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 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.

Characterization of the Kinetyx SI Wireless Pressure-Measuring Insole during Benchtop Testing and Running Gait.

This study characterized the absolute pressure measurement error and reliability of a new fully integrated (Kinetyx, SI) plantar-pressure measurement system (PPMS) versus an industry-standard PPMS (F-Scan, Tekscan) during an established benchtop testing protocol as well as via a research-grade, instrumented treadmill (Bertec) during a running protocol. Benchtop testing results showed that both SI and F-Scan had strong positive linearity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, PCC = 0.86-0.97, PCC = 0.87-0.92; RMSE = 15.96 ± 9.49) and mean root mean squared error RMSE (9.17 ± 2.02) compared to the F-Scan on a progressive loading step test. The SI and F-Scan had comparable results for linearity and hysteresis on a sinusoidal loading test (PCC = 0.92-0.99; 5.04 ± 1.41; PCC = 0.94-0.99; 6.15 ± 1.39, respectively). SI had less mean RMSE (6.19 ± 1.38) than the F-Scan (8.66 ±2.31) on the sinusoidal test and less absolute error (4.08 ± 3.26) than the F-Scan (16.38 ± 12.43) on a static test. Both the SI and F-Scan had near-perfect between-day reliability interclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.97-1.00) to the F-Scan (ICC = 0.96-1.00). During running, the SI pressure output had a near-perfect linearity and low RMSE compared to the force measurement from the Bertec treadmill. However, the SI pressure output had a mean hysteresis of 7.67% with a 28.47% maximum hysteresis, which may have implications for the accurate quantification of kinetic gait measures during running.