DeBerardinis J, Dufek JS, Trabia MB, Lidstone DE. Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying gait variables.
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2018;
5:2055668317752088. [PMID:
31191923 PMCID:
PMC6453056 DOI:
10.1177/2055668317752088]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction
Pressure-measuring insoles can provide a portable alternative to existing gait analysis tools. However, there is disagreement among researchers on their accuracy and the appropriate calibration methods. The purposes of this study were to (1) determine the validity of pressure-measuring insoles for calculating stance time and support-phase impulse during walking using two calibration procedures, and (2) examine the effect of insole size on the results.
Methods
Data were collected from 39 participants (23.5 ± 3.24 yrs, 66.7 ± 17.5 kg, 1.64 ± 0.09 m), each wearing appropriately sized insoles as they walked over two consecutive force platforms. Two calibration methods were evaluated: (1) manufacturer's recommendation, and (2) a participant weight-based approach. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations were conducted.
Results
The results indicated that the insoles measured longer stance times than the force platform (differences are less than 10%). Both calibration methods resulted in inaccurate impulse values (differences are 30 and 50% for the two calibration methods, respectively). The results showed that when using the first calibration method, impulse values depended on insole size. The second calibration consistently underestimated the impulse.
Conclusions
It was concluded that while the insoles provide acceptable qualitative representation of the gait, the two studied calibration methods may lead to a misleading quantitative assessment.
Collapse