Comparison between the Rizzoli and Oxford foot models with independent and clustered tracking markers

Breno G Teixeira; Vanessa L Araújo; Thiago R T Santos; Fabrício A Magalhães; Renan A Resende; Wouter Schallig; Marjolein M van der Krogt; Sérgio T Fonseca; Thales R Souza

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.10.001

Comparison between the Rizzoli and Oxford foot models with independent and clustered tracking markers

Gait Posture. 2022 Jan:91:48-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.10.001. Epub 2021 Oct 6.

Authors

Breno G Teixeira¹, Vanessa L Araújo¹, Thiago R T Santos¹, Fabrício A Magalhães¹, Renan A Resende¹, Wouter Schallig², Marjolein M van der Krogt², Sérgio T Fonseca¹, Thales R Souza³

Affiliations

¹ Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, School of Physical Education, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy, Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Brazil.
² Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, School of Physical Education, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy, Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Brazil. Electronic address: thalesrs@ufmg.br.

PMID: 34649170
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.10.001

Abstract

Background: The Rizzoli Foot Model (RFM) and Oxford Foot Model (OFM) are used to analyze segmented foot kinematics with independent tracking markers. Alternatively, rigid marker clusters can be used to improve markers' visualization and facilitate analyzing shod gait.

Research question: Are there differences in angles from the RFM and OFM, obtained with independent and clustered tracking markers, during the stance phase of walking?

Methods: Walking kinematics of 14 non-disabled participants (25.2 years (SD 2.8)) were measured at self-selected speed. Rearfoot-shank and forefoot-rearfoot angles were measured from two models with two tracking methods: RFM, OFM, RFM-cluster, and OFM-cluster. In RFM-cluster and OFM-cluster, the rearfoot and forefoot tracking markers were rigidly clustered, fixed on rods' tips attached to a metallic base. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) One-Way Repeated Measures ANOVAs and SPM Paired t-tests were used to compare waveforms. Coefficients of Multiple Correlation (CMC) quantified the similarity between waveforms. One-way Repeated Measures ANOVAs were conducted to compare the ranges of motion (ROMs), and pre-planned contrasts investigated differences between the models and tracking methods. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were computed to verify the similarity between ROMs.

Results: Differences occurred mostly in small parts of the stance phase for the cluster vs. non-cluster comparisons and the RFM vs. OFM comparisons. ROMs were slightly different between the models and tracking methods in most comparisons. The curves (CMC ≥ 0.71) were highly similar between the models and tracking methods. The ROMs (ICC ≥ 0.67) were moderatetly to highly similar in most comparisons. RFM vs. RFM-cluster (forefoot-rearfoot angle - transverse plane), OFM vs. OFM-cluster and RFM vs. OFM (forefoot-rearfoot angle - frontal plane) were not similar (non-significant).

Significance: Rigid clusters are an alternative for tracking rearfoot-shank and forefoot-rearfoot angles during the stance phase of walking. However, specific differences should be considered to contrast results from different models and tracking methods.

Keywords: Gait; Kinematics; Multisegment foot models; Segmented foot; Tracking markers.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Biomechanical Phenomena
Foot*
Gait
Humans
Shoes
Walking*