Fig 1.
Plantar surface assessment locations.
Thirteen locations per foot were evaluated with both a hand applied monofilament and the automated tool.
Fig 2.
Automated tool and homing sequence protocol.
a) Automated tool which applies a monofilament through the perforated foot plate until contact with the plantar surface, b) Homing sequence protocol used to determine threshold sensitivity per location. Units are in gF.
Fig 3.
Monofilament (Magenta), Load Cell (Green), Stepper Motor (Yellow).
Fig 4.
Perforated Foot Plate (Dark Blue), Aluminum 80/20 Extrusions (White), Toe Clamp (Maroon), Foot Clamp Base (Magenta), Foot Clamp (Green), and Ankle Holder (Blue).
Fig 5.
Aluminum 80/20 Extrusions (White), Camera Mounting Plate Green), Camera Mount (Yellow), and Logitech Brio Webcam (Blue).
Fig 6.
Acrylic perforated foot plate with Logitech Brio webcam and Probe Subassembly visible.
Fig 7.
Probe Subassembly (Magenta), Stepper Motor (Blue/Black), Belts (Black), Pulley (Orange), Linear Motion Rods (Yellow), Coupling (Bronze).
Fig 8.
a) Subject from Group 1, b) Subject from Group 2, c) Subject from Group 3.
Fig 9.
a) TSI Norm vs Age: Group 1 (R2 = 0.3422, P = 0.004); Group 2 (R2 = 0.0014, P = 0.86); Group 3 (R2 = 0.0083, P = 0.69), b) TSI Norm vs BMI: Group 1 (R2 = 0.0008, P = 0.90); Group 2 (R2 = 0.1144, P = 0.091); Group 3 (R2 = 0.0016, P = 0.58), c) TSI Norm vs ABI: Group 1 (R2 = 0.0305, P = 0.44); Group 2 (R2 = 0.1208, P = 0.082); Group 3 (R2 = 0.078, P = 0.21), d) TSI Norm vs FBS: Group 1 (R2 = 0.1819, P = 0.054); Group 2 (R2 = 0.0022, P = 0.82); Group 3 (R2 = 0.0692, P = 0.24), e) TSI Norm vs HbA1c: Group 1 (R2 = 0.4124, P = 0.12); Group 2 (R2 = 0.004, P = 0.76); Group 3 (R2 = 0.0628, P = 0.26).
Table 1.
Statistical analysis summary.