Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2025
Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
Published on: May 8, 2014
Ability of a multi-segment foot model to measure kinematic differences in cavus, neutrally aligned, asymptomatic
Amanda Stone1, Christina J Stender2, Eric C Whittaker2
1VA RR&D Center for Limb Loss and MoBility (CLiMB), Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Background:
Multi-segment foot models (MFMs) provide a better understanding of the intricate biomechanics of the foot, yet it is unclear if they accurately differentiate foot type function during locomotion.
Research Question:
We employed an MFM to detect subtle kinematic differences between foot types, including: pes cavus, neutrally aligned, and asymptomatic and symptomatic pes planus. The study investigates how variable the results of this MFM are and if it can detect kinematic differences between pathologic and non-pathologic foot types during the stance phase of gait.
Methods:
Independently, three raters instrumented three subjects on three days to assess variability. In a separate cohort, each foot type was statically quantified for ten subjects per group. Each subject walked while instrumented with a four-segment foot model to assess static alignment and foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Statistical analysis performed with a linear mixed effects regression.
Results:
Model variability was highest for between-day and lowest for between-rater, with all variability measures being within the true sample variance. Almost all static measures (radiographic, digital scan, and kinematic markers) differed significantly by foot type. Sagittal hindfoot to leg and forefoot to leg kinematics differed between foot types during late stance, as well as coronal hallux to forefoot range of motion. The MFM had low between-rater variability and may be suitable for multiple raters to apply to a single study sample without introducing significant error. The model, however, only detected a few dynamic differences, with the most dramatic being the hallux to forefoot coronal plane range of motion.
Significance:
Results only somewhat aligned with previous work. It remains unclear if the MFM is sensitive enough to accurately detect different motion between foot types (pathologic and non-pathologic). A more accurate method of tracking foot bone motion (e.g., biplane fluoroscopy) may be needed to address this question.
