Foot shape and plantar pressure relationships in shod and barefoot populations

  • Qichang Mei
  • Yaodong GuEmail author
  • Liangliang Xiang
  • Peimin Yu
  • Zixiang Gao
  • Vickie Shim
  • Justin Fernandez
Original Paper


This study presents population-based multivariate regression models for predicting foot plantar pressure from easily measured foot metrics in both shod and barefoot populations for running and walking tasks. Both shod and barefoot models were trained on 50 participants and predicted plantar pressure from anthropometric measurements using a ‘leave-one-out’ validation with R2 values of 0.72–0.78 across walking and running in both populations. When the model was blindly tested on 16 new data sets, the model performed just as well with R2 values of 0.76–0.79 across both populations. Walking and running peak plantar pressure were predicted with similar levels of accuracy in both populations. It was revealed that forefoot plantar pressure was more sensitive to the hallux-toe distance in barefoot people with shod participants showing little response to this foot characteristic. Lateral forefoot plantar pressure was sensitive to the arch index in both shod and barefoot participants but only for walking. During running, the arch index was not a useful determinant of lateral forefoot pressure. Hence, habitually barefoot people who adopt minimalist footwear should consider additional support in the medial forefoot and walking footwear should include forefoot support stratified by arch index (foot type), but running footwear is challenging due to the variability in strike patterns.


Shod Barefoot Hallux angle 1–2 Toe distance Peak pressure Walking Running 



This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81772423), NSFC (Natural Science Foundation of China)—RSE (The Royal Society of Edinburgh) Joint Project (No. 81911530253), National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFF0300903) and K. C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University. Qichang Mei is supported by the New Zealand–China Doctoral Research Scholarship issued from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Ashizawa K, Kumakura C, Kusumoto A, Narasaki S (1997) Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese, Filipinas and Japanese with special reference to habitual footwear types. Ann Hum Biol 24:117–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aurichio TR, Rebelatto JR, de Castro AP (2011) The relationship between the body mass index (BMI) and foot posture in elderly people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 52:e89–e92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett MR, Harris JWK, Richmond BG et al (2009) Early hominin foot morphology based on 1.5-million-year-old footprints from Ileret, Kenya. Science 323:1197–1201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bramble DM, Lieberman DE (2004) Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432:345–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branthwaite H, Chockalingam N, Greenhalgh A (2013) The effect of shoe toe box shape and volume on forefoot interdigital and plantar pressures in healthy females. J Foot Ankle Res 6:28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buldt AK, Forghany S, Landorf KB et al (2018) Foot posture is associated with plantar pressure during gait: a comparison of normal, planus and cavus feet. Gait Posture 62:235–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterworth PA, Urquhart DM, Landorf KB et al (2015) Foot posture, range of motion and plantar pressure characteristics in obese and non-obese individuals. Gait Posture 41:465–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM (1987) The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech 20:547–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Août K, Pataky TC, De Clercq D, Aerts P (2009) The effects of habitual footwear use: foot shape and function in native barefoot walkers. Footwear Sci 1:81–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Cock A, Willems T, Witvrouw E et al (2006) A functional foot type classification with cluster analysis based on plantar pressure distribution during jogging. Gait Posture 23:339–347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deurenberg P, Yap M, Van Staveren W (1998) Body mass index and percent body fat: a meta analysis among different ethnic groups. Int J Obes 22:1164–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domjanic J, Seidler H, Mitteroecker P (2015) A combined morphometric analysis of foot form and its association with sex, stature, and body mass. Am J Phys Anthropol 157:582–591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernandez J, Mithraratne K, Alipour M et al (2018) Rapid prediction of personalised muscle mechanics: integration with diffusion tensor imaging. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng Imaging Vis. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez J, Yeung S, Swee A et al (2019) On the use of population-based statistical models in biomechanics. In: Narayan R (ed) Encyclopedia of biomedical engineering, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gu Y, Mei Q, Fernandez J et al (2015) Foot loading characteristics of Chinese bound feet women: a comparative analysis. PLoS ONE. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurney JK, Kersting UG, Rosenbaum D (2009) Dynamic foot function and morphology in elite rugby league athletes of different ethnicity. Appl Ergon 40:554–559. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE, Richmond BG (2013) Variation in foot strike patterns during running among habitually barefoot populations. PLoS ONE 8:e52548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillstrom HJ, Song J, Kraszewski AP et al (2013) Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture 37:445–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffmann P, Hoffman P, Hoffmann P (1905) Conclusions drawn from a comparative study of the feet of barefooted and shoe-wearing peoples. J Bone Jt Surg 3:105–136Google Scholar
  20. Hollander K, De Villiers JE, Sehner S et al (2017a) Growing-up (habitually) barefoot influences the development of foot and arch morphology in children and adolescents. Sci Rep 7:8079. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollander K, Heidt C, van der Zwaard B et al (2017b) Long-term effects of habitual barefoot running and walking: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 49:752–762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson WR, Mian A, Donnelly CJ et al (2018) Predicting athlete ground reaction forces and moments from motion capture. Med Biol Eng Comput 56:1781–1792. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kadambande S, Khurana A, Debnath U et al (2006) Comparative anthropometric analysis of shod and unshod feet. Foot 16:188–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambrinudi C (1932) Use and abuse of toes. Postgrad Med J 8:459–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKay MJ, Baldwin JN, Ferreira P et al (2017) Spatiotemporal and plantar pressure patterns of 1000 healthy individuals aged 3–101 years. Gait Posture 58:78–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mei Q, Fernandez J, Fu W et al (2015) A comparative biomechanical analysis of habitually unshod and shod runners based on a foot morphological difference. Hum Mov Sci 42:38–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mei Q, Fernandez J, Hume P, Gu Y (2016) Investigating biomechanical function of toes through external manipulation integrating analysis. Acta Bioeng Biomech 18:87–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mei Q, Gu Y, Sun D, Fernandez J (2018) How foot morphology changes influence shoe comfort and plantar pressure before and after long distance running? Acta Bioeng Biomech 20:179–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore ES, Kindig MW, McKearney DA et al (2019) Hind- and midfoot bone morphology varies with foot type and sex. J Orthop Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mootanah R, Song J, Lenhoff MW et al (2013) Foot type biomechanics part 2: are structure and anthropometrics related to function? Gait Posture 37:452–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müller S, Carlsohn A, Müller J et al (2012) Static and dynamic foot characteristics in children aged 1–13 years: a cross-sectional study. Gait Posture 35:389–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raichlen DA, Armstrong H, Lieberman DE (2011) Calcaneus length determines running economy: implications for endurance running performance in modern humans and Neandertals. J Hum Evol 60:299–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Razeghi M, Batt ME (2002) Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods. Gait Posture 15:282–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reznikov N, Phillips C, Cooke M et al (2017) Functional adaptation of the calcaneus in historical foot binding. J Bone Miner Res 32:1915–1925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rolian C, Lieberman DE, Hamill J et al (2009) Walking, running and the evolution of short toes in humans. J Exp Biol 212:713–721. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shu Y, Mei Q, Fernandez J et al (2015) Foot morphological difference between habitually shod and unshod runners. PLoS ONE 10:e0131385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sun D, Fekete G, Mei Q, Gu Y (2018) The effect of walking speed on the foot inter-segment kinematics, ground reaction forces and lower limb joint moments. Peer J 6:e5517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson ALT, Zipfel B (2005) The unshod child into womanhood—forefoot morphology in two populations. Foot 15:22–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinans H, Zadpoor AA, Arbabi V et al (2018) Three-dimensional analysis of shape variations and symmetry of the fibula, tibia, calcaneus and talus. J Anat 234:132–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wold S, Ruhe A, Wold H, Dunn WJ III (1984) The collinearity problem in linear regression. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to generalized inverses. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 5:735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang J, Hislop-Jambrich J, Besier TF (2016) Predictive statistical models of baseline variations in 3-D femoral cortex morphology. Med Eng Phys 38:450–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zipfel B, Berger LR (2007) Shod versus unshod: the emergence of forefoot pathology in modern humans? Foot 17:205–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Sports ScienceNingbo UniversityNingboChina
  2. 2.Research Academy of Grand HealthNingbo UniversityNingboChina
  3. 3.Auckland Bioengineering InstituteThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.Department of Engineering ScienceThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations