Sensitivity Mapping of the Human Foot: Thresholds at 30 Skin Locations

Hennig, Ewald M.; Sterzing, Thorsten

doi:10.3113/fai.2009.0986

Cited by 67 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, like others [50], we found the forehead to be the most sensitive body site, followed by the upper extremities and then by the soles and halluces of the feet. Second, we found no evidence of a sex difference in the threshold measures, a finding in accord with some [e.g., 14,51,52], but not all [e.g., 50,53,54], previous studies. Third, our finding of greater left than right side sensitivity was noted as early as 1834 by Weber [55].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Point pressure sensitivity in early stage Parkinson's disease

Doty

Gandhi

Osman

et al. 2015

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Point pressure sensitivity in early stage Parkinson's disease

Doty

Gandhi

Osman

et al. 2015

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Perception ratings of this study refer to a comprehensive judgement of the whole stance phase of both the RF and FF. However, as the plantar FF was shown to be more sensitive to touch pressure stimuli compared to the RF (Hennig & Sterzing, 2009), one may assume that FF cushioning is particularly important for perceived comfort and of lesser importance for force reduction (Nigg, 2010). Follow-up studies should also examine whether runners can distinguish RF and FF hardness differences of midsole segments according to their actual mechanical properties.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe running

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Running shoe cushioning research has focused widely on rearfoot (RF) characteristics, whereas forefoot (FF) characteristics have been rather neglected. However, altered cushioning may affect running biomechanics and respective subjective perception at RF and FF. Thus, this research compared the effect of running shoes with different midsole hardnesses at RF and FF. Methods: Twenty-eight heel-toe runners were tested in five experimental shoe conditions that featured three segmented EVA midsoles (RF, midfoot (MF), FF). Three conditions had the same midsole hardness at RF and FF (soft (SS), medium (MM), hard (HH)). Two conditions had different RF and FF midsole hardness (soft-RF/hard-FF (SH), hard-RF/soft-FF (HS)). All midsoles featured the same MF segment of medium hardness. Vertical ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics during stance, subjective cushioning of the heel-toe transition and the overall comfort were quantified. Data were analysed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc tests (p < 0.05), and effect size analyses ( p h 2 ). Results: The consistent midsole shoe conditions showed increased maximum loading rates of impact and propulsion peaks from SS to HH. Respective maximum loading rates of SH were similarly to SS, and respective maximum loading rates for HS were similar to HH. Subjectively, the consistent midsole conditions were rated according to their mechanical properties and softer shoes were preferred over harder shoes. In the varied midsole shoe conditions, SH was perceived similar to SS, whereas HS was perceived similar to MM. Conclusion: The examined biomechanical variables were influenced almost entirely by respective RF cushioning properties. The hard FF did not negatively affect cushioning perception as long as the RF was soft. Combining a soft FF with a hard RF improved inferior cushioning perception associated with shoes being hard at RF and FF.

show abstract

“…Foot sensitivity (Hennig & Sterzing, 2009), size and strength of anatomical structures, as well as higher pressure magnitudes during running need to be considered. During running the forefoot may resemble a single sensory structure and further internal spatial differentiation seems to be limited.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmented midsole hardness in the midfoot to forefoot region of running shoes alters subjective perception and biomechanics during heel-toe running revealing potential to enhance footwear

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Dual density midsole constructions at the lateral rearfoot and medial midfoot provide opportunities to improve cushioning and stability of running shoes. By similar mechanisms, non-uniform midsole density across the medio-lateral direction at the midfoot to forefoot may allow better negotiation of different loading magnitudes of the medial and lateral midfoot to forefoot during running. Thus, the effect of segmented midsole hardness at the midfoot to forefoot of running shoes on perception and biomechanics was examined. Methods: Four custom-made running shoes featured a three section longitudinal hardness pattern at midfoot to forefoot. The central section as well as the rearfoot section always had consistent medium hardness, whereas medial and lateral sections were systematically softer or harder. A sample of 24 runners participated in visual analogue scale based perception measurements and in recording of in-shoe plantar pressures, ground reaction forces, and multi-segment foot kinematics. Shoe effects were analysed by repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) (p<.05), followed by least significant difference (LSD) and Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc tests (p<.05) for discrete variables. Interaction of shank and foot segments was also analysed using motion-time curves. Results: Runners distinguished midsole hardness at the medial (p D .009) but not at the lateral midfoot to forefoot and indicated a trend (p D .069) preferring softer medial hardness. Plantar peak pressure (medial: p D .006, lateral: p D .000) and relative loads (medial: p D .000, lateral: p D .000) were increased when midsole sections were harder. Ground contact time (p D .045) and maximum loading rate I (p D .016) were higher for shoes having softer medial hardness, while rearfoot (p D .040) and forefoot (p D .001) showed increased maximum ankle eversion for these conditions. Conclusion: Segmented running shoe midsole hardness across the medio-lateral direction of the midfoot to forefoot influences subjective comfort and biomechanical forefoot stability. Findings allow systematic approaches to improve both features, thereby creating enhanced running footwear.

show abstract

Sensitivity Mapping of the Human Foot: Thresholds at 30 Skin Locations

Abstract: The sensitivity map of the foot will help in understanding the function of the foot as a sensory organ and could be useful in creating footwear for better balance control and for the design of comfortable shoes.

Cited by 67 publications

References 26 publications

Point pressure sensitivity in early stage Parkinson's disease

Point pressure sensitivity in early stage Parkinson's disease

Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe running

Segmented midsole hardness in the midfoot to forefoot region of running shoes alters subjective perception and biomechanics during heel-toe running revealing potential to enhance footwear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About