Published on: August 25, 2020

Foot kinematics during walking measured using bone and surface mounted markers.

C Nester1, R K Jones, A Liu

  • 1Centre for Rehabilitation and Human Performance Research, Brian Blatchford Building, University of Salford, M66PU, UK. c.j.nester@salford.ac.uk

Journal of Biomechanics
|July 17, 2007
PubMed
Summary

Comparing foot motion capture methods, researchers found significant differences between bone kinematics and skin or plate marker protocols. Maximum differences exceeded 8 degrees, suggesting no single rigid body foot model or attachment method is consistently superior.

More Related Videos

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
07:43

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

Published on: July 2, 2021

Subject-specific Musculoskeletal Model for Studying Bone Strain During Dynamic Motion
09:32

Subject-specific Musculoskeletal Model for Studying Bone Strain During Dynamic Motion

Published on: April 11, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 13, 2026

Lower-Limb Biomechanical Characteristics Associated with Unplanned Gait Termination Under Different Walking Speeds
05:52

Lower-Limb Biomechanical Characteristics Associated with Unplanned Gait Termination Under Different Walking Speeds

Published on: August 25, 2020

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy
07:43

In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy

Published on: July 2, 2021

Subject-specific Musculoskeletal Model for Studying Bone Strain During Dynamic Motion
09:32

Subject-specific Musculoskeletal Model for Studying Bone Strain During Dynamic Motion

Published on: April 11, 2018

Area of Science:

  • Biomechanics
  • Orthopedics
  • Motion Analysis

Background:

  • Accurate foot kinematics are crucial for understanding gait and designing interventions.
  • Existing foot models use multi-segment approaches with varying marker attachment methods.
  • Validation of these models against individual bone motion is essential.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare kinematic data from a four-segment foot model to individual bone kinematics.
  • To evaluate two marker attachment protocols: direct skin attachment versus rigid plates.
  • To determine the discrepancies between bone, skin, and plate kinematic data during stance.

Main Methods:

  • A four-segment foot model (heel, navicular/cuboid, medial forefoot, lateral forefoot) was used.
  • Kinematic data were collected using markers attached directly to the skin and to rigid plates.
  • Bone-pin data served as the reference, collected from tibia, talus, calcaneus, navicular, cuboid, medial cuneiform, and first/fifth metatarsals.

Main Results:

  • Mean differences between protocols exceeded 3 degrees in 35% of stance data and 5 degrees in 3.5%.
  • Maximum differences between any two protocols exceeded 3 degrees in 100%, 5 degrees in 73%, and 8 degrees in 23% of stance data.
  • Differences were largest for navicular/cuboid relative to calcaneus and medial forefoot relative to navicular/cuboid motion. Skin and plate protocols showed smaller differences between themselves than with bone data.

Conclusions:

  • Significant kinematic discrepancies exist between multi-segment foot models and individual bone motion.
  • Both skin and plate marker attachment protocols introduce errors, with no systematic pattern observed.
  • The choice between rigid body foot models and marker attachment strategies requires careful consideration due to inherent inaccuracies.