不同族群的足部尺寸的資訊對於鞋具的設計與臨床上的使用有很大的意義，但是利用不同足部的量測工具蒐集足部相關尺寸可能會導致有不同的結果。本研究也針對3D掃描與其他三種常用的量測工具(數位卡尺、數位足印與一般足印)進行精確度(precision)與準確性(accuracy)的評估。本研究利用四種不同的量測方式分別蒐集130位受試者的6項足部尺寸特徵，利用Two-way ANOVA進行性別與不同量測方法的比較與分析，平均絕對誤差(Mean absolute difference)與組內相關係數分析(intra-class correlation coefficients, ICC)也被用來評估四種量測方法的精確度與準確性，最終，這些結果也將與ISO 20685中所制定的指標進行比較。結果指出，性別與量測方法在所量測的六項足部尺寸上有顯著的差異(p<0.05)，除了在量測外折線長與足寬水平距離上，三維掃描有最佳的量測精確度表現，其平均絕對誤差介於0.6到4.3公釐之間。使用四種量測方法時，所有六項足部的組內相關係數都介於0.61到0.98之間。整體而言，本研究建議使用此款三維足型掃描機去蒐集足部尺寸資料，因為其有較高的量測精確度、正確性與穩定性。結果建議，往後在與過去文獻比較不同的足部尺寸資料差異時，不同的量測器具所造成的差異是必須被注意的。
此外，本研究則利用足型掃描儀器去蒐集2000位男性與1000位女性受試者的3D足部模型並進行足型的分類之比較，利用9項足部尺寸(%足長)對男女進行性別差異的分析，並在常見的足長範圍中，也比較了性別的差異。結果指出，利用足寬(%足長)、內折線長(%足長)與足弓高(%足長)三項尺寸當作主要的參數，能夠將國人男女的足型分成各三種不同的代表足型。在性別的差異比較結果中發現，7項足部尺寸有顯著的差異(平均差異：0.2%~2.8%足長)，女性比男性有較長的內折線長(0.2%足長)。除了在趾高尺寸之外，男性在寬度、圍度與高度的相關尺寸上都比女性大。另外，不同種族的足型差異也在本文中進行討論與比較。這些發現都能夠提供有用的資訊給予製作專屬男女性的鞋楦或設計鞋墊時使用與參考。

Foot dimension information on different user groups is important for footwear design and clinical applications. Foot dimension data collected using different measurement methods presents precision and accuracy problems. This study compared the precision and accuracy of the 3D foot scanning method with conventional foot dimension measurement methods including the digital caliper, ink footprint and digital footprint. Two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the sex and method effect on the six measured foot dimensions. In addition, the mean absolute difference values and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used for precision and accuracy evaluation. The results were also compared with the ISO 20685 criteria. The sex and the measurement method were found (p<0.05) to be significant on the six foot dimensions. The 3D scanning measurements showed the best precision performance among the four measurement methods. The accuracy results indicated that the 3D scanning measurements had better accuracy performance than the other methods (mean absolute difference was 0.6 to 4.3 mm), except for measuring outside ball of foot length and foot breadth horizontal. The ICCs for all six foot dimension measurements among the four measurement methods were within the 0.61 to 0.98 range. Overall, the 3D foot scanner is recommended for collecting foot anthropometric data because it has relatively higher precision, accuracy and robustness. This finding suggests that when comparing foot anthropometric data among different references, it is important to consider the differences caused by the different measurement methods.
Further, this study classifies the foot shapes of Taiwanese using 3D foot scanning data from 2000 males and 1000 females. Nine foot dimensions relative to foot length and absolute measures in the common foot length categories were applied to compare the gender differences. Using foot breadth in % foot length, ball of foot length in % foot length and arch height in % foot length as feature parameters can classify three foot shape types for males and females, respectively. Significant gender differences were found in seven of the nine foot dimensions (mean differences 0.2% to 2.8% foot length). Females had greater ball of foot length than males (0.2% foot length). Males had greater breadth, girth and height dimensions than females, except for toe height. Moreover, ethnic differences in foot shape were also observed. The findings can provide very useful information for building gender specific shoe lasts and designing footwear insoles.

1. Agnihotri, M.D., Shukla, S. and Purwar, B., 2006. “Determination of sex from the foot measurements.” The Internet Journal of Forensic Science, 2(1).
2. Agrawal, K.N., Singh, R.K.P. and Satapathy, K.K., 2010. “Anthropometric considerations for farm tools/machinery design for tribal workers of north eastern India”. Agricultural Engineering International, 7, 1406-1466.
3. Ashizawa, K., Kumakura, C., Kusumoto, A. and Narasaki, S., 1997. “Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese, Filipinas and Japanese with special reference to habitual footwear types.” Annals of Human Biology, 24 (2), 117-129.
4. Bandholm, T., Boysn, L., Haugaard, S., Zebis, M.K. and Bencke, J., 2008. “Foot medial longitudinal-arch deformation during quiet standing and gait in subjects with medial tibial stress syndrome.” Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 47 (2), 89-95.
5. Chen, J.P., Chung, M.J. and Wang, M.J., 2009. “Flatfoot prevalence and foot dimensions of 5- of 13- year-old children in Taiwan.” Foot and Ankle International, 30, 326-332.
6. Cheng, F.T. and Perng, D.B., 1999. “A systematic approach for developing a foot size information system for shoe last design.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25 (2), 171-185.
7. Chu, W.C., Lee, S.H., Chu, W., Wang, T.J. and Lee, M.C., 1995. “The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 42, 1088-1093.
8. CNS 4800-S1093, 2000. Sizing system for shoes, Taiwan.
9. Dahle, L.K., Mueller, M.J., Delitto, A. and Diamond, J.E., 1991. “Visual assessment of foot type and relationship of foot type to lower extremity injury.” The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 14 (1), 70-74.
10. De Mits, S., Coorevits, P., De Clercq, D., Elewaut, D., Woodburn, J. and Roosen, P., 2010. “Reliability and validity of the Infoot 3D foot digitizer for normal healthy adults.” Footwear Science, 2 (2), 65-75.
11. De Mits, S., Coorevits, P., De Clercq, D., Elewaut, D., Woodburn, J. and Roosen, P., 2011. “Reliability and validity of the INFOOT three-dimensional foot digitizer for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 101 (3):198–207.
12. De Mits, S., Mielants, H., De Clercq, D., Woodburn, J., Roosen, P. and Elewaut, D., 2012. “Quantitative assessment of foot structure in rheumatoid arthritis by a foot digitizer allows detection of deformities, even in the absence of erosions.” Arthritis Care & Research, 64 (11), 1641–1648.
13. Frey, C., 2000. “Foot health and shoewear for women.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 372, 32-44.
14. Gabbard, C. and Hart, S., 1996. “A question of foot dominance.” Journal of General Psychology, 123 (4), 289-296.
15. Gonda, E., and Katayama, K., 2006. “Big feet in Polynesia: A somatometric study of the Tongans.” Anthropological Science, 114 (22), 127–131.
16. Goonetilleke, R.S. and Luximon, A., 2001. “Designing for comfort: a footwear application.” Computer Aided Ergonomics and Safety Conferences, Maui.
17. Goonetilleke, R.S., Ho, E.C.F. and So, R.H.Y., 1997. “Foot anthropometry in Hong Kong.” Proceedings of the ASEAN 97 Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 81-88.
18. Gordon, C.C., Bradtmiller, B., Clauser, C.E., Churchill, T., McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I. and Walker, R.A., 1989. Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: Methods and summary statistics, U.S. Army Natick Research Development and Engineering Center’, Natick, MA, Technical Report. NATICK/TR-89-004.
19. Hawes, M.R. and Sovak, D., 1994. “Quantitative morphology of the human foot in a North American population.” Ergonomics, 37(7), 1213-26.
20. Hawes, M.R., Sovak, D., Miyashita, M., Kang, S.J., Yoshihuku, Y. and Tanaka, S., 1994. “Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort.” Ergonomics, 37 (1), 187-196.
21. Hong, Y., Wang, L., Xu, D.Q. and Li, J.X., 2011. “Gender differences in foot shape: a study of Chinese young adults.” Sports Biomechanics, 10 (2), 85-97.
22. ISO 20685, 2005. “3D scanning methodologies for internationally compatible anthropometric databases”, International Standard Organization.
23. ISO 7250, 2004.“Basic human body measurements for technological design”, International Standard Organization.
24. Kadambande, S., Khurana, A., Debnath, U., Bansal, M. and Hariharan, K., 2006. “Comparative anthropometric analysis of shod and unshod feet.” The Foot, 16, 188-191.
25. Kanchan, T., Krishan, K., ShyamSundar, S., Aparna, K.R. and Jaiswal, S., 2012. “Analysis of footprint and its parts for stature estimation in Indian population.” The Foot, 22 (3), 175-180.
26. Kouchi, M., Mochimaru, M., Tsuzuki, K. and Yokoi, T., 1999. “Interobserver errors in anthropometry.” Journal of Human Ergology, 28, 15-24.
27. Krauss, I. and Mauch, M., 2012. "Foot morphology." In “Science of Footwear,” edited by Ravindra S. Goonetilleke, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.
28. Krauss, I., Grau, S., Mauch, M., Maiwald, C. and Horstmann, T., 2008. “Sex-related differences in foot shape.” Ergonomics, 51 (11), 1693-1709.
29. Krauss, I., Langbein, C., Horstmann, T. and Grau, S., 2011. “Sex-related differences in foot shape of adult Caucasians- a follow-up study focusing on long and short feet.” Ergonomics, 54 (3), 294-300.
30. Krauss, I., Valiant, G., Horstmann, T. and Grau, S., 2010. “Comparison of female foot morphology and last design in athletic footwear-Are men’s lasts appropriate for women?” Research in Sports Medicine: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 140-156.
31. Larrabee, R.D. and Postek, M.T., 1993. “Precision, accuracy, uncertainty and traceability and their application to submicrometer dimensional metrology.” Solid State Electron, 36, 673-684.
32. Liu, S., Chi, Y., Sanchez, S. and Stricker, D., 2011. “Foot scanning and deformation estimation using time-of-flight cameras.” Footwear Science, 3 (1), 98-99.
33. Lu, J.M. and Wang, M.J.J., 2010. “The evaluation of scan-derived anthropometric measurements.” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 59 (8), 2048-2054.
34. Luo, G., Houston, V.L., Mussman, M., Garbarini, M., Beattie, A.C. and Thongpop, C., 2009. “Comparison of male and female foot shape.” Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 99 (5), 383-390.
35. Luximon, A., Goonetilleke, R.S., and Tsui, K.L., 2003. Foot landmarking for footwear customization. Ergonomics, 46 (6), 625-641.
36. Mall, N.A., Hardaker, W.M., Nunley, J.A. and Queen, R.M., 2007. “The reliability and reproducibility of foot type measurements using a mirrored foot photo box and digital photography compared to caliper measurements.” Journal of Biomechanics, 40 (5), 1171-1176.
37. Mauch, M., Grau, S., Krauss, I., Maiwald, C. and Horstmann, T., 2008. “Foot morphology of normal, underweight and overweight children.” International Journal of Obesity, 32 (7), 1068-1075.
38. Menz, H.B. and Morris, M.E., 2005. “Footwear characteristics and foot problems in older people.” Gerontology, 51 (5), 346-51.
39. Mochimaru, M., Kouchi, M. and Dohi, M., 2000. “Analysis of 3-D human foot forms using the free form deformation method and its application in grading shoe lasts.” Ergonomics, 43 (9), 1301-1313.
40. Noldner, L.K. and Edgar, H.J.H., 2013. “3D representation and analysis of enthesis morphology.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 152 (3), 417-424.
41. Papuga, M.O. and Burke, J.R., 2011. “The reliability of the associate platinum digital foot scanner in measuring previously developed footprint characteristics: a technical note.” Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 34(2), 114-118.
42. Razeghi, M. and Batt, M.E., 2002. “Foot type classification: a critical review of current methods.” Gait & Posture, 15 (3), 282-291.
43. Robinette, K.M. and Daanen, H.A.M., 2006. “Precision of the CAESAR scan-extracted measurements.” Applied Ergonomics, 37(3), 259-265.
44. Rodrigo, A.S., Goonetilleke, R.S. and Witana, C.P., 2012. “Model based foot shape classification using 2D foot outlines.” Computer Aided Design, 44 (1), 48-55.
45. Telfer, S. and Woodburn, J., 2010. “The use of 3D surface scanning for the measurement and assessment of the human foot.” Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 3:19-27.
46. Telfer, S., Gibson, K.S., Hennessy, K., Steultjens, M.P. and Woodburn, J., 2012. “Computer-aided design of customized foot orthoses: reproducibility and effect of method used to obtain foot shape.” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93 (5), 863–870.
47. Tu, H.H., 2014. “Foot volume estimation formula in healthy adults.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44 (1), 92-98.
48. Tu, H.H., 2014. “Foot volume estimation formula in healthy adults.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44 (1), 92-98.
49. Voracek, M., Fisher, M.L., Rupp, B., Lucas, D. and Fessler, D.M., 2007. “Sex differences in relative foot length and perceived attractiveness of female feet: relationships among anthropometry, physique, and preference ratings.” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104 (1), 1123-1138.
50. Wang, C.S., 2010. “An analysis and evaluation of fitness for shoe lasts and human feet.” Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61 (6), 532-540.
51. Witana, C.P., Feng, K., and Goonetilleke, R.S., 2004. “Dimensional differences for evaluating the quality of footwear fit.” Ergonomics, 47 (12), 1301-1317.
52. Witana, C.P., Xiong, S., Zhao, J. and Goonetilleke, R.S., 2006. “Foot measurements from three-dimensional scans: A comparison and evaluation of different methods.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36 (9), 789-807.
53. Wunderlich, R.E. and Cavanagh, P.R., 2001. “Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33 (4), 605-611.
54. Xiong, S., Goonetilleke, S.R., Witana, C.P., Weerasinghe, T.W. and Au, E.Y.L., 2010. “Foot arch characterization, A review, a new metric, and a comparison.” Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 100 (1), 14-24.
55. Yu, C.Y. and Tu, H.H., 2009. “Foot surface area database and estimation formula.” Applied Ergonomics, 40 (4), 767-774.
56. Zhao, J., Xiong, S., Bu, Y. and Goonetilleke, R.S., 2008. “Computerized girth determination for custom footwear manufacture.” Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54 (3), 359–373.