{"id":3404,"date":"2026-10-20T15:08:05","date_gmt":"2026-10-21T03:08:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/footworklab.net\/?p=3404"},"modified":"2026-10-20T15:08:05","modified_gmt":"2026-10-21T03:08:05","slug":"gait-analysis-foot-pressure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/footworklab.net\/ru\/news\/3404\/","title":{"rendered":"Gait Analysis and Foot Pressure: How to Read Two Records Side by Side"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

About the author<\/strong> \u2014 FOOTWORK LAB is a manufacturer of foot assessment equipment and custom orthotic insoles, based in Ruichang, Jiangxi Province, China. Founded in 2014, with its own production plant since 2018. Certified to European Union and ISO quality system standards. See the factory<\/a> or view certification<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A gait recording and a pressure recording describe the same walk from two directions, and clinics routinely read one while ignoring the other.<\/strong> The video shows sequence, timing and the visible positions joints pass through. The pressure map shows where load actually arrives and how long it stays. Neither is a more complete account of walking; they answer different halves of the same question, and the useful skill is not choosing between them but reading them together.<\/p>\n

That skill is harder than it sounds, because the two records do not look related on screen. One is a moving image, the other is a colour field. Practitioners who learn to align them in time find that most of the interesting findings only appear in the overlap: a foot that appears to roll inward on video, loading a region the pressure record shows as brief and low, is a different story from one that stays there.<\/p>\n

We build the F5-LAB platform, which records dynamic pressure while a person walks or runs, and we work with clinics that pair it with camera capture. This article sets out a reading routine we have seen work in practice, along with the misreadings that appear most often when only one record is used.<\/p>\n

Two records, one pass<\/h2>\n

The first decision is whether the two records come from the same pass. If the camera and the platform capture simultaneously, alignment is a technical detail. If they are separate passes, the person walks twice, and small differences in speed, starting position and attention make the comparison approximate. Approximate is often good enough for a conversation, and rarely good enough for a report.<\/p>\n

Simultaneous capture is worth asking for when specifying equipment. It is also worth testing, because “simultaneous” can mean two devices started by hand a second apart. The honest test is a single heel strike: capture one walk, then check whether the contact you see on video corresponds to the first contact in the pressure record.<\/p>\n

Where simultaneous capture is not available, standardise the pass instead. Same shoes, same speed, same start line, same number of steps. The more of those you control, the less the comparison depends on luck.<\/p>\n

Aligning the two in time<\/h2>\n

Pressure software usually reports a recording as a sequence of frames with a total duration and a cadence. Video gives a frame counter and a clock. The bridge between them is the event both can see: initial contact, or the moment of peak load under the heel.<\/p>\n

Pick one event and use it consistently. Marking the first contact in the pressure trace, then finding the same instant on video, gives a reference point that survives the rest of the recording. Without it, practitioners tend to align by eye at whatever moment looks interesting, which is how a finding gets attached to the wrong phase.<\/p>\n

Once aligned, the useful unit is the step rather than the whole pass. Read one step, then the next, and see whether the pattern repeats. A finding that appears on one step in six is a different proposition from one that appears on every step, and a whole-pass summary can hide the distinction.<\/p>\n

\"F5-LAB
FOOTWORK LAB F5-LAB dynamic gait system. Product photography of our own output; specifications are confirmed in writing before an order.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

What the video shows that pressure cannot<\/h2>\n

Video shows the positions the body passes through: where the knee points, how much the pelvis rotates, whether the arm swing matches the opposite leg, whether the head stays level. None of that is measurable from a pressure field, and all of it changes how a pressure finding should be read.<\/p>\n

Video also shows hesitation and guarding. A person who shortens the stance on one side, or who places the foot rather than letting it land, is telling you something that a load map will not. The map shows the result; the video shows the behaviour that produced it.<\/p>\n

Finally, video shows the shoe. A recording made in footwear tells you how the foot behaves inside that shoe, which is often the more relevant question for a client who will spend their day in it. A recording made barefoot tells you about the foot, which is a different and sometimes less practical answer.<\/p>\n

What the pressure record shows that video cannot<\/h2>\n

Pressure shows magnitude and duration. A video can suggest that a foot pronates; the pressure record can show whether the medial load is brief and moderate or sustained and high. That distinction changes the conversation from a description of movement to a description of load, which is the part that a support design can actually address.<\/p>\n

It also shows asymmetry in a way the eye does not. Most people look symmetrical walking towards a camera, and most people are not. A left-right comparison of peak load and contact time is one of the few measurements a clinic can put in front of a client that they will accept without argument, because it is their own data rather than an opinion.<\/p>\n

And it shows progression over time. Two recordings months apart, read the same way, show whether a change happened. Video can do this too, but only if the camera position, distance and framing were identical, which is rarely the case in a working clinic.<\/p>\n

\"F5-LAB
FOOTWORK LAB F5-LAB dynamic gait system. Product photography of our own output; specifications are confirmed in writing before an order.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A four-step reading routine<\/h2>\n

First, read the video alone for thirty seconds and write down what you notice without looking at the pressure record. This step exists to stop the data from anchoring the observation. Write it as description, not conclusion: “the left foot lands with the toe turned out” rather than “the left foot is abnormal”.<\/p>\n

Second, read the pressure record alone and write down the three largest findings: peak location, regional difference between sides, and contact duration. Again as description. The two lists will not match, and the mismatch is where the work is.<\/p>\n

Third, align the records and test each finding against the other. A video observation that the pressure record supports becomes a stronger statement. One that the record contradicts should be dropped, or investigated with a second pass. One that the record cannot address stays an observation, which is a legitimate outcome.<\/p>\n

Fourth, write the report with the two record types kept distinct. Observations from video, measurements from pressure, and interpretation in a separate section signed by the practitioner. Mixing them is how a measurement acquires the authority of a diagnosis, which is exactly what an assessment device should not do.<\/p>\n

Common misreadings<\/h2>\n

The most common is reading the pressure map as a picture of the foot. It is a picture of the interface between the foot and the surface, filtered by the shoe or by the bare foot’s soft tissue. A hot spot may be a bony prominence, or it may be a stiff insole, or it may be the way the person placed the foot because the floor was cold.<\/p>\n

The second is reading a single frame. Peak pressure in a dynamic recording moves through the stance phase; a still image shows one instant, and choosing that instant after the fact is a way of confirming a hypothesis rather than testing it. Read the sequence.<\/p>\n

The third is over-reading symmetry. Nobody walks perfectly symmetrically, and small differences are normal. The question is whether a difference is large enough to explain the complaint the client brought, not whether it exists.<\/p>\n

The fourth is reading the video as ground truth. Camera angle, clothing and lighting all distort what looks like alignment. A camera placed slightly off-axis can make a neutral knee look valgus. Standardise camera position, and say in the report where it was.<\/p>\n

\"F5-LAB
FOOTWORK LAB F5-LAB dynamic gait system. Product photography of our own output; specifications are confirmed in writing before an order.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When one record is enough<\/h2>\n

For a screening conversation, the pressure record alone often carries the session. It is quick, visual and objective, and it gives the client something to look at. Adding video slows the appointment without necessarily changing the recommendation.<\/p>\n

For a case where the complaint is about how movement looks or feels rather than where load lands, the video alone may be the better starting point, with pressure used when a specific question arises. The mistake is to make the full pair mandatory, which makes the routine heavy enough that it gets skipped.<\/p>\n

For a research or documentation context, both records plus a standardised protocol are the minimum. Anything less produces data that cannot be compared across subjects.<\/p>\n

What this means for equipment choice<\/h2>\n

If you intend to read the two records together, specify synchronisation and export. Ask whether the system timestamps its frames, whether the pressure data can be exported in a form that lines up with a video frame, and whether the software can display the two side by side. These are unglamorous features that decide whether the routine survives a busy week.<\/p>\n

Ask also about the walking surface. A platform embedded in a walkway records a different gait from a mat placed on a floor, because people adjust their stride when they see a change in the surface. Neither is wrong; they answer different questions, and the report should say which was used.<\/p>\n

Finally, ask what the system does with the recording afterwards. A record that cannot be found in six months is not a record. Our own systems store sessions with a client reference and a date, and the reporting module assembles the images and regional readings so the practitioner can add interpretation rather than transcription.<\/p>\n

The two records also differ in how they fail. A video fails by hiding what the camera cannot see; a pressure record fails by showing a number where the practitioner wanted a reason. Understanding both failure modes makes a report more honest, because it tells the reader what kind of evidence is behind each sentence.<\/p>\n

Practitioners who work with both often describe a change in their own reasoning. The video suggests a hypothesis, the pressure record tests it, and the report records the result. That sequence is worth protecting, because it is the difference between using data to confirm a view and using it to check one.<\/p>\n

Reporting: keeping the two apart<\/h2>\n

A report that mixes observation and measurement in a single sentence gives both the same authority. “The left foot pronates and loads medially” reads as one statement, but it contains two claims from two different sources with two different strengths. Split them, and a reader can see which part rests on an image and which on a sensor.<\/p>\n

The structure we recommend is simple: a description section for each record type, a section for the interpretation, and a line stating the conditions of the session. Shoes, surface, speed, camera position. Six months later, that line is the most useful sentence in the document.<\/p>\n

Reports also need a stated purpose. The same recording can serve a client explanation, a referral letter or an internal comparison across visits, and each wants a different length and a different level of technical detail. Deciding which one you are writing is part of the routine, not an afterthought.<\/p>\n

Keep the language descriptive. “Load is concentrated under the second metatarsal head on the left, sustained through mid-stance” is a statement about a recording. What it means for the client is the practitioner’s sentence to write, signed by them, not generated by software.<\/p>\n

Where the pair changes a recommendation<\/h2>\n

The clearest case is a client whose video looks unremarkable and whose pressure record shows a marked asymmetry. Without the second record the session would have ended with reassurance. With it, the practitioner has a reason to ask a further question.<\/p>\n

The mirror case is a client whose pressure record is symmetric while the video shows a visible change in how the knee tracks. Reading only the load would miss the pattern entirely, because the load is being distributed successfully by a compensation the camera reveals.<\/p>\n

In both cases the pair does not produce a decision. It produces a better question, which is what an assessment instrument is for. Practices that expect more from the equipment end up overstating what it can support, and that overstatement is the fastest route to an argument with a client.<\/p>\n

\n

Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n

Can the F5-LAB record video at the same time as pressure?<\/h3>\n

The platform records dynamic pressure; camera capture is handled separately in most clinic setups. Ask us about the configuration you intend to use, and test alignment with a single heel strike before relying on the pairing.<\/p>\n

How many steps should a recording include?<\/h3>\n

Enough to see whether a pattern repeats. Several consecutive steps are more informative than a single pass, and a finding that appears once should stay an observation rather than a pattern.<\/p>\n

Should the client walk barefoot or in shoes?<\/h3>\n

Both have a use. Barefoot shows the foot; in-shoe shows the interface the client will actually live with. Decide which question you are answering before the session, and say which was recorded in the report.<\/p>\n

Do you provide training on reading the records?<\/h3>\n

We provide training on operating the system and on what the measurements represent. Clinical interpretation remains the responsibility of the qualified professional using it.<\/p>\n

What warranty and support come with the platform?<\/h3>\n

Twelve months on non-human damage with free replacement parts, a dedicated WhatsApp group, direct access to our engineers, remote assistance where the site allows it, and over-the-air updates for connected units.<\/p>\n

Is a walkway system better than a mat?<\/h3>\n

They answer different questions. A walkway captures several consecutive steps on a consistent surface; a mat is quicker to deploy and easier to move. Choose by the routine you will actually run.<\/p>\n

Can we buy a single platform and add a second later?<\/h3>\n

Yes. Machine orders start from one unit, and we accept ODM on equipment. For a two-room setup, tell us at the first order so the software configuration stays consistent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

What we would do next<\/h2>\n

Run one client through the four-step routine this week, even without a second camera, and write down where the two accounts disagreed. That exercise is more useful than another demonstration. The F5-LAB product page<\/a> covers the platform configuration, the FAQ page<\/a> answers commercial questions, and our article on dynamic plantar pressure mapping<\/a> explains what a recording leaves out. For the clinic workflow around the recording, the piece on fitting a gait analysis scanner into an assessment routine<\/a> is the practical companion, and the walkway installation article<\/a> covers space and scheduling.<\/p>\n

This article is intended for professional and educational reference. It is not medical advice. Foot assessment equipment produces measurements and images; clinical interpretation and any decision about care remain the responsibility of a qualified professional. Certification scope is limited to the documentation we hold: European Union certification and ISO quality system certification.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Related reading<\/h2>\n