2007, Piran, Slovenia

Modelling
Each scan data was first oriented (see Figure 2 left) and then several characteristics extracted.
Only the foot length and foot width characteristics analyses are presented.
Figure 2: Initial orientation and an example of foot length and width measurement
The foot length was considered the distance along the x-axis, measured from the minimum xpoint
within the heel area, to the maximum x-point within the toes area (either first or second
toe), see Figure 2. The foot width was determined as the distance in the y-direction between
the inner contour maximum point (ICMP) and outer contour maximum point (OCMP). ICMP
is detected in the range 65% - 80% foot length, whereas OCMP is detected in the range 50% -
80% length. This methodology eliminates questionable maximums related to flat feet and first
toe pointing outwards. An example is depicted on Figure 2 right.
The following analyses were conducted on the obtained data:
• distribution of foot lengths
• differences in left/right foot length
• foot length versus foot width
• differences in left/right foot width
RESULTS
Figure 3 shows the distribution of foot length classes. We performed two classifications: 1)
left and right scans were treated as individual feet, and 2) the longer foot of all individuals
was used as the classification criteria.
180
160
140
120
100
Number of feet
80
60
40
20
0
8 6
28
24
57
44
84 84
117
114
112
108
Figure 3: Classification according to foot length
157
144
146
166
82
76
Separate left/right
Longer foot
52
45
23
26
1012
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
EU foot size
1 2
483