Quantifying Mean Shape and Variability of Footprints Using Mean Sets
This paper1 presents an application of several definitions of a mean set for use in footwear design. For a given size, footprint pressure images corresponding to different individuals constitute our raw data. Appropriate footwear design needs to have knowledge of some kind of typical footprint. Former methods based on contour relevant points are highly sensitive to contour noise; moreover, they lack repeatability because of the need for the intervention of human designers. The method proposed in this paper is based on using mean sets on the thresholded images of the pressure footprints. Three definitions are used, two of them from Vorob’ev and Baddeley-Molchanov and one morphological mean proposed by the authors. Results show that the use of mean sets improves previous methodologies in terms of robustness and repeatability.
KeywordsMean set morphological mean footprint footwear design
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- A. Bataller, E. Alcántara, J.C. González, A.C. Garcia, and S. Alemany. Morphological grouping of Spanish feet using clustering techniques. In E. Hennig and H. Stacoff, A. and Gerber, editors, Proceedings of Fifth Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics, pages 12–13, 2001.Google Scholar
- G.S. Daniels. The average man? Technical Note WCRD 53-7, Wright Air Development Center, Wrigth-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, 1952.Google Scholar
- E.C.F. Goonetilleke, R. S. Ho and R. H. Y. So. Foot anthropometry in Hong Kong. In Proceedings of the ASEAN 97 Conference, pages 81–98, 1997.Google Scholar
- M.R. Hawes and D. Sovak. Quantitative morphology of the human foot in a North American population. Ergonomics, 37(7):1213–1226, 1993.Google Scholar
- M. Kouchi and E. Tsutsumi. Relation between the medial axis of the foot outlina and 3-d foot shape. Ergonomics, 39(6):853–861, 1996.Google Scholar
- P.E. Lestrel. Morphometricsfor the life sciences. World Scientific Press, 2000.Google Scholar
- G. Matheron. Random sets and Integral Geometry. Wiley, London, 1975.Google Scholar
- S. Pheasant. Bodyspace. Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. Taylor and Francis, London, 1986.Google Scholar
- Wunderlich R.E. and Cavanagh PR. Gender differences in adult foot shape: Implications for shoe design. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(4):605–611, 2000.Google Scholar
- D. Stoyan and H. Stoyan. Fractals, Random Shapes and Point Fields. Methods of Geometrical Statistics. Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar
- R.S. Urry and S.C. Wearing. A comparison of footprint indexes calculated form ink and electronic footprints. Journal of American Podiatric Medical Association, 91(4):203–209, 2001.Google Scholar