Geometric morphometric footprint analysis of young women

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Domjanic, Jacqueline ^a   Fieder, Martin ^b   Seidler, Horst ^b   Mitteroecker, Philipp ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Body mass index; Foot asymmetry; Footprint shape; High heels; Semilandmarks; Shoe design

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880901674     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17571146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1757-1146-6-27     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ashizawa K, Kumakura C, Kusumoto A, Narasaki S. Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese, Filipinas and Japanese with special reference to habitual footwear types. Ann Hum Biol 1997, 24(2):117-129. 10.1080/03014469700004862, 9074748.
2. Kennedy RB, Pressman IS, Chen S, Petersen PH, Pressman AE. Statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J Forensic Sci 2003, 48(1):55-63.
3. Stavlas P, Grivas TB, Michas C, Vasiliadis E, Polyzois V. The evolution of foot morphology in children between 6 and 17 years of age: a cross-sectional study based on footprints in a Mediterranean population. J Foot Ankle Surg 2005, 44(6):424-428. 10.1053/j.jfas.2005.07.023, 16257670.
4. Krishan K. Estimation of stature from footprint and foot outline dimensions in Gujjars of North India. Forensic Sci Int 2008, 175(2-3):93-101.
5. Krauss I, Grau S, Mauch M, Maiwald C, Horstmann T. Sex-related differences in foot shape. Ergonomics 2008, 51(11):1693-1709. 10.1080/00140130802376026, 18941975.
6. Mauch M, Grau S, Krauss I, Maiwald C, Horstmann T. Foot morphology of normal, underweight and overweight children. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008, 32(7):1068-1075.
7. Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR. Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001, 33(4):605-611.
8. Mauch M, Grau S, Krauss I, Maiwald C, Horstmann T. A new approach to children's footwear based on foot type classification. Ergonomics 2009, 52(8):999-1008. 10.1080/00140130902803549, 19629814.
9. Hawes MR, Sovak D, Miyashita M, Kang SJ, Yoshihuku Y, Tanaka S. Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. Ergonomics 1994, 37(1):187-196. 10.1080/00140139408963637, 8112275.
10. Razeghi M, Batt ME. Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 2002, 15(3):282-291. 10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00151-5, 11983503.
11. Xiong S, Goonetilleke RS, Witana CP, Weerasinghe TW, Au EY. Foot arch characterization: a review, a new metric, and a comparison. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010, 100(1):14-24.
12. Luximon A, Goonetilleke RS. Foot shape modeling. Hum Factors 2004, 46(2):304-315. 10.1518/hfes.46.2.304.37346, 15359679.
13. Sforza C, Michielon G, Fragnito N, Ferrario VF. Foot asymmetry in healthy adults: elliptic fourier analysis of standardized footprints. J Orthop Res 1998, 16(6):758-765. 10.1002/jor.1100160619, 9877402.
14. Gonzalez JC, Nacher B, Alcantara E, Alemany S, Gimeno CS, Sanchez J, Dejoz R, Prat J. Study of children footprints growth using geometric morphometric techniques 2005, Cleveland, USA: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics.
15. Ciccarelli A, Mantini S, Colaicomo B, Sorrenti S, Scrimaglio R, Ripani M. Geometric morphometric approach in the study of the footprint variation in children between 6 and 12 years of age. Ital J Anat Embryol 2011, 116(1):43.
16. Agic A. Foot morphometric phenomena. Coll Antropol 2007, 31(2):495-501.
17. Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology 1991, New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Slice D. Geometric morphometrics. Annu Rev Anthropol 2007, 36:261-281.
19. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol 2009, 36:235-247.
20. Dryden IL, Mardia KV. Statistical shape analysis 1998, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
21. Rohlf FJ. Statistical power comparisons among alternative morphometric methods. Am J Phys Anthropol 2000, 111(4):463-478. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(200004)111:4<463::AID-AJPA3>3.0.CO;2-B, 10727966.
22. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 1990, 39:40-59.
23. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Windhager S, Schaefer K. Shape, form, and allometry in geometric morphometrics, with applications to human facial morphology. Hystrix in press.
24. Cabrera J, Tsui K-L, Goonetilleke RS. A scale model for fitting object shapes from fixed location data. IIE Trans 2004, 36:1099-1105.
25. Theobald DL, Wuttke DS. Empirical Bayes hierarchical models for regularizing maximum likelihood estimation in the matrix Gaussian Procrustes problem. PNAS 2006, 103:18521-18527. 10.1073/pnas.0508445103, 1664551, 17130458.
26. Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1997, 1(3):225-243. 10.1016/S1361-8415(97)85012-8, 9873908.
27. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. Semilandmarks: a method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Hystrix in press 10.4404/hystrix-24.1-6292.
28. Mardia KV, Bookstein F, Moreton I. Statistical assessement of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometika 2000, 87:285-300.
29. Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution 1998, 52:1363-1375.
30. Good P. Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses 2000, New York: Springer.
31. Speksnijder CM, Munckhof RJH, Moonen SAFCM, Walenkamp GHIM. The higher the heel the higher the forefoot-pressure in ten healthy women. Foot 2005, 15:17-21.
32. Cong Y, Cheung JT, Leung AK, Zhang M. Effect of heel height on in-shoe localized triaxial stresses. J Biomech 2011, 44(12):2267-2272. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.05.036, 21705002.
33. Dawson J, Thorogood M, Marks SA, Juszczak E, Dodd C, Lavis G, Fitzpatrick R. The prevalence of foot problems in older women: a cause for concern. J Public Health Med 2002, 24(2):77-84. 10.1093/pubmed/24.2.77, 12141589.
34. Menz HB, Morris ME. Footwear characteristic and foot problems in older people. Gerontology 2005, 51(5):346-351. 10.1159/000086373, 16110238.
35. Keijsers NL, Stolwijk NM, Nienhuis B, Duysens J. A new method to normalize plantar pressure measurements for foot size and foot progression angle. J Biomech 2009, 42(1):87-90. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.09.038, 19056086.