ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Optimizing Sensor Number and Placement for Accurate and Robust Center of Pressure Estimation on Instrumented Insoles.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smart insoles equipped with pressure sensor matrices are increasingly used for gait analysis, yet high-density arrays compromise battery life and data throughput. This study aims to identify the optimal sparse sensor layout required to accurately estimate the Center of Pressure (CoP) by analyzing the trade-off between sensor number, spatial placement, and reconstruction error. Plantar pressure data were collected from twelve healthy participants walking at a self-selected speed using 16-sensor connected insoles. A combinatorial algorithm evaluated all 216-1 possible sensor combinations to minimize the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in the antero-posterior, medio-lateral, and global Euclidean directions. Results reveal a non-linear convergence of accuracy that depends on the spatial axis. For longitudinal and global progression, a clear inflection point achieving sub-centimetric accuracy (RMSE < 5 mm) is reached at seven sensors. In contrast, medio-lateral tracking shows its largest discrete error reduction at five sensors, followed by gradual improvements at higher densities. Anatomical frequency analysis highlights distinct spatial requirements: the posterior heel is consistently selected for medio-lateral accuracy, while the lateral arch and metatarsal regions are critical for longitudinal progression. These findings suggest that while a minimum of seven strategically placed sensors enables robust CoP tracking across all spatial axes, optimal hardware design should remain task-specific. This work provides a data-driven framework for the development of energy-efficient wearable gait monitoring systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.