Establishing state of motion through two-dimensional foot and shoe print analysis: A pilot study

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether toe sliding is more likely to cause knee injuries than flatfoot sliding in curling. Methods: Twelve curlers participated in the study, each delivering stones. Six stones per volunteer were delivered using a flatfoot slide and 6 were delivered using a toe slide. The Pedar-X inshoe pressure system recorded the plantar pressure present during each of the slides, while a sagittal plane digital video recorded the body position of the curler. Measurements were taken from the video recordings using a software overlay program (MB Ruler), and this combined with the Pedar-X data gave the overall joint force in the tuck knee. Results: Results showed a statistically significant difference between theThe knee joint force calculated for flatfoot sliding and toe sliding, with toe sliding being was more than double that of flatfoot sliding (p<0.05). A There was a strong correlation was found between the increase in knee joint force and the increase in the moment arm of the ground reaction force. Images produced using the 3D Vicon  system confirm that toe sliding produces a larger moment arm than flatfoot sliding. Conclusion: The knee is on average the most common joint affected in curlers. Injuries are more likely to occur in toe sliding, compared to flatfoot sliding, due to the increase din force and moment, pushing the weight of the curler forward over the knee, which could make causing the adopted position to be less stable. This study recommends that curlers Curlers should might consider avoiding toe sliding in order to reduce the risk of knee injuries if the two types of delivery could be performed equally well.

A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements

“…[13] reported a similar finding where footprint lengths were shown to be greater in walking compared to a standing state. This was also reported by Neves et al [10] who found walking and running footprint lengths to be larger than standing footprint lengths. However, foot elongation may not fully explain this difference, as Vernon et al [14] suggests ghosting in dynamic footprints may contribute to greater length measurements resulting from the backward splaying of the heel's fibro-fatty pad and from curvature of the toe apices rolling off the supporting surface.…”

“…This may explain why mean walking footprint length (255.4mm) was smaller, compared to our study (268.61mm), as females have predominantly smaller feet [7,33]. Similar issues also affect findings reported by Neves et al [10] as their sample was composed of six male and five female participants.…”

“…Barker and Scheuer [2] suggested that footprint morphology may vary depending on what activity is performed. Neves et al [10] have shown that walking footprints are larger than standing footprints by an average of 17.89mm +/-4.81mm (first 'Great' toe to heel length). The same was found comparing walking and running footprints, but by a smaller average difference (7.07mm +/-7.98mm).…”

<p>Examination and Interpretation of Bare Footprints in Forensic Investigations</p>

“…62 Where footprint measurement research has included both left and right feet, asymmetry has been noted in most publications. 23,56,[63][64][65][66][67][68] Burrow noted in a limited study of sixteen participants, where four footprints were collected from each subject, that there were no significant differences in footprint size and shape between those collected in the morning and those collected in the afternoon. 69 These results have implications for forensic practice as they suggest that the timing of reference print collection can be flexible during forensic practice.…”

“…To this end, differences have been established between standing and walking inked bare footprints collected under controlled conditions with males reported to have a mean intravariation of 18 mm for the first toe to heel measurement. 55,56 Neves et al 56 found that running footprints were larger than static footprints but smaller than walking footprints. In a pilot study, Nirenberg et al 57 determined that there were no significant statistical differences between socked footprints and inked bare footprints, and also between insole foot marks and inked bare footprints.…”