Lower limb amputee gait during stance phase is related to the angular stiffness of the prosthetic foot, which describes the dependence of ankle torque on angular progression of the shank. However, there is little data on angular stiffness of prosthetic feet, and no method to directly measure it has been described. The objective of this study was to derive and evaluate a method to estimate the angular stiffness of prosthetic feet using a simple linear compression test. Linear vertical compression tests were performed on nine configurations of an experimental multicomponent foot (with known component stiffness properties and geometry), which allowed for parametric adjustment of hindfoot and forefoot stiffness properties and geometries. Each configuration was loaded under displacement control at distinct pylon test angles. Angular stiffness was calculated as a function of the pylon angle, normal force, and center of pressure (COP) rate of change with respect to linear displacement. Population root mean square error (RMSE) between the measured and predicted angular stiffness values for each configuration of the multicomponent foot was calculated to be 4.1 N-m/deg, dominated by a bias of the estimated values above the predicted values of 3.8 ± 1.6 N-m/deg. The best-fit line to estimated values was approximately parallel to the prediction, with R2 = 0.95. This method should be accessible for a variety of laboratories to estimate angular stiffness of experimental and commercially available prosthetic feet with minimal equipment.

References

References
1.
Perry
,
J.
,
Boyd
,
L. A.
,
Rao
,
S. S.
, and
Mulroy
,
S. J.
,
1997
, “
Prosthetic Weight Acceptance Mechanics in Transtibial Amputees Wearing the Single Axis, Seattle Lite, and Flex Foot
,”
IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng.
,
5
(
4
), pp.
283
289
.10.1109/86.650279
2.
Klodd
,
E.
,
Hansen
,
A.
,
Fatone
,
S.
, and
Edwards
,
M.
,
2010
, “
Effects of Prosthetic Foot Forefoot Flexibility on Gait of Unilateral Transtibial Prosthesis Users
,”
J. Rehabil. Res. Dev.
,
47
(
9
), pp.
899
910
.10.1682/JRRD.2009.10.0166
3.
Ventura
,
J. D.
,
Klute
,
G. K.
, and
Neptune
,
R. R.
,
2010
, “
The Effects of Prosthetic Ankle Dorsiflexion and Energy Return on Below-Knee Amputee Leg Loading
,”
Clin. Biomech.
,
26
(
3
), pp.
298
303
.10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.10.003
4.
Klute
,
G. K.
,
Berge
,
J. S.
, and
Segal
,
A. D.
,
2004
, “
Heel-Region Properties of Prosthetic Feet and Shoes
,”
J. Rehabil. Res. Dev.
,
41
(
4
), pp.
535
546
.10.1682/JRRD.2003.02.0025
5.
van Jaarsveld
,
H. W. L.
,
Grootenboer
,
H. J.
,
De Vries
,
J.
, and
Koopman
,
H. F. J. M.
,
1990
, “
Stiffness and Hysteresis Properties of Some Prosthetic Feet
,”
Prosthet. Orthot. Int.
,
14
, pp.
117
124
.
6.
Geil
,
M.
,
2001
, “
Energy Loss and Stiffness Properties of Dynamic Elastic Response Prosthetic Feet
,”
J. Prosthet. Orthot.
,
13
(
3
), pp.
70
73
.10.1097/00008526-200109000-00011
7.
Shamaei
,
K.
,
Sawicki
,
G. S.
, and
Dollar
,
A. M.
,
2013
, “
Estimation of Quasi-stiffness and Propulsive Work of the Human Ankle in the Stance Phase of Walking
,”
PLoS ONE
,
8
(
3
), p.
e59935
.10.1371/journal.pone.0059935
8.
Singer
,
E.
,
Ishai
,
G.
, and
Kimmel
,
E.
,
1995
, “
Parameter Estimation for a Prosthetic Ankle
,”
Ann. Biomed. Eng.
,
23
, pp.
691
696
.10.1007/BF02584466
9.
Aubin
,
P. M.
,
Cowley
,
M. S.
, and
Ledoux
,
W. R.
,
2008
, “
Gait Simulation via a 6-DOF Parallel Robot With Iterative Learning Control
,”
IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.
,
55
(
3
), pp.
1237
1240
.10.1109/TBME.2007.908072
10.
Curtze
,
C.
,
Hof
,
L.
,
van Keeken
,
H. G.
,
Halbertsma
,
J. P. K.
,
Postema
,
K.
, and
Bert
,
O.
,
2009
, “
Comparative Roll-Over Analysis of Prosthetic Feet
,”
J. Biomech.
,
42
(
11
), pp.
1746
1753
.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.04.009
You do not currently have access to this content.