Skip to main content

Advertisement

Association between foot types defined by static and dynamic measures, and the centre of pressure during gait

Article metrics

  • 1058 Accesses

Background

Foot types (e.g. pronated, supinated foot) are used for clinical reasoning [1] and widely assumed to be related to centre of pressure (COP) patterns [2, 3]. Specifically, a pronated foot will demonstrate a medially deviated COP. It follows that COP could be a measure of foot type and inferences about function extrapolated from it. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether COP parameters differ between foot types.

Methods

Static foot posture, foot kinematics and COP data were collected on 90 healthy subjects during walking (Figure 1). The subjects were classified as pronated, supinated, and neutral groups using three static and four dynamic methods (table 1). COP lateral and medial excursion area, COP lateral medial difference (COP_LMD), and COP index (COP_I) were calculated for different phases of stance [46]. Independent T test and correlations were calculated among the different groups.

Figure 1
figure1

Five segment foot kinematic model.

Table 1 Table 1

Results

Pronated feet (based on FPI) demonstrated more medial excursion of the COP from heel strike to heel off (p<0.05). Pronated feet classified by NCSP-RCSP demonstrated higher COP_I during HO-TO (p<0.05).

Supinated feet classified by NCSP-RCSP and RRE had more medial excursion of the COP (COP-ME) during HO-TO (p<0.05). Feet classified as supinated by TPRE resulted in a greater COP-LMD in a stance (p<0.05) and their COP_I was statistically significantly higher. Feet classified as supinated by RRE showed higher COP-LMD value during HO-TO (p<0.05). The statistical results showed a weak relationship between COP parameters of different foot types (r<0.27). Dynamic measures of foot type showed a slightly stringer association to COP measures than static measures of foot type.

Conclusion

Over all, whilst there were some differences between foot types in some COP measures, the meaning of the observed differences does not support the hypothesis that COP parameters are strongly indicative of specific foot types. Thus, COP measures should not be used to infer foot kinematic nor foot function.

References

  1. 1.

    Rao Smita, Riskowsk L Jody, Hannan T Marian: Musculoskeletal conditions of the foot and ankle: Assessments and treatment options. Review Article Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2012, 26 (3): 345-368. 10.1016/j.berh.2012.05.009.

  2. 2.

    Dixon SJ: Application of Centre-of-Pressure Data to Indicate Rear foot Inversion-Eversion in Shod Running. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association. 2006, 96 (4): 305-12.

  3. 3.

    Han TR, Paik NJ, Im MS: Quantification of the path of centre of pressure (COP) using an F-scan in-shoe transducer. 1999, 10: 248-54.

  4. 4.

    Redmond AC, Crane1 YZ, Menz HB: Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. 2008, 1 (6):

  5. 5.

    Sobel Ellen, et al: Re-evaluation of the Relaxed Calcaneal Stance Position- Reliability and Normal Values in Children and Adults. J Am Podiatric Med. Assoc. 1999, 89 (5): 258-64.

  6. 6.

    Landorf K, Keenan AM, Rushworth RL: Foot Orthosis Prescription Habits of Australian and New Zealand Podiatric Physicians. J Am Podiatric Med. Assoc. 2001, 91 (4): 174-83.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Christopher J Nester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Keywords

  • Public Health
  • Healthy Subject
  • Static Measure
  • Statistical Result
  • Dynamic Method