HSS Journal

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 57–63 | Cite as

The Accuracy of an Automasking Algorithm in Plantar Pressure Measurements

  • Scott J. Ellis
  • Hill Stoecklein
  • Joseph C. Yu
  • Grisha Syrkin
  • Howard Hillstrom
  • Jonathan T. Deland


Masking algorithms provide a way to analyze plantar pressure parameters based on distinct anatomical regions of the foot. No study has addressed their accuracy. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Novel® ten-region standard masking algorithm in both dynamic and static measurements in normal feet. Static and dynamic plantar pressure measurements were collected from ten normal subjects (20 ft) with and without 10-mm radiopaque markers placed under the first through fifth metatarsal heads, fifth metatarsal base, and first proximal phalanx. The automask was then applied to subdivide the foot into distinct anatomical areas. Weight-bearing AP radiographs were obtained with and without markers. Plantar pressures and radiographs were overlaid. The percent accuracy of each marker within its appropriate mask region was calculated. The average accuracies of the automasking algorithm regions for dynamic and static measurements, respectively, were 98.8% and 90.4% (1MH), 89.9% and 80.6% (2MH), 98.6% and 81.4% (3MH), 96.8% and 82.3% (4MH), 93.1% and 80.8% (5MH), 97.3% and 92.5% (5MB), and 91.2% and 64.2% (1PPH). Marker presence did not alter foot structure or function as determined by intermetatarsal angles (range, p = 0.361 to p = 0.649) and the center of pressure excursion index (p = 0.727), respectively. The automasking algorithm accurately identifies most foot regions in normal feet, particularly in gait. Such accuracy may be reduced in the setting of foot deformity. Understanding the accuracy of masking algorithms may help guide the interpretation of plantar pressure measurements and ultimately both conservative and operative treatment decisions.


plantar pressure anatomical masking algorithm accuracy normal foot static dynamic 


  1. 1.
    Bertsch C, Unger H, Winkelmann W, Rosenbaum D. Evaluation of early walking patterns from plantar pressure distribution measurements. First year results of 42 children. Gait Posture. 2004;3:235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brophy RH, Gamradt SC, Ellis SJ, Barnes RP, Rodeo SA, Warren RF, Hillstrom H. Effect of turf toe on foot contact pressures in professional American football players. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;5:405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryant A, Singer K, Tinley P. Comparison of the reliability of plantar pressure measurements using the two-step and midgait methods of data collection. Foot Ankle Int. 1999;10:646–650.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burns J, Crosbie J, Hunt A, Ouvrier R. The effect of pes cavus on foot pain and plantar pressure. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;9:877–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bus SA, de Lange A. A comparison of the 1-step, 2-step, and 3-step protocols for obtaining barefoot plantar pressure data in the diabetic neuropathic foot. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;9:892–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM, Iiboshi A. Pressure distribution under symptom-free feet during barefoot standing. Foot Ankle. 1987;5:262–276.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS. Clinical plantar pressure measurement in diabetes; rationale and methodology. Foot. 1994:123–135.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang CH, Miller F, Schuyler J. Dynamic pedobarograph in evaluation of varus and valgus foot deformities. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002;6:813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davitt JS, MacWilliams BA, Armstrong PF. Plantar pressure and radiographic changes after distal calcaneal lengthening in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;1:70–75.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellis SJ, Hillstrom H, Cheng R, Lipman J, Garrison G, Deland JT. The development of an intraoperative plantar pressure assessment device. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;4:333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Firth J, Turner D, Smith W, Woodburn J, Helliwell P. The validity and reliability of PressureStat for measuring plantar foot pressures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;5:603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gurney JK, Kersting UG, Rosenbaum D. Between-day reliability of repeated plantar pressure distribution measurements in a normal population. Gait Posture. 2008;4:706–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Simsek A, Besli K, Ozturk A. The relationship of the heel pad compressibility and plantar pressure distribution. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;8:662–665.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keenan AM, Bach TM. Clinicians' assessment of the hindfoot: A study of reliability. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;6:451–60.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kernozek TW, LaMott EE, Dancisak MJ. Reliability of an in-shoe pressure measurement system during treadmill walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1996;4:204–209.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kernozek TW, Zimmer KA. Reliability and running speed effects of in-shoe loading measurements during slow treadmill running. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;9:749–752.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ledoux WR, Hillstrom HJ. The distributed plantar vertical force of neutrally aligned and pes planus feet. Gait Posture. 2002;1:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murphy DF, Beynnon BD, Michelson JD, Vacek PM. Efficacy of plantar loading parameters during gait in terms of reliability, variability, effect of gender and relationship between contact area and plantar pressure. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;2:171–179.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagel A, Fernholz F, Kibele C, Rosenbaum D. Long distance running increases plantar pressures beneath the metatarsal heads: A barefoot walking investigation of 200 marathon runners. Gait Posture. 2008;1:152–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nicol K, Hennig EM. Measurement of pressure distribution by means of a flexible large surface mat. In: Asmussen E, Jorgenson K, eds. Biomechanics. IVA ed. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1978:374–380.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novel gmbh. Novel Scientific Manual. 12.3rd ed. Munich, Germany: Novel gmbh; May 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oeffinger DJ, Pectol RW,Jr, Tylkowski CM. Foot pressure and radiographic outcome measures of lateral column lengthening for pes planovalgus deformity. Gait Posture. 2000;3:189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richter M, Frink M, Zech S, Vanin N, Geerling J, Droste P, Krettek C. Intraoperative pedography: A validated method for static intraoperative biomechanical assessment. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;10:833–842.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Segal A, Rohr E, Orendurff M, Shofer J, O’Brien M, Sangeorzan B. The effect of walking speed on peak plantar pressure. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;12:926–933.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;2:217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Song J, Hillstrom HJ, Secord D, Levitt J. Foot type biomechanics. comparison of planus and rectus foot types. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 1996;1:16–23.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stebbins JA, Harrington ME, Giacomozzi C, Thompson N, Zavatsky A, Theologis TN. Assessment of sub-division of plantar pressure measurement in children. Gait Posture. 2005;4:372–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Leeden M, Dekker JH, Siemonsma PC, Lek-Westerhof SS, Steultjens MP. Reproducibility of plantar pressure measurements in patients with chronic arthritis: A comparison of one-step, two-step, and three-step protocols and an estimate of the number of measurements required. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;10:739–744.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wearing SC, Urry SR, Smeathers JE. Ground reaction forces at discrete sites of the foot derived from pressure plate measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;8:653–661.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott J. Ellis
    • 1
  • Hill Stoecklein
    • 1
  • Joseph C. Yu
    • 1
  • Grisha Syrkin
    • 1
  • Howard Hillstrom
    • 2
  • Jonathan T. Deland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Foot and Ankle SurgeryHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Leon Root Motion Analysis LaboratoryHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations