Four floor surface conditions were evaluated using two foot plantar pressure measuring systems: Emed (platform type) and Pedar (in-shoe type). Six male subjects walked barefoot on four different floor surface mats to determine the mean reaction force and maximum reaction force during gait. The results revealed significant differences in mean reaction force and maximum reaction force among the floor surface conditions (p < 0.05) and between the measurement systems (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the results indicate that the in-shoe type system is a more appropriate method for the evaluation of floor mats.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettS.CunninghamJ. L.WestS. (2001). A comparison of vertical force and temporal parameters produced by an in-shoe pressure measuring system and a force platform. Clinical Biomechanics, 16, 353–357.
2.
ChamR.RedfernM. S. (2001). Effect of flooring on standing comfort and fatigue. Human Factors, 43 (3), 381–391.
3.
ChesterM. R.RysM. J.KonzS. A. (2002). Leg swelling, comfort and fatigue when sitting, standing, and sit/standing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29, 289–296.
4.
HansenL.WinkelJ.JorgensenK. (1998). Signigicance of mat and shoe softness during prolonged work in upright position: Based on measurement of low back muscle EMG, foot volume changes, discomfort and ground reactions. Applied Ergonomics, 29, 217–224.
5.
KimJ.Y.Stuart-ButtleC.MarrasW.S. (1994). The effect of mats on back and leg fatigue. Applied Ergonomics, 25, 29–43.
6.
MadeleineP.VoigtM.Arendt-NielsenL. (1998). Subjective physiological and biomedical responses to prolonged manual work performed standing on hard and soft surfaces. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 77 (1–2), 1–9.
7.
RedfernM.S.ChaffinD.B. (1988). The effects of floor types on standing tolerance in industry. In AghazadehF.Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors V (pp. 401–405. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
