Validating force-estimating insoles for calculating centre of pressure and vertical ground reaction forces during occupational tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Force estimating insoles offer a mobile alternative to in-ground force plates for measuring ground reaction forces (GRFs) and centre of pressure (CoP) in occupational settings. However, their validity in measuring GRFs for occupational tasks has yet to be validated and CoP estimation approach has yet to be developed. This study developed this method for a three-compartment force estimating insole and introduced a force drift correction approach. Thirty-nine participants completed lifting, packaging, palletising, and above shoulder work tasks while wearing insoles on force plates. A weighted algorithm and linear drift correction were developed and compared against force plate data. The CoP method resulted in root mean squared errors (RMSEs) between 1.7 and 3.4 cm. Drift correction reduced ground reaction force RMSE by approximately 28 N. These findings suggest that three-compartment force insoles may be able to provide valid CoP and force estimates, making them a prospective tool for in-field biomechanical measurements of occupational tasks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".