Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Meeting abstract
  • Open Access

Biomechanical analysis of smart walking shoe sending movement information to display device by radio communication

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20147 (Suppl 1) :A121

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-7-S1-A121

  • Published:

Keywords

  • Young People
  • Contact Area
  • Elderly People
  • Risk Estimation
  • Superior Performance

The purpose of this study was to find the difference in foot pressure patterns when wearing smart walking shoes. Foot pressure measurement is an established tool for the evaluation of foot function [1]. These measurements assess the effect of structural changes, which may occur as a complication of pathologies such as diabetes, and therefore have been suggested as one of the key tools in ulcer risk estimation [2].

The subjects who took part in the test consist of 5 elderly people and 5 young people. The physical features of the elderly people that were recruited for the study are shown below: 5 healthy male subjects (elderly people) with an average age of 62.0 yrs (S.D 1.0 yrs), weight of 69.4 kg (S.D 10.0 kg), height of 168.8 cm (S.D 5.3 cm) and a foot size of 270.0 mm (S.D 0.0 mm). 5 healthy male subjects (young people) with an average age of 27.2 yrs (S.D 4.1 yrs), weight of 75.2 kg (S.D 4.6 kg), height of 175.4 cm (S.D 4.0 cm) and a foot size of 270.0 mm (S.D 0.0 mm). Ten males (5 elderly people, 5 young people) walked on a treadmill wearing three different shoes. Foot pressure data (Contact areas, Maximum forece, Peak pressure, Maximum mean pressure) was collected using a Pedar-X mobile system (Novel Gmbh., Germany) operating at the 1,000 Hz.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Type A: development shoes, Type B: control shoes, Type C: smart walking shoes

Table 1

Result of Foot Pressure

Subjects

Mask

Contact area (cm2)

Maximum force (N)

  

A

B

C

A

B

C

Young

Total

142.877±6.584

131.852±10.934

142.342±5.754

711.105±59.923

740.921±95.996

701.841±60.198

 

M1

68.663±1.716

63.023±5.373

68.629±0.584

621.023±89.605

606.018±168.64

601.982±86.053

 

M2

33.443±5.540

29.811±4.185

33.331±5.175

133.911±8.162

113.943±21.044

140.778±14.482

 

M3

40.770±0.000

39.019±2.200

40.383±0.753

468.385±42.442

500.382±46.850

471.992±27.290

Elderly

Total

139.403±2.996

128.966±5.757

138.099±4.256

592.178±95.362

605.047±81.495

596.161±100.23

 

M1

68.119±3.213

64.589±5.796

68.221±3.705

526.524±75.498

545.776±74.082

546.801±90.669

 

M2

30.514±2.751

24.877±5.708

29.140±4.599

110.238±25.983

78.007±31.900

96.843±29.870

 

M3

40.770±0.000

39.503±1.290

40.736±0.060

386.392±94.017

428.618±84.020

397.017±94.609

Subjects

Mask

Peak pressure (kPa)

Maximum mean pressure (kPa)

  

A

B

C

A

B

C

Young

Total

270.869±70.830

264.823±50.235

247.067±50.477

86.504±3.965

99.139±8.358

88.268±7.415

 

M1

258.458±83.422

243.390±75.894

235.239±59.953

94.519±9.360

101.522±19.698

93.791±10.480

 

M2

84.522±14.058

87.059±19.501

88.965±22.004

46.799±7.466

48.141±11.532

47.585±8.937

 

M3

184.082±25.588

213.283±16.517

190.809±25.685

115.573±11.070

130.126±11.114

119.693±10.816

Elderly

Total

189.973±27.832

213.509±21.026

213.564±45.475

76.358±3.203

85.410±3.122

77.770±7.078

 

M1

188.168±27.811

212.000±20.270

213.564±45.475

81.126±5.774

87.280±3.075

82.372±8.326

 

M2

66.064±6.977

67.977±18.067

57.432±9.937

39.860±6.977

38.683±7.441

36.246±6.136

 

M3

134.086±33.163

165.232±33.123

140.901±30.023

94.773±23.062

110.738±22.902

97.650±23.442

The results are as follows:

1. Young people

In comparison with the Type B (control shoes):

1) Type A (development shoes)

a)The contact area of foot (Total) by increased 8.36%, forefoot (M1) by increased 8.95%, midfoot (M2) by increased 12.18% and rearfoot (M3) by increased 4.48%. b)The maximum force of foot (Total) by decreased 4.02%, rearfoot (M3) by decreased 6.39%, while the maximum force of forefoot (M1) by increased 2.48% and midfoot (M2) by increased 17.52%. c)The peak pressure of foot (Total) by increased 2.28%, forefoot (M1) by increased 6.19%, while the peak pressure of midfoot (M2) by decreased 2.91% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 13.69%. d)The maximum mean pressure of foot (Total) by decreased 12.74%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 6.90%, midfoot (M2) by decreased 2.79% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 11.18%.

2) Type C (smart walking shoes)

a)The contact area of foot (Total) by increased 7.96%, forefoot (M1) by increased 8.90%, midfoot (M2) by increased 11.81% and rearfoot (M3) by increased 3.50%. b)The maximum force of foot (Total) by decreased 5.27%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 0.67% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 5.67%, while the maximum force of midfoot (M2) by increased 23.55%. c)The peak pressure of foot (Total) by decreased 6.70%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 3.35% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 10.54%, while the peak pressure of midfoot (M2) by increased 2.19%. d)The maximum mean pressure of foot (Total) by decreased 10.97%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 7.62%, midfoot (M2) by decreased 1.15% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 8.02%.

2. Elderly people

In comparison with the Type B (control shoes):

1) Type A (development shoes)

a)The contact area of foot (Total) by increased 8.09%, forefoot (M1) by increased 5.47%, midfoot (M2) by increased 22.66% and rearfoot (M3) by increased 3.21%. b)The maximum force of foot (Total) by decreased 2.13%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 3.53% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 9.85%, while the maximum force of midfoot (M2) by increased 41.32%. c)The peak pressure of foot (Total) by decreased 11.02%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 11.24%, midfoot (M2) by decreased 2.81% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 18.85%. d)The maximum mean pressure force of foot (Total) by decreased 10.60%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 7.05% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 14.42%, while the maximum force of midfoot (M2) by increased 3.04%.

2) Type C (smart walking shoes)

a)The contact area of foot (Total) by increased 7.08%, forefoot (M1) by increased 5.62%, midfoot (M2) by increased 17.14% and rearfoot (M3) by increased 3.12%. b)The maximum force of foot (Total) by decreased 1.47%, rearfoot (M3) by decreased 7.37%, while the maximum force of forefoot (M1) by increased 0.19% and midfoot (M2) by increased 24.15%. c)The peak pressure of foot (Total) by increased 0.03%, forefoot (M1) by increased 0.74%, while the peak pressure of midfoot (M2) by decreased 15.51% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 14.73%. d)The maximum mean pressure of foot (Total) by decreased 8.95%, forefoot (M1) by decreased 5.62%, midfoot (M2) by decreased 6.30% and rearfoot (M3) by decreased 11.82%.

As a result of analysis, it has been found that Type A and Type C have lower foot pressure (Total, M3) than Type B. Also, Type A and Type C show superior performance compared to Type B in all mask at contact area. Type A and Type C shoes will be used to reduce foot pressure and increase comfort and fitting.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Footwear Biomechanics Team, Footwear Industrial Promotion Center, Busan, Korea

References

  1. Jason K Gurney, Uwe G Kersting, Dieter Rosenbaum: SBetween-day reliability of repeated plantar pressure distribution measurements in a normal population. Gait & Posture. 2007, 27: 706-709.Google Scholar
  2. Cavanagh PR, Simoneau GG, Ulbrecht JS: Ulceration, unsteadiness, and uncertainty: the biomechanical consequences of diabetes mellitus. Journal of Biomechanics. 1993, 26 (11): 23-40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Park et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement