A marker placement laser device for improving repeatability in 3D-foot motion analysis
Section snippets
Background
Marker-based 3D motion capture is applied in gait analysis also with 3D-foot models [1], [2], [3]. However, repeatability of foot marker placement is critically discussed [1], [4]. Hence, improvement in marker placement and repeatability—possibly with additional devices—is highly desirable. For investigating additional shoewear, orthoses or tapes, a method improving measurement repeatability across conditions would be helpful.
Noehren et al. [5] used a device with two arms to adjust to marker
Participants
The Ethical Committee of the University of Heidelberg approved this study and all 38 participants (24 women, 14 men) gave informed consent prior to participation.
Design and construction of the marker placement laser device
On a wooden board, a rectangular design with aluminum profiles (ITEM, Solingen, Germany) had been fixed. Connection elements were movable within the profiles and could be anchored to any position by means of bolts. Laser pointers (red, 650 nm, 1mW, 3-12VDC, Picotronic, Koblenz, Germany; powered by a 3 V adapter) were fixed at ball heads
Results
The differences in width between the four conditions were lowest in heel-width (mean: 0.03–0.13 mm, SD: 0.75–1.06 mm) and highest in malleoli width (mean: 0.38–3.28 mm, SD: 1.29–1.72 mm). In lateral side-width (mean: 0.06–1.80 mm, SD: 2.22–3.12 mm) and medial side-width (mean: 0.25–1.70 mm, SD: 1.47–2.17 mm), the differences were also low. For the malleoli width, the highest difference was found in the tape classic-barefoot comparison (mean: 3.28 mm, SD: 1.29 mm) (Fig. 3).
The ICC for heel-width was 0.97
Discussion
The aim of this study was to introduce a laser device for improving the accuracy of marker placement when replacements are needed.
The ICC was excellent in all conditions (0.91–0.97). Several studies [9], [10], [11] showed the repeatability of a multi-segment foot model by repeated kinematic measurements in barefoot or shoe conditions, however they did not investigate the problems of marker placement on a taped foot.
To our knowledge, no study to date examined the variation of marker placements
Conclusion
The marker placement laser device is a good instrument to improve the placement of markers for intra-day studies, where markers must be removed and replaced. It is applicable in all foot models with a repeated measurement design and for different conditions such as tapes.
Acknowledgment
The study was funded by the Ministry of Science Baden-Württemberg and Deutsche Arthrose-Hilfe e.V. (P256-A326).
Conflict of interest statement
Each author certifies that he or she has no personal or commercial association that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
References (11)
- et al.
Kinematic analysis of a multi-segment foot model for research and clinical applications: a repeatability analysis
J Biomech
(2001) - et al.
The Heidelberg foot measurement method: development, description and assessment
Gait Posture
(2006) - et al.
Repeatability of a model for measuring multi-segment foot kinematics in children
Gait Posture
(2006) - et al.
Effect of errors in the identification of anatomical landmarks on the accuracy of Q angle values
Clin Biomech
(2001) - et al.
A multi-segment foot model based on anatomically registered technical coordinate systems: method repeatability in pediatric feet
Gait Posture
(2012)
Cited by (7)
Marker placement sensitivity of the Oxford and Rizzoli foot models in adults and children
2021, Journal of BiomechanicsCitation Excerpt :Multiple devices have been developed that improve marker placement consistency (Deschamps et al., 2014; Kalkum et al., 2016; McCahill et al., 2021; Simon et al., 2006; Telfer et al., 2010). Some are used for all markers on the foot (Kalkum et al., 2016; Telfer et al., 2010), while others focus on the heel marker (McCahill et al., 2021) or the medial and lateral makers on the calcaneus (Deschamps et al., 2014; Simon et al., 2006). The latter is remarkable, because our results and those of others (Carty et al., 2015; Paik et al., 2014) show that errors in the hindfoot segment orientation are mainly caused by inconsistent marker misplacement of the markers at the posterior aspect of the calcaneus and not on the ones on the medial and lateral sides.
Multi-segment foot models and their use in clinical populations
2019, Gait and PostureThe use of real-time feedback to improve kinematic marker placement consistency among novice examiners
2017, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Studying multi-segment kinematics of the foot, both Telfer et al. [8] and Kalkum et al. [9] reproduced the findings of Noehren et al. [7] by using placement devices of their own. However, these aforementioned external placement devices [7–9] required initial landmark identification by an experienced examiner, expert calibration between testing sessions, and considerable time to implement. In response to these limitations, Osis et al. [10] introduced an expert-based software tool that provides real-time feedback to improve marker placement accuracy in considerably less time than a marker placement device.
Three-dimensional gait analysis of orthopaedic common foot and ankle joint diseases
2024, Frontiers in Bioengineering and BiotechnologyAssessing diabetic foot injury based on 3D image technology
2019, 2019 6th International Conference on Systems and Informatics, ICSAI 2019Kinematic foot models for instrumented gait analysis
2018, Handbook of Human Motion