Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Skin marker-based versus bone morphology-based coordinate systems of the hindfoot and forefoot
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Skin marker-based versus bone morphology-based coordinate systems of the hindfoot and forefoot
Do you wish to request the book?
Skin marker-based versus bone morphology-based coordinate systems of the hindfoot and forefoot
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Skin marker-based versus bone morphology-based coordinate systems of the hindfoot and forefoot
2024
Overview
Segment coordinate systems (CSs) of marker-based multi-segment foot models are used to measure foot kinematics, however their relationship to the underlying bony anatomy is barely studied. The aim of this study was to compare marker-based CSs (MCSs) with bone morphology-based CSs (BCSs) for the hindfoot and forefoot. Markers were placed on the right foot of fifteen healthy adults according to the Oxford, Rizzoli and Amsterdam Foot Model (OFM, RFM and AFM, respectively). A CT scan was made while the foot was loaded in a simulated weight-bearing device. BCSs were based on axes of inertia. The orientation difference between BCSs and MCSs was quantified in helical and 3D Euler angles. To determine whether the marker models were able to capture inter-subject variability in bone poses, linear regressions were performed. Compared to the hindfoot BCS, all MCSs were more toward plantar flexion and internal rotation, and RFM was also oriented toward more inversion. Compared to the forefoot BCS, OFM and RFM were oriented more toward dorsal and plantar flexion, respectively, and internal rotation, while AFM was not statistically different in the sagittal and transverse plane. In the frontal plane, OFM was more toward eversion and RFM and AFM more toward inversion compared to BCS. Inter-subject bone pose variability was captured with RFM and AFM in most planes of the hindfoot and forefoot, while this variability was not captured by OFM. When interpreting multi-segment foot model data it is important to realize that MCSs and BCSs do not always align.
