The configuration of plantar pressure sensing cells for wearable measurement of COP coordinates

Wang, Dian; Cai, Ping; Mao, Zhuo

doi:10.1186/s12938-016-0237-3

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By considering that we adopted larger size sensors, our results find agreement with Stöggl and Martiner [16], who reported an underestimate ranging between 35.1% (RMSE%) and 76.4% (RMSE%) on GRF with a Moticon device characterized by 13 sensors. It should be mentioned that Figures 2-8 showed that the results of the simulated layouts were mainly affected in terms of the amount of peak of pressure that was underestimated rather than its spatial location on the insole, in agreement with Wang 2016 [50], who compared the influence of different layouts, sizes, and number of pressure-sensing cells on COP coordinates' estimation. Their results indicated that reliable COP estimation could be obtained with seven pressure-sensing cells of 2.0-2.5 cm, which represented the best compromise between simplifying the wearable system and obtaining precise information.…”

Section: Weight Liftingsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…State-of-the-art also reported solutions with a reduced number of sensors with larger size such as Wang et al, 2016 [ 50 ] and Shu et al, 2010 [ 22 ], where the entire foot sole was divided into 6 or 7 sensors, respectively, with 4 or 3 pressure-sensing cells in the metatarsal region, 1 pressure-sensing cell or none in the midfoot, and 3 pressure-sensing cells in the heel region. By considering that we adopted larger size sensors, our results find agreement with Stöggl and Martiner [ 16 ], who reported an underestimate ranging between 35.1% (RMSE%) and 76.4% (RMSE%) on GRF with a Moticon device characterized by 13 sensors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Design and Simulation of a 16-Sensors Plantar Pressure Insole Layout for Different Applications: From Sports to Clinics, a Pilot Study

Ciniglio

Guiotto

Spolaor

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantification of plantar pressure distribution is widely done in the diagnosis of lower limbs deformities, gait analysis, footwear design, and sport applications. To date, a number of pressure insole layouts have been proposed, with different configurations according to their applications. The goal of this study is to assess the validity of a 16-sensors (1.5 × 1.5 cm) pressure insole to detect plantar pressure distribution during different tasks in the clinic and sport domains. The data of 39 healthy adults, acquired with a Pedar-X® system (Novel GmbH, Munich, Germany) during walking, weight lifting, and drop landing, were used to simulate the insole. The sensors were distributed by considering the location of the peak pressure on all trials: 4 on the hindfoot, 3 on the midfoot, and 9 on the forefoot. The following variables were computed with both systems and compared by estimating the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE): Peak/Mean Pressure, Ground Reaction Force (GRF), Center of Pressure (COP), the distance between COP and the origin, the Contact Area. The lowest (0.61%) and highest (82.4%) RMSE values were detected during gait on the medial-lateral COP and the GRF, respectively. This approach could be used for testing different layouts on various applications prior to production.

show abstract

Section: Weight Liftingsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Design and Simulation of a 16-Sensors Plantar Pressure Insole Layout for Different Applications: From Sports to Clinics, a Pilot Study

Ciniglio

Guiotto

Spolaor

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it can be surmised that a minimum number of sensors may be required to accurately measure COP path width. This supposition is supported by the work of Wang et al, 17 who found that an increase in the number of sensors led to a more accurate measurement of COP. Researchers should be aware of this limitation when using smaller sized pressure measuring insoles, as they may lack the number of sensors required to produce accurate COP results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…It was found that both methods were successful in determining COP. Wang et al 17 used pressure-measuring insoles, with various numbers of sensors, to examine the COP of 10 healthy adults. It was found that an increase in the number of sensing cells lead to a better estimation of COP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of two techniques for center of pressure measurements

DeBerardinis

Neilsen

Lidstone

et al. 2020

Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineerin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Force platforms and pressure-measuring insoles are the most common tools used for measuring center of pressure. Earlier studies to assess these instruments suffered from limited sample sizes or an inadequate range of participant foot sizes. The purpose of this study was to propose new methods to extract and calculate comparably accurate center of pressure for the Kistler® force platform and Medilogic® insoles. Methods Center of pressure data were collected from 65 participants wearing pressure-measuring insoles (six different sizes). Participants walked over consecutive force platforms for three trials while wearing pressure-measuring insoles within socks. Onset force thresholds and center of pressure segment length thresholds were used to determine accurate center of pressure path length and width. A single step for each foot and trial was extracted from both instruments. Results A strong correlation was observed between instruments in center of pressure length (4.12 ± 6.72% difference, r = 0.74). Center of pressure width varied and was weakly correlated (–7.04 ± 4.48% difference, r = 0.11). Conclusions The results indicate that both instruments can measure center of pressure path length consistently and with comparable accuracy (differences < 10%). There were differences between instruments in measuring center of pressure path width, which were attributed to the limited number of sensors across the width of the insoles.

show abstract

“…The validity of pressure insoles for measuring widths of the COP can be affected by sensor size, sensor arrangement, the number of sensors, individual sensor accuracy and repeatability, differences in sampling rate between the systems, and/or measurement context. Wang et al 37 observed that an increase in the number of sensors across the width of an insole resulted in a more accurate measurement of the width of trajectories of the COP. Therefore, a smaller number of sensors in the ML direction compared to the AP direction may be a contributing factor as well as because differences between the systems may be amplified due to the short-measured distance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wireless pressure insoles for measuring ground reaction forces and trajectories of the centre of pressure during functional activities

Cudejko,

Button,

Al-Amri

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wireless pressure insoles may enable the assessment of movement biomechanics in a real-world setting, and thus play an important role in the recommendation of clinical management, but they are not yet a gold standard due to the unknown accuracy and reliability with respect to different functional activities. Here, we compare novel wireless pressure insoles with force plates and examine the test–retest reliability of the insoles for measuring vertical ground reaction forces (vGRFs) and trajectories of the center of pressure (COP). In this observational study, healthy adults underwent two data collection sessions during one day. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to compare the outcomes measured with the two instruments during squats, jumps, and the sit-to-stand test. Test–retest reliability was assessed by the interclass correlation coefficient and the standard error of measurement for the outcomes during squats, jumps, walking, and stair ambulation. Trajectories of the COP in the anterior–posterior direction were comparable between the two systems during all activities. The insoles consistently measured shorter trajectories of the COP in the medial–lateral direction (except jumps) and lower vGRFs than the force plates. Test–retest reliability of the insoles was fair to high or excellent for all outcomes during all activities. In conclusion, the insoles provide reliable measures of vGRFs and trajectories of the COP during multiple functional activities in healthy adults. Although the insoles do not produce identical results to the force plate, the qualitative similarity and consistency between the two systems confirm the insoles can be used to measure these outcomes, based on the purpose and accuracy required.

show abstract

The configuration of plantar pressure sensing cells for wearable measurement of COP coordinates

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

The Design and Simulation of a 16-Sensors Plantar Pressure Insole Layout for Different Applications: From Sports to Clinics, a Pilot Study

The Design and Simulation of a 16-Sensors Plantar Pressure Insole Layout for Different Applications: From Sports to Clinics, a Pilot Study

A comparison of two techniques for center of pressure measurements

Wireless pressure insoles for measuring ground reaction forces and trajectories of the centre of pressure during functional activities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About