These have been compiled from email discussions with the i-FAB Steering Group and a variety of senior and junior scientists. Please help us to prioritize!! Only those issues with the most interest will be discussed at the meeting. Opinions from all are encouraged. Please contact: Todd Pataky tpataky@shinshu-u.ac.jp and include the following information in your email: SUBJECT: i-FAB-PG 2010 issues Name: Affiliation: Issues: Hardware: Validity, accuracy, technical performance; Rome Pressure Assessment Workshop 2010 In-shoe measurement Spatial resolution Sensor technology Shear distribution measurement Pricing Data collection: Suitable, unsuitable protocols? (1-step, 2-step,...) Sampling rate? Data preprocessing: Spatial and temporal smoothing Regionalization techniques: are some better than others? Is manual registration appropriate in all situations? Spatial normalization through image registration: appropriate? Special populations? Pedobarographic variables: Peak pressure vs. pressure impulse Mean vs. peak regional pressure Regional force vs. regional pressure Center of pressure Other derived variables (e.g. pressure gradient, frequency power ratio) Statistics: How can plantar pressure distributions be compared statistically? In what situations are t tests and ANOVA appropriate? In what situations should multivariate statistical methods be used on regional data? Clinical interpretations: Clinical uses of pedobarography Which variables are most relevant to which clinical goals? Challenges presented by certain pathologies Scientific communication across expertise *** Potential community consensus issues: Terminology: Pedobarography, Pedography, Baropodometry, Pedobarometry Terminology: publish a set of community accepted definitions? Standardization: protocol? preprocessing? regionalization? Standardized data format: to facilitate scientific and clinical data exchange and collaboration (DICOM? HDF?)

These have been compiled from email discussions with the i-FAB Steering Group and a variety of senior and junior scientists.

Please help us to prioritize!!

Only those issues with the most interest will be discussed at the meeting.

Opinions from all are encouraged.

Please contact: Todd Pataky tpataky@shinshu-u.ac.jp

and include the following information in your email:

SUBJECT: i-FAB-PG 2010 issues

Name:

Affiliation:

Issues:

Hardware:

Validity, accuracy, technical performance; Rome Pressure Assessment Workshop 2010

In-shoe measurement

Spatial resolution

Sensor technology

Shear distribution measurement

Pricing

Data collection:

Suitable, unsuitable protocols? (1-step, 2-step,...)

Sampling rate?

Data preprocessing:

Spatial and temporal smoothing

Regionalization techniques: are some better than others? Is manual registration appropriate in all situations?

Spatial normalization through image registration: appropriate? Special populations?

Pedobarographic variables:

Peak pressure vs. pressure impulse

Mean vs. peak regional pressure

Regional force vs. regional pressure

Center of pressure

Other derived variables (e.g. pressure gradient, frequency power ratio)

Statistics:

How can plantar pressure distributions be compared statistically?

In what situations are t tests and ANOVA appropriate?

In what situations should multivariate statistical methods be used on regional data?

Clinical interpretations:

Clinical uses of pedobarography

Which variables are most relevant to which clinical goals?

Challenges presented by certain pathologies

Scientific communication across expertise

*** Potential community consensus issues:

Terminology: Pedobarography, Pedography, Baropodometry, Pedobarometry

Terminology: publish a set of community accepted definitions?

Standardization: protocol? preprocessing? regionalization?

Standardized data format: to facilitate scientific and clinical data exchange and collaboration (DICOM? HDF?)