4.7 Article

Foot plantar pressure and centre of pressure trajectory differ between straight and turning steps in infants

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34568-z

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the loading on infant feet in different walking directions and found differences in centre of pressure and plantar pressure. These differences may be attributed to walking speed or turning experience and should influence future research protocols.
Plantar pressure has been used to understand loading on infant feet as gait develops. Previous literature focused on straight walking, despite turning accounting for 25% of infant self-directed steps. We aimed to compare centre of pressure and plantar pressure in walking steps in different directions in infants. Twenty-five infants who were walking confidently participated in the study (aged 449 +/- 71 days, 96 +/- 25 days after first steps). Plantar pressure and video were recorded whilst five steps per infant were combined for three step types: straight, turning inwards and outwards. Centre of pressure trajectory components were compared for path length and velocity. Pedobarographic Statistical Parametric Mapping explored differences in peak plantar pressure for the three step types. Significant differences were identified primarily in the forefoot with higher peak pressures in straight steps. Centre of pressure path was longer in the medial-lateral direction during turning (outward 4.6 +/- 2.3, inward 6.8 +/- 6.1, straight 3.5 +/- 1.2 cm, p < .001). Anterior-posterior velocity was higher in straight steps and medial-lateral velocity highest turning inwards. Centre of pressure and plantar pressures differ between straight and turning steps with greatest differences between straight and turning. Findings may be attributed to walking speed or a function of turning experience and should influence future protocols.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available