Evaluation of Different Pressure-Based Foot Contact Event Detection Algorithms across Different Slopes and Speeds

If validated, in-shoe pressure measuring technology allows for the field-based quantification of running gait, including kinematic and kinetic measures. Different algorithmic methods have been proposed to determine foot contact events from in-shoe pressure insole systems, however, these methods have...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSensors (Basel, Switzerland) Vol. 23; no. 5; p. 2736
Main Authors Blades, Samuel, Marriott, Hunter, Hundza, Sandra, Honert, Eric C., Stellingwerff, Trent, Klimstra, Marc
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland MDPI AG 02.03.2023
MDPI
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:If validated, in-shoe pressure measuring technology allows for the field-based quantification of running gait, including kinematic and kinetic measures. Different algorithmic methods have been proposed to determine foot contact events from in-shoe pressure insole systems, however, these methods have not been evaluated for accuracy, reliability against a gold standard using running data across different slopes, and speeds. Using data from a plantar pressure measurement system, seven different foot contact event detection algorithms based on pressure signals (pressure sum) were compared to vertical ground reaction force data collected from a force instrumented treadmill. Subjects ran on level ground at 2.6, 3.0, 3.4, and 3.8 m/s, six degrees (10.5%) inclined at 2.6, 2.8, and 3.0 m/s, and six degrees declined at 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, and 3.4 m/s. The best performing foot contact event detection algorithm showed maximal mean absolute errors of only 1.0 ms and 5.2 ms for foot contact and foot off, respectively, on level grade, when compared to a 40 N ascending and descending force threshold from the force treadmill data. Additionally, this algorithm was unaffected by grade and had similar levels of errors across all grades.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1424-8220
1424-8220
DOI:10.3390/s23052736