Effects of Foot Orthoses Extrinsic Rearfoot and Forefoot Posts on Muscle Activity During Walking: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction In clinical practice, different types of rearfoot and forefoot extrinsic posts are regularly added to foot orthoses (FOs) to make the treatment more specific. However, to this day, their effects on muscle activity during walking are still unclear and few studies have quantified them. The purpose of this case study was to quantify the effects of FOs with different extrinsic rearfoot and forefoot posts on muscle activity during walking to generate hypotheses with the goal to develop a more complex experimental design for further studies. Materials and Methods A 26-year-old man with hyperpronated feet was recruited to walk on a 5-meter walkway with seven pairs of FOs with different extrinsic rearfoot and forefoot posts (no post, external oblique rearfoot post, internal oblique rearfoot post, straight rearfoot post, rearfoot and forefoot posts, rearfoot and forefoot posts at 2° varus, and rearfoot and forefoot posts at 5° varus). Mean activity of eight lower-limb muscles (gluteus medius, vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, biceps femoris, medial gastrocnemius, lateral gastrocnemius, fibularis longus, and tibialis anterior) was analyzed during the three phases of the walking cycle (contact, midstance, and propulsion). Peak root mean square (RMS) amplitude was also measured. Results Significant differences were observed between the control and the experimental conditions for mean muscle activity and peak RMS amplitude during the gait cycle. Results were variable between conditions. However, in general, more muscle activity was observed when increasing the frontal plane inclination of the extrinsic rearfoot and forefoot posts. Conclusions The addition of extrinsic rearfoot and forefoot posts to the FOs can modulate muscle function during walking. However, to this day, not enough data are available to build a clinical guideline, and it is still unknown if they can have positive effects on musculoskeletal pathologies of the lower limb.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".