Back

Development and validation of a Modular Footwear Setup for testing the isolated biomechanical effects of footwear features

Sarlak, H.; Shakir, K.; Rogati, G.; Sartorato, G.; Leardini, A.; Berti, L.; Caravaggi, P.

2026-03-31 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.03.30.26349729 medRxiv
Show abstract

The effects of specific footwear features on biomechanical parameters are often confounded by simultaneous changes in other shoe conditions, making it difficult to identify the isolated effect of material and design properties on relevant biomechanical outcomes. This study aimed to propose a tool, namely the Modular Footwear Setup (MFS), to assess the effects of midsole modifications on lower limb joint kinematics and in-shoe plantar pressure. The MFS uses a micro-hook-and-loop fastening system and a custom alignment device to enable fast, strong, and reliable midsole attachment/detachment to/from the upper. Accuracy and repeatability of the MFS in replicating the biomechanical outcomes of a control shoe featuring the same upper and midsole were tested in 10 healthy participants (5M,5F; age=33.2{+/-}9.2 yrs; BMI=21.5{+/-}2.8 kg/m2). Participants were asked to walk wearing both the MFS and the standard control shoe in three sessions. Kinematics of lower limb joints were measured via inertial measurement units, while capacitive pressure insoles were used to measure in-shoe plantar pressure. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the repeatability of kinematic and pressure measurements between sessions. Statistical Parametric Mapping analysis did not identify significant differences in joint kinematics between conditions. While the MFS exhibited slightly lower peak pressure at the rearfoot, pressure parameters were not statistically different in the other foot regions. The MFS demonstrated good-to-excellent inter-session repeatability (ICC 0.84-0.97) for peak and mean pressure. Participants reported similar levels of comfort and stability in both shoes. The findings of the present study suggest the MFS has the potential to be a reliable and accurate tool for evaluating the effect of midsole features on relevant biomechanical parameters. This modular approach may improve data-driven footwear design by providing a consistent platform for testing the effects of midsole designs and materials across various applications, including therapeutic, safety, and athletic shoes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
2
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.2%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.2%
4
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.6%
6
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
7
Translational Vision Science & Technology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.2%
9
Gait & Posture
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
10
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
12
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
13
JBMR Plus
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
15
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
16
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
17
Human Movement Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
18
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.1%
19
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
MethodsX
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
24
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%