Characterization of the Kinetyx SI Wireless Pressure-Measuring Insole during Benchtop Testing and Running Gait
<p>Expanded view of the Kinetyx SI System displaying the main components of the system contained within the fully integrated design, including a pressure-sensing layer (green) which contains 32 resistive pressure-sensing elements distributed across the rearfoot and forefoot regions.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Part 1 testing equipment: (<b>a</b>) linear force testing device with 30 mm diameter actuator disk and force plate used for the sinusoidal testing (<b>b</b>) pneumatic bladder pressure tester used for step test, static test, and reliability test (<b>c</b>) Tekscan F-scan system. Part 2 testing equipment: (<b>d</b>) Bertec force-instrumented treadmill.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Normalized vGRF signal from the Bertec force-instrumented treadmill (black) and the filtered version of this signal (black dashed). Normalized pressure sum signal from the Kinetyx SI system (blue). Detection of signal onset (green), signal max (blue) and signal offset (red) for each loading cycle from a given foot from the Bertec vGRF data.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Mean loading plots from the running data. (<b>a</b>) shows the mean normalized loading data from the ascending part of the signal from the Bertec (black) and SI (blue); (<b>b</b>) shows the mean normalized loading data from the descending part of the signal from the Bertec (black) and SI (blue); (<b>c</b>) shows the mean hysteresis plot of SI vs. Bertec.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Part 1—Benchtop Tests
2.1.1. Benchtop Tests Data Collection
2.1.2. Benchtop Tests Data Analysis
2.2. Part 2—Running
2.2.1. Running Data Collection
2.2.2. Running Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Results Part 1
3.2. Results Part 2
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hreljac, A. Impact and Overuse Injuries in Runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2004, 36, 845–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bredeweg, S.W.; Kluitenberg, B.; Bessem, B.; Buist, I. Differences in Kinetic Variables between Injured and Noninjured Novice Runners: A Prospective Cohort Study. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mann, R.; Malisoux, L.; Urhausen, A.; Meijer, K.; Theisen, D. Plantar Pressure Measurements and Running-Related Injury: A Systematic Review of Methods and Possible Associations. Gait Posture 2016, 47, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moore, I.S.; Jones, A.M.; Dixon, S.J. Mechanisms for Improved Running Economy in Beginner Runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, 1756–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moore, I.S. Is There an Economical Running Technique? A Review of Modifiable Biomechanical Factors Affecting Running Economy. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Honert, E.C.; Hoitz, F.; Blades, S.; Nigg, S.R.; Nigg, B.M. Estimating Running Ground Reaction Forces from Plantar Pressure during Graded Running. Sensors 2022, 22, 3338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavanagh, P.R.; Hewitt, F.G.; Perry, J.E. In-Shoe Plantar Pressure Measurement: A Review. Foot 1992, 2, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbaum, D.; Becker, H.-P. Plantar Pressure Distribution Measurements. Technical Background and Clinical Applications. Foot Ankle Surg. 1997, 3, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lord, M. Foot Pressure Measurement: A Review of Methodology. J. Biomed. Eng. 1981, 3, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, S.; Cunningham, J.L.; West, S. A Comparison of Vertical Force and Temporal Parameters Produced by an In-Shoe Pressure Measuring System and a Force Platform. Clin. Biomech. 2000, 15, 781–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donath, L.; Faude, O.; Lichtenstein, E.; Nüesch, C.; Mündermann, A. Validity and Reliability of a Portable Gait Analysis System for Measuring Spatiotemporal Gait Characteristics: Comparison to an Instrumented Treadmill. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mann, R.; Malisoux, L.; Brunner, R.; Gette, P.; Urhausen, A.; Statham, A.; Meijer, K.; Theisen, D. Reliability and Validity of Pressure and Temporal Parameters Recorded Using a Pressure-Sensitive Insole during Running. Gait Posture 2014, 39, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harle, R.; Taherian, S.; Pias, M.; Coulouris, G.; Hopper, A.; Cameron, J.; Lasenby, J.; Kuntze, G.; Bezodis, I.; Irwin, G.; et al. Towards Real-Time Profiling of Sprints Using Wearable Pressure Sensors. Comput. Commun. 2012, 35, 650–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burns, G.T.; Deneweth Zendler, J.; Zernicke, R.F. Validation of a Wireless Shoe Insole for Ground Reaction Force Measurement. J. Sports Sci. 2019, 37, 1129–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, R.; Pearson, L.T.; Barry, G.; Young, F.; Lennon, O.; Godfrey, A.; Stuart, S. Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2022, 53, 241–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weart, A.N.; Miller, E.M.; Freisinger, G.M.; Johnson, M.R.; Goss, D.L. Agreement Between the OptoGait and Instrumented Treadmill System for the Quantification of Spatiotemporal Treadmill Running Parameters. Front. Sports Act. Living 2020, 2, 571385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weizman, Y.; Tan, A.M.; Fuss, F.K. Benchmarking Study of the Forces and Centre of Pressure Derived from a Novel Smart-Insole against an Existing Pressure Measuring Insole and Force Plate. Measurement 2019, 142, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cramer, L.A.; Wimmer, M.A.; Malloy, P.; O’Keefe, J.A.; Knowlton, C.B.; Ferrigno, C. Validity and Reliability of the Insole3 Instrumented Shoe Insole for Ground Reaction Force Measurement during Walking and Running. Sensors 2022, 22, 2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seiberl, W.; Jensen, E.; Merker, J.; Leitel, M.; Schwirtz, A. Accuracy and Precision of Loadsol® Insole Force-Sensors for the Quantification of Ground Reaction Force-Based Biomechanical Running Parameters. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2018, 18, 1100–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brindle, R.A.; Bleakley, C.M.; Taylor, J.B.; Queen, R.M.; Ford, K.R. Validity of Estimating Center of Pressure during Walking and Running with Plantar Load from a Three-Sensor Wireless Insole. Wearable Technol. 2022, 3, e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tahir, A.M.; Chowdhury, M.E.H.; Khandakar, A.; Al-Hamouz, S.; Abdalla, M.; Awadallah, S.; Reaz, M.B.I.; Al-Emadi, N. A Systematic Approach to the Design and Characterization of a Smart Insole for Detecting Vertical Ground Reaction Force (VGRF) in Gait Analysis. Sensors 2020, 20, 957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- El Kati, R.; Forrester, S.; Fleming, P. Evaluation of Pressure Insoles during Running. Procedia Eng. 2010, 2, 3053–3058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kong, P.W.; De Heer, H. Wearing the F-Scan Mobile in-Shoe Pressure Measurement System Alters Gait Characteristics during Running. Gait Posture 2009, 29, 143–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brimacombe, J.M.; Wilson, D.R.; Hodgson, A.J.; Ho, K.C.T.; Anglin, C. Effect of Calibration Method on Tekscan Sensor Accuracy. J. Biomech. Eng. 2009, 131, 034503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, H.; Guan, J.; Weatherly, M. Accuracy and Precision of Two In-Shoe Pressure Measurement Systems. Ergonomics 2002, 45, 537–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.; Wang, A.; Zhuang, Y.; Tomita, M.R.; Xu, W. Smart Insole: A Wearable Sensor Device for Unobtrusive Gait Monitoring in Daily Life. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2016, 12, 2281–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almuteb, I.; Hua, R.; Wang, Y. Smart Insoles Review (2008–2021): Applications, Potentials, and Future. Smart Health 2022, 25, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, B.J.; Veith, N.T.; Hell, R.; Döbele, S.; Roland, M.; Rollmann, M.; Holstein, J.; Pohlemann, T. Validation and Reliability Testing of a New, Fully Integrated Gait Analysis Insole. J. Foot Ankle Res. 2015, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stöggl, T.; Martiner, A. Validation of Moticon’s OpenGo Sensor Insoles during Gait, Jumps, Balance and Cross-Country Skiing Specific Imitation Movements. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 35, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schofield, J.S.; Evans, K.R.; Hebert, J.S.; Marasco, P.D.; Carey, J.P. The Effect of Biomechanical Variables on Force Sensitive Resistor Error: Implications for Calibration and Improved Accuracy. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Razak, A.; Zayegh, A.; Begg, R.K.; Wahab, Y. Foot Plantar Pressure Measurement System: A Review. Sensors 2012, 12, 9884–9912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Urry, S. Plantar Pressure-Measurement Sensors. Meas. Sci. Technol. 1999, 10, R16–R32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, C.; Parker, D.; Nester, C. Validity and Repeatability of Three In-Shoe Pressure Measurement Systems. Gait Posture 2016, 46, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giacomozzi, C. Appropriateness of Plantar Pressure Measurement Devices: A Comparative Technical Assessment. Gait Posture 2010, 32, 141–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arndt, A. Correction for Sensor Creep in the Evaluation of Long-Term Plantar Pressure Data. J. Biomech. 2003, 36, 1813–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurkmans, H.L.P.; Bussmann, J.B.J.; Benda, E.; Verhaar, J.A.N.; Stam, H.J. Accuracy and Repeatability of the Pedar Mobile System in Long-Term Vertical Force Measurements. Gait Posture 2006, 23, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asmussen, M.J.; Kaltenbach, C.; Hashlamoun, K.; Shen, H.; Federico, S.; Nigg, B.M. Force Measurements during Running on Different Instrumented Treadmills. J. Biomech. 2019, 84, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MDL-F-Scan-Datasheet. Available online: https://www.tekscan.com/resources (accessed on 13 January 2023).
- Hafer, J.F.; Lenhoff, M.W.; Song, J.; Jordan, J.M.; Hannan, M.T.; Hillstrom, H.J. Reliability of Plantar Pressure Platforms. Gait Posture 2013, 38, 544–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kluitenberg, B.; Bredeweg, S.W.; Zijlstra, S.; Zijlstra, W.; Buist, I. Comparison of Vertical Ground Reaction Forces during Overground and Treadmill Running. A Validation Study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2012, 13, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selinger, J.C.; Hicks, J.L.; Jackson, R.W.; Wall-Scheffler, C.M.; Chang, D.; Delp, S.L. Running in the Wild: Energetics Explain Ecological Running Speeds. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, 2309–2315.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvim, F.; Cerqueira, L.; Netto, A.D.; Leite, G.; Muniz, A. Comparison of Five Kinematic-Based Identification Methods of Foot Contact Events During Treadmill Walking and Running at Different Speeds. J. Appl. Biomech. 2015, 31, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mills, P.M.; Barrett, R.S.; Morrison, S. Agreement between Footswitch and Ground Reaction Force Techniques for Identifying Gait Events: Inter-Session Repeatability and the Effect of Walking Speed. Gait Posture 2007, 26, 323–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plantar Pressure Measurement System Characteristics | ||
---|---|---|
Kinetyx SI | Tekscan F-Scan | |
Technology | Resistive | Resistive |
System weight—both sides (g) | 130 | 862 |
Number of sensing elements | 32 | 960 |
Max sample rate (Hz) | 200 | 750 |
Resolution | 12 bit | 8 bit |
Sensing range (kPa) | 0–500 | 0–862 |
Insert Thickness (mm) | 5 mm | 0.2 |
Durability (uses) | Unknown | 5–15 |
Kinetyx | Tekscan | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PPMS | SI 1 | SI 2 | SI Avg. | F-Scan 1 | F-Scan 2 | F-Scan Avg. |
Step Test (0–500 kPa) | ||||||
Linearity R2 (range) | 0.87–0.97 | 0.86–0.90 | 0.86–0.97 | 0.87–0.91 | 0.90–0.92 | 0.87–0.92 |
Mean RMSE (kPa) | 10.72 ± 1.72 | 7.62 ± 0.32 | 9.17 ± 2.02 | 8.91 ± 4.47 | 23.01 ± 7.59 | 15.96 ± 9.49 |
MAX RMSE (kPa) | 33.11 ± 5.61 | 19.85 ± 1.72 | 26.48 ± 8.06 | 17.66 ± 8.96 | 40.87 ± 13.04 | 29.27 ± 16.16 |
MIN RMSE (kPa) | 1.85 ± 0.40 | 2.27 ± 0.82 | 2.06 ± 0.64 | 1.06 ± 0.39 | 0.69 ± 0.14 | 0.88 ± 0.34 |
Sinusoidal Test (0–500 kPa load cycling at ~1 Hz) | ||||||
Correlation R2 (range) | 0.98–0.99 | 0.92–0.98 | 0.92–0.99 | 0.97–0.99 | 0.94–0.99 | 0.94–0.99 |
RMSE (kPa) | 5.33 ± 0.53 | 7.05 ± 1.49 | 6.19 ± 1.38 | 10.47 ± 1.74 | 6.86 ± 0.87 | 8.66 ± 2.31 |
Hysteresis (%) | 5.34 ± 1.57 | 4.75 ± 1.39 | 5.04 ± 1.41 | 6.85 ± 1.45 | 5.45 ± 1.04 | 6.15 ± 1.39 |
Static Test (The central 40 sec. of a 120 sec. window held at 300 kPa) | ||||||
Total Error (kPa) | 3.80 ± 4.34 | 4.37 ± 2.38 | 4.08 ± 3.26 | 26.98 ± 7.64 | 5.78 ± 1.63 | 16.38 ± 12.43 |
Slope (kPa/sec) | 0.09 ± 0.11 | 0.11 ± 0.06 | 0.10 ± 0.08 | 0.67 ± 0.19 | 0.14 ± 0.04 | 0.41 ± 0.31 |
Test Re-Test Reliability (ICCs) | ||||||
ICC | 0.995 | 0.998 | 0.988 | 0.997 | ||
ICC (95%) (Lower) | 0.973 | 0.989 | 0.669 | 0.957 | ||
ICC (95%) (Upper) | 0.999 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 1.000 | ||
Day to Day Variability | 10.02 ± 4.88 | 7.66 ± 2.95 | 16.92 ± 3.75 | 7.9 ± 3.32 |
Participants | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.6 (m/s) | |||||||||||||
RMSE (%) | 11.9 | 6.7 | 15.0 | 8.6 | 5.1 | 13.0 | 7.9 | 12.2 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 11.1 | 9.7 | 9.0 |
R2 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
Max Hysteresis (%) | 26.7 | 15.6 | 44.2 | 15.8 | 11.3 | 35.9 | 21.2 | 35.5 | 20.6 | 25.6 | 32.8 | 19.8 | 31.8 |
Mean Hysteresis (%) | 8.6 | 5.2 | 11.3 | 6.9 | 3.7 | 9.4 | 5.8 | 8.9 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 7.9 | 7.5 | 6.0 |
3.0 m/s | |||||||||||||
RMSE (%) | 12.9 | 7.6 | 13.6 | 9.3 | 7.5 | 13.1 | 7.5 | 14.1 | 8.6 | 10.3 | 11.7 | 10.3 | 9.1 |
R2 | 0.96 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
Max Hysteresis (%) | 30.0 | 17.5 | 45.7 | 17.7 | 16.7 | 35.7 | 20.5 | 43.2 | 19.6 | 27.1 | 37.6 | 23.5 | 33.0 |
Mean Hysteresis (%) | 9.2 | 5.8 | 9.8 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 9.6 | 5.5 | 9.6 | 6.4 | 7.5 | 8.0 | 7.7 | 6.2 |
3.4 (m/s) | |||||||||||||
RMSE (%) | 12.4 | 13.7 | 9.4 | 7.0 | 13.8 | 7.1 | 15.0 | 8.6 | 8.9 | 10.6 | 12.4 | 9.8 | 12.4 |
R2 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.85 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.95 |
Max Hysteresis (%) | 30.5 | 42.2 | 20.4 | 17.2 | 36.3 | 17.8 | 44.9 | 22.7 | 26.5 | 34.8 | 24.9 | 34.8 | 32.9 |
Mean Hysteresis (%) | 8.6 | 9.9 | 7.0 | 5.3 | 10.0 | 5.5 | 9.9 | 6.3 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 9.6 | 6.8 | 8.6 |
3.8 (m/s) | |||||||||||||
RMSE (%) | 13.3 | 13.7 | 8.4 | 6.9 | 15.1 | 6.5 | 14.6 | 8.5 | 12.6 | 11.8 | 11.2 | 12.4 | 10.8 |
R2 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.75 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.98 |
Max Hysteresis (%) | 32.6 | 42.6 | 19.5 | 18.8 | 41.3 | 21.1 | 42.9 | 24.6 | 39.3 | 25.5 | 40.6 | 30.0 | 27.0 |
Mean Hysteresis (%) | 9.3 | 10.0 | 6.3 | 5.0 | 10.9 | 4.7 | 10.5 | 6.1 | 8.0 | 8.7 | 7.6 | 8.9 | 8.5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Blades, S.; Jensen, M.; Stellingwerff, T.; Hundza, S.; Klimstra, M. Characterization of the Kinetyx SI Wireless Pressure-Measuring Insole during Benchtop Testing and Running Gait. Sensors 2023, 23, 2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042352
Blades S, Jensen M, Stellingwerff T, Hundza S, Klimstra M. Characterization of the Kinetyx SI Wireless Pressure-Measuring Insole during Benchtop Testing and Running Gait. Sensors. 2023; 23(4):2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042352
Chicago/Turabian StyleBlades, Samuel, Matt Jensen, Trent Stellingwerff, Sandra Hundza, and Marc Klimstra. 2023. "Characterization of the Kinetyx SI Wireless Pressure-Measuring Insole during Benchtop Testing and Running Gait" Sensors 23, no. 4: 2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042352