Relationship between sagittal plane kinematics, foot morphology and vertical forces applied to three regions of the foot

Abstract

Kinetic analysis of human motion with a multi-segment musculoskeletal foot model requires the distribution of loading applied to the modeled foot segments to be determined. This work thus examines the existence of any correlation between intersegmental foot kinematics, foot morphology, and the distribution of vertical loading in a multi-segment foot model. Gait analysis trials were performed by 20 healthy subjects at a self-selected speed with intersegmental foot joint angles and the distribution of vertical loading measured for a multi-segment foot model. A statistical relationship between the sagittal plane foot kinematics and loads applied to each foot sub-area was sought using multiple regression analyses. The sub-segmental loading of the normal and abnormal morphological groups was also compared. No meaningful relationships between sagittal plane foot kinematics and sub-segment foot loading were found (max. R 2 = 0.36). Statistically significant relationships between foot morphology classification and sub-area foot loading were however identified, particularly for feet exhibiting hallux valgus. Significant variation in intersubject foot sub-segmental loading indicates that an appropriate technique for determining this load distribution must be determined before effective kinetic analyses are performed with multisegment musculoskeletal foot models. The results of this study suggest that foot morphology is a better indicator of sub-area loading than sagittal plane kinematics and warrants further investigation.

A 3D ellipsoidal volumetric foot–ground contact model for forward dynamics

“…All experiments used only one subject and one type of movement (gait), so the model developed in this paper should be considered a subject specific model. Using a single subject may limit the use of this model, but may be beneficial for accuracy, since subject-specific contact models tend to improve accuracy [30], [31], especially if intersegmental foot loading would be of interest due to the intersubject variability in foot morphology [32].…”

A New Proxy Measurement Algorithm with Application to the Estimation of Vertical Ground Reaction Forces Using Wearable Sensors

“…The analysis of ground reaction force (GRF) (i.e., the force of interaction between the body, usually the foot, and the ground) is central in many scientific and engineering fields, including biomechanics, medical science, sports science, and robotics [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. In human biomechanics and humanoid robotics, for example, postural control is critical for understanding balance and locomotion, where the control strategies for bipedal systems heavily rely on the knowledge of the GRF and its point of application, i.e., the centre of pressure (COP).…”

Toward improved understanding of foot shape, foot posture, and foot biomechanics during running: A narrative review

“…Evaluation of foot morphology, shape, and posture Changes in tissue morphology, bone shape, and posture of the foot influence the biomechanics of the lower extremity. For example, foot types (mainly, normal, planus, and cavus feet) (Buldt et al, 2015a), foot posture (mainly, normal, pronated, and supinated feet) (Hollander et al, 2019), toe morphology (Mei et al, 2015a), hallux valgus (Hannah et al, 2016), and manipulated forefoot shapes (abducted hallux versus adducted hallux) (Mei et al, 2016;Xiang et al, 2020a;Xiang et al, 2020b) have been previously reported in the literature. Pathological conditions, such as diabetic-related foot deformities (Guiotto et al, 2013;Lu et al, 2015) can also influence the biomechanics.…”