sensors

Article
Comparison of the Accuracy of Ground Reaction Force
Component Estimation between Supervised Machine Learning
and Deep Learning Methods Using Pressure Insoles
Amal Kammoun 1,2 , Philippe Ravier 1, * and Olivier Buttelli 1,3

1 PRISME Laboratory, University of Orleans, 12 Rue de Blois, 45100 Orleans, France;

[email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (O.B.)
2 Emka-Electronique Company, ZA du Patureau de la Grange, 41200 Pruniers-en-Sologne, France
3 Research Group Sport, Physical Activity, Rehabilitation and Movement for Performance and
Health (SAPRèM), University of Orleans, 45100 Orleans, France
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The three Ground Reaction Force (GRF) components can be estimated using pressure
insole sensors. In this paper, we compare the accuracy of estimating GRF components for both
feet using six methods: three Deep Learning (DL) methods (Artificial Neural Network, Long Short-
Term Memory, and Convolutional Neural Network) and three Supervised Machine Learning (SML)
methods (Least Squares, Support Vector Regression, and Random Forest (RF)). Data were collected
from nine subjects across six activities: normal and slow walking, static with and without carrying a
load, and two Manual Material Handling activities. This study has two main contributions: first, the
estimation of GRF components (Fx, Fy, and Fz) during the six activities, two of which have never
been studied; second, the comparison of the accuracy of GRF component estimation between the
six methods for each activity. RF provided the most accurate estimation for static situations, with
mean RMSE values of RMSE_Fx = 1.65 N, RMSE_Fy = 1.35 N, and RMSE_Fz = 7.97 N for the mean
absolute values measured by the force plate (reference) RMSE_Fx = 14.10 N, RMSE_Fy = 3.83 N, and
RMSE_Fz = 397.45 N. In our study, we found that RF, an SML method, surpassed the experimented
Citation: Kammoun, A.; Ravier, P.; DL methods.
Buttelli, O. Comparison of the
Accuracy of Ground Reaction Force
Keywords: insole pressure measurement; force plate measurement; GRF component estimation;
Component Estimation between
supervised machine learning; deep learning; manual material handling; walking activities
Supervised Machine Learning and
Deep Learning Methods Using
Pressure Insoles. Sensors 2024, 24,
5318. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s24165318
1. Introduction
The determination of the Ground Reaction Force (GRF) is crucial in biomechanical re-
Academic Editor: Christian Peham
search. It allows for the calculation of human dynamics and kinematics [1]. Its applications
Received: 2 July 2024 are numerous such as in sports [2], ergonomics, or in medical applications. Most often,
Revised: 8 August 2024 the determination of the GRF has been applied in gait conditioning. For example, it has
Accepted: 13 August 2024 been applied in injury prevention [3], rehabilitation [4–6], or motor dysfunction evaluation
Published: 16 August 2024 (idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents [7] and Parkinson’s disease [8,9]).
GRF determination can also be of interest in the field of ergonomics. It can be used to
identify working conditions conducive to the onset of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).
These periarticular disorders affect muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, and joints. Back
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
injuries account for 39% of all such disorders [10]. These can be caused by activities such
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
as maintaining posture and Manual Material Handling (MMH) tasks [11]. The inverse
This article is an open access article
dynamic method is used to calculate the joint stresses resulting from MMH [12]. The
distributed under the terms and
estimate will be improved by incorporating GRF data. Also, GRF values play a crucial role
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
in estimating the force exerted on the lumbar region [13–17], enabling the detection of low
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
back pain during MMH tasks.
4.0/).

Sensors 2024, 24, 5318. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24165318 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 2 of 20

In addition, in static situations (the person is standing still), with or without a load,
GRFs are important for determining if it is possible to ascertain the person’s weight. In a
static case, the person’s weight equals the sum of the vertical forces (Fz) of both feet. When
considering the weight of the load, the person’s weight equals the sum of the vertical forces
(Fz) of both feet, minus the weight of the load.
We have described the importance of GRF for walking, MMH, and static situations.
Currently, GRF components are assessed using force plates. These force plates are not
mobile, making it challenging to evaluate GRF in real-life situations outside of a laboratory
setting, such as during walking activities. Furthermore, the high cost and heavy weight of
these plates make it difficult to determine GRF at any given location, as they need to be ac-
quired in large numbers. Presently, a low-cost instrumented insole solution, equipped with
pressure sensors, is capable of estimating only the vertical component (Fz) by employing a
linear combination of the pressure sensors, each weighted according to its corresponding
sensor surface area.
Deep Learning (DL) and Supervised Machine Learning (SML) methods aimed to
determine the relationship between insole Plantar Pressure (PP) data and GRF components
in 3D, including the medial–lateral component (Fx), the anterior–posterior component
(Fy), and the vertical component (Fz). In [18], an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was
employed to estimate the Fy component. In [19], the GRF components were estimated
using Linear Regression (LRG). Other studies [7,20–22] utilized ANN to estimate GRF
components. In [20], the estimation of GRF components was evaluated also using Locally
Linear Neuro-Fuzzy (LLNF) and LRG methods. The authors in reference [7] employed the
three estimation methods introduced by Rouhani et al. [20] as well as the wavelet neural
network method. In [23], the Fz and Fy components were estimated using Bidirectional
Long Short-Term Memory (BLSTM) and LRG methods. In [24], GRF components were
estimated using ANN, Least Squares (LS), and Support Vector Regression (SVR) methods.
For the estimation of GRF components, there are works [7,18–21,24] that focused on walking
activities, while Joo et al. [22] concentrated on golf activities. Jacobs et al. [21] expressed
interest not only in walking activities but also in calf raising. Hoitz et al. [23] focused
on running activities. The studies [7,18,20–24] suggest using DL methods such as ANN
and BLSTM as the optimal approach for estimating GRF components compared to SML
methods. However, this recommendation is made without testing various SML methods.
DL methods have certain disadvantages compared with SML methods. DL models
are computationally intensive and time-consuming to learn [25]. As a result, DL model
learning often requires expensive GPU servers [25]. In addition, to find the optimal DL
model, several hyperparameters need to be calculated and tested, such as the optimizer, the
number of hidden layers, and the batch size. To find the best model, these hyperparameters
are tested in different combinations, each requiring the calculation and evaluation of a
complete model. The higher the number of hyperparameters, the greater the number of
combinations to be tested. In addition, SML models are easier to deploy than DL methods.
In other fields, in terms of performance, DL methods are not always better than
SML methods. In [26], the authors compared the performance of Random Forest (RF),
ANN, and SVR for tool wear prediction. The results showed that RF, which is an SML
method, generated more accurate predictions than the ANN method. In another study [27],
ANN, RF, and Gradient Boosted Machines methods were compared to predict carbon and
nitrogen levels in soil in agriculture. The results indicated that the performance of the three
methods varied depending on the dataset used. In most cases, the RF method yielded
better outcomes than the ANN method. In [28], the authors compared the performance of
ANN and SVR methods in the rainfall-runoff modeling of the Awash Belo Watershed in
the Awash River Basin in Ethiopia. Both methods showed comparable performance.
In this study, our aim is to evaluate the accuracy of three DL methods (ANN, Convo-
lutional Neural Network (CNN), and LSTM) and three SML methods (RF, SVR, and LS) in
estimating GRF components for both feet during six activities: static activities both with
and without carrying a 5 kg load, and normal and slow walking, as well as two MMH
 Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 3 of 20

and without carrying a 5 kg load, and normal and slow walking, as well as two MMH
tasks: carrying aa 55 kg
tasks: carrying kg load
loadfrom
frombottom
bottomtototop topandandviceviceversa
versaand
andcarrying
carrying a 5a kg
5 kg load
load
from
from left to right and vice versa. To the best of our knowledge, no study has evaluated thethe
left to right and vice versa. To the best of our knowledge, no study has evaluated
estimation
estimation of of GRF
GRF components
componentsfrom fromPP PPdata
dataofofan aninsole
insolepressure
pressurefor forstatic
static activities
activities andand
MMH tasks. This evaluation is of considerable importance in the field
MMH tasks. This evaluation is of considerable importance in the field of ergonomics. This of ergonomics. This
represents
represents ourour first
first contribution.
contribution.Furthermore,
Furthermore,totoour ourknowledge,
knowledge,the thecomparison
comparison ofof
thethe
estimation accuracy of these six methods has not yet been explored
estimation accuracy of these six methods has not yet been explored in the literature. We in the literature. We
aim
aim to
to investigate whether DL
investigate whether DLmethods,
methods,as asused
usedby byprevious
previousstudies
studies[7,18,20–24],
[7,18,20–24],yield yield
better
better results compared to
results compared to SML
SML methods.
methods.This Thisrepresents
representsour oursecond
secondcontribution.
contribution.
To
To conduct
conduct the the proposed
proposed study,
study, it’s
it’s necessary
necessarytotoassess assessthe
theestimation
estimationaccuracy
accuracy ofof
each DL and SML method. This evaluation is conducted using
each DL and SML method. This evaluation is conducted using standardized laboratory standardized laboratory
conditions
conditions using force plates.
using force plates. These
Theseforce
forceplates
platesactactasasthe
thereference
referenceforfor measuring
measuring thethe
GRFGRF
components (ground
components (ground truth). truth).
Figure
Figure 11 illustrates
illustrates the
theflow
flowchart
chartfor
forestimating
estimatingGRF GRFcomponents
components from
from PP,PP, where
where PPPP
presents
presents thethe input data. The
input data. The estimation
estimationaccuracy
accuracyisisevaluated
evaluatedafter afterDL/SML
DL/SML modeling.
modeling. TheThe
process
process consists
consists of of two
two stages.
stages. The
The first
first stage
stage involves
involves training
training the
the model
model using
using the
the training
train-
dataset (depicted
ing dataset (depictedin red). In the
in red). In second
the second stage, the the
stage, model’s
model’sperformance
performance is evaluated
is evaluated with
the help of metrics using the test data set (depicted
with the help of metrics using the test data set (depicted in green). in green).

Measured GRF components (testing)

The subject wore Force
GRF
Moticon insole plate Measured GRF com-
and performed data Data prepro- ponents (training) Estimated GRF
the six activities cessing components
PP (testing)
on the two force Insole PP (testing)
DL/SML Metrics
plates data PP (training)

Figure 1. Flow chart

Figure chart for
for GRF
GRFcomponent
componentestimation
estimationfrom
fromPP
PPdata.
data.PP
PPtraining dataset
training is is
dataset utilized forfor
utilized
DL/SML modeling,
DL/SML modeling,incorporating
incorporatingcorresponding
correspondingGRF
GRFforce
forceplate
platedata
data(depicted inin
(depicted red). PPPP
red). testing
testing
dataset is then employed to evaluate the performance of GRF components using the corresponding
dataset is then employed to evaluate the performance of GRF components using the corresponding
GRF force plate data (shown in green).
GRF force plate data (shown in green).
Each block
Each block of
of Figure
Figure 11 will
will be
be elaborated
elaboratedupon
uponininthe
thesubsequent
subsequentsection.
section.
2. Materials
2. Materials and
and Methods
Methods
2.1. Materials and
and Protocol
Protocol
In our research,
research, wewe employed
employedtwo twopressure
pressureinsoles
insoles(Moticon,
(Moticon,ReGoReGoAG,AG, Munich,
Munich,
Germany) fitted
fitted with
with 16
16 capacitive
capacitivepressure
pressuresensors
sensorsandandtwo
twoforce
forceplates (AMTI,
plates (AMTI, Model:
Model:
BMS600900, dimensions: 600 600 mmmm××900900mm,
mm,Watertown,
Watertown,MA, MA,USA).
USA).Figure
Figure2 presents
2 presents thethe
location
location of the 16 pressure sensors along the insole. The GRF components from
16 pressure sensors along the insole. The GRF components from two force two force
plates and the PP data
plates data from
from the
the Moticon
Moticoninsole
insolewere
wererecorded
recordedatat100100Hz.
Hz.
Our study
study involved nine healthy male subjects (weight: 77kg,±height:
involved nine healthy male subjects (weight: 77 ± 11.1 11.1 kg,178height:
± 4.2
cm, ±
178 age:
4.247
cm, ± 15
age:years).
47 ± Those subjects
15 years). hadsubjects
Those normalhadfootnormal
morphology and did not and
foot morphology sufferdid
fromsuffer
not any specific
from any footspecific
pathologies such as varus
foot pathologies or valgus.
such as varusBefore enrollment,
or valgus. Beforethe subjects
enrollment,
weresubjects
the provided withprovided
were comprehensive with information regarding
comprehensive the study’s
information objectivesthe
regarding andstudy’s
pro-
cedures, and
objectives andthey provided written
procedures, and theyconsent, adhering
provided to the
written ethicaladhering
consent, standardsto outlined in
the ethical
the Declaration of Helsinki [29].
standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki [29].
Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 4 of 20

Figure 2. The
Figure 2. The location
location of
of the
the 16
16 pressure
pressure sensors
sensorsalong
alongthe
theinsole.
insole.

They wore the Moticon insole inside their flat basketball-type shoes, which were of the
They wore the Moticon insole inside their flat basketball-type shoes, which were of
same shoe size (42 EU). Preceding the experiment, each participant did three calibration
the same shoe size (42 EU). Preceding the experiment, each participant did three calibra-
exercises with the Moticon insole: a slow walk, standing still, and shifts of the body weight.
tion exercises with the Moticon insole: a slow walk, standing still, and shifts of the body
The participants performed six distinct activities on the two force plates to obtain GRF data
weight. The participants performed six distinct activities on the two force plates to obtain
components for both feet (one force plate per foot, Figures 3–6). These tasks encompassed
GRF data components for both feet (one force plate per foot, Figures 3–6). These tasks
walking steps, durations for both static situations, and trials for both MMH tasks (reported
encompassed walking steps, durations for both static situations, and trials for both MMH
values represent the range of steps, durations, or trials among all subjects for both feet):
tasks (reported values represent the range of steps, durations, or trials among all subjects
(1)
Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW
normal
for both feet):walk of 6 to 10 trials, resulting in (7–20 steps on the force plates) (Figure5 3); of 21
(2) slow walk of 6 to 10 trials, resulting in (8–22 steps on the force plates) (Figure 3);
(1) normal
(3) walk of(standing
static situation 6 to 10 trials,
still)resulting in (7–20
(2–5 s) (Figure 4);steps on the force plates) (Figure 3);
(2) slow
(4) staticwalk of 6 to
situation 10 trials,
carrying a 5resulting in (8–22
kg load (static steps on
situation the CL)
with force(2–5
plates) (Figure
s) (Figure 4);3);
(3)
5 kg static
load situation
from left (standing
to right and still)
vice (2–5
versa,s) (Figure
we asked 4);
the subject,
(5) carrying a 5 kg load from bottom to top and vice versa (bottom-top with CL) (7–18starting from the position
trials)
(4) static
defined in situation
the
(Figure 5); static carrying
situation, a 5
to kg
takeload
the (static
load situation
from the with
end of CL)
the (2–5
table s)
on(Figure
the 4);
right, lift it,
(5)
(6) carrying
movecarrying a 5
it to theaotherkg load
5 kg end
loadof from bottom
the left
from tabletoon to top
theand
right and
left and vice
vice put versa
it down,
versa (bottom-top
without
(left-right with
with moving
CL) (5–11CL)
the (7–18
feet,
trials)
trials)
repeat(Figure
then (Figure the
6). same 5);sequence in the opposite direction, without hurrying, and repeat the
(6)
wholecarrying
sequence a 5and
kg load fromitleft
continue fortoasright
longand vice
as he feltversa (left-right
no difficulty with weariness.
and/or CL) (5–11 trials)
(Figure 6).
For the walking situations, the subjects were not instructed to adjust their gait on the
force plates (which were integrated into a treadplate) and they walked freely and contin-
uously on them; going down and up the treadplate for each trial, following a trajectory as
indicated by the black arrow in Figure 3. The force plate and the treadplate were at the
same level
2 AMTI without
force plates any offset and these alignments were regularly checked by a technician.
The length of the force plate allowed two steps to be taken before reaching the force plate.
Each trial included the steps performed on the force plates. Therefore, our dataset exclu-
sively contained the steps performed on the force plates. A single step is defined from the
instant of initial contact at the heel (On-Heel) to the moment of foot lift-off (Toe-Off).
For carrying load situations, we used a 5 kg load that was acceptable for both male
and female subjects and lower than the national standard and that of the French labor code.
For3.5normal
m walk, we asked subjects to walk as they naturally do without hurrying.
For slow walk, we asked subjects to walk more slowly than for normal walking, after ex-
plaining what normal walking was. For static situation, we asked subjects to remain in a
standing position, without moving any part of their body, with their arms at their sides.
For static situation carrying a 5 kg load, we asked subjects to hold the 5 kg load in a stand-
ing
Figureposition,
Figure 3. The
3. with their
The subject
subject goeselbows
goes down and
down bent
and upat
up theright
the plateangles
plate for each
for eachsotrial
as to
trial position
following
following the
the
the load
black
black horizontally,
arrow
arrow trajectory
trajectory
for normaltheir
keeping and slow
arms walking.
at their sides. For carrying a 5 kg load from bottom to top and vice
for normal and slow walking.
versa, we asked the subject, starting from the position defined in the static situation, to
In
theFigure
take For the 4, the subject
loadwalking
located on thestands
situations, the still
chair, both
subjects
lift it, and without
were
putnot and with
instructed
it down carrying
to adjust
on table a their
in front5 kgofload.
gait
him,onthen
the
force plates (which were integrated into a treadplate) and they walked
repeat same sequence in the opposite order, without hurrying, and repeat the whole se- freely and continu-
ously
quence onandthem; going itdown
continue for asand
longupasthehe treadplate for each
felt no difficulty trial,weariness.
and/or following aFor trajectory
carryingasa
indicated by the black arrow in Figure 3. The force plate and the treadplate were at the same

The 5 kg load
Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 5 of 20

5 kg load from left to right and vice versa, we asked the subject, starting from the position
defined in the static situation, to take the load from the end of the table on the right, lift it,
move it to the other end of the table on the left and put it down, without moving the feet,
level without any offset and these alignments were regularly checked by a technician. The
then repeat
length the same
of the force platesequence in the
allowed two opposite
steps direction,
to be taken before without
reachinghurrying, and repeat
the force plate. Each the
whole sequence and continue it for as long as he felt no difficulty and/or weariness.
trial included the steps performed on the force plates. Therefore, our dataset exclusively
contained the steps performed on the force plates. A single step is defined from the instant
of initial contact at the heel (On-Heel) to the moment of foot lift-off (Toe-Off).
For carrying load situations, we used a 5 kg load that was acceptable for both male
and female subjects and lower than the national standard and that of the French labor code.
For normal walk, we asked subjects to walk as they naturally do without hurrying.
For2 slow
AMTI walk, we asked subjects to walk more slowly than for normal walking, after
force plates
explaining what normal walking was. For static situation, we asked subjects to remain
in a standing position, without moving any part of their body, with their arms at their
sides. For static situation carrying a 5 kg load, we asked subjects to hold the 5 kg load
in a standing position, with their elbows bent at right angles so as to position the load
horizontally, keeping their arms at their sides. For carrying a 5 kg load from bottom to
top and vice versa, we asked the subject, starting from the position defined in the static
situation, to take the load located on the chair, lift it, and put it down on table in front of
him, then 3.5 repeat
m same sequence in the opposite order, without hurrying, and repeat the
whole sequence and continue it for as long as he felt no difficulty and/or weariness. For
carrying a 5 kg load from left to right and vice versa, we asked the subject, starting from
the position defined in the static situation, to take the load from the end of the table on
the right, lift it, move it to the other end of the table on the left and put it down, without
moving
Figure 3. the feet,
The then goes
subject repeat the same
down and upsequence
the plateinfor
the opposite
each direction,
trial following thewithout hurrying,
black arrow trajectory
and repeat and
for normal the whole sequence and continue it for as long as he felt no difficulty and/or
slow walking.
weariness.
InInFigure
Figure4,4,the subject
the stands
subject stillstill
stands both without
both withoutandand
withwith
carrying a 5 kg
carrying a 5load.
kg load.

The 5 kg load

Figure4.4.Static
Figure Staticsituation
situation (left
(left image),
image), static
static situation
situation withwith a 5load
a 5 kg kg load (right
(right image).
image).

InInFigure
Figure5,5,the
theparticipant
participantcarries a 5akg
carries load
5 kg from
load the the
from bottom (chair:
bottom initial
(chair: position)
initial position)
to the top (table) and vice versa.
to the top (table) and vice versa.
Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 2

Sensors2024,
Sensors 2024,24,
24,5318
x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 6of
of 21
20

Figure
Figure
Figure 5.5.5.
The
TheThe participant
participant starts
participant
starts bybycarrying
starts carrying
a 5a kg
by carrying5 kga load
load5 kg from
from thethe
load bottom
from
bottomthe (chair)
bottom
(chair) (left
(left image)
(chair)
image) to image)
(left
to the the
top to th
top (table)
top (table)
(table) (right
(right (right image)
image)image) and vice
and viceand versa.
vice versa.
versa.

In Figure
In Figure 6,
6, the
the participant
participant carries a 5 kg load from the far left of the table (initial
In Figure 6, the participant carries a 5 kg load from the far lefttable (initial
of the table (initia
position)to
position) tothe
thefar
farright
right of
of the
the table
table and
and vice
vice versa.
versa.
position) to the far right of the table and vice versa.

Figure 6. The participant starts by carrying a 5 kg load from the far left of the table (left image) to
the far right of the table (right image) and vice versa.

Figure
2.2.
Figure 6. 6.
Data The participant
Preprocessing
The participant startsstarts by carrying
by carrying a 5 kg
a 5 kg load load
from the from
far leftthe far table
of the left of theimage)
(left table to
(left
the image) t
the far right of the table (right image) and vice versa.
• right
far of theinterpolation
Linear table (right image) and vice
of missing versa.
data of the insole
Some values were missing from the Moticon insole data. We filled these gaps using
2.2.Data
2.2. DataPreprocessing
Preprocessing
a linear interpolation.
••• Linear
Linear interpolation
interpolation
Time-shift
of missing
of missing
synchronization data data
between of
thethe
ofinsole
theand
insole
insole
force plate data
Some
Some
In values
thevalues
absence ofwere
were missing
amissing
direct fromfrom
method the the Moticon
forMoticon
digitally insole insole
data. Wedata.
or analogically filledWe filled
these
synchronizinggapsthese
using
the gaps
dataa usin
linear
from interpolation.
a linear
the interpolation.
force plate with the insole data, we adopted a time-shift synchronization ap-
•• Time-shift
proach for bothsynchronization
Time-shift the right and leftbetween
synchronization foot. Wethe
betweenutilized
insole the
andunique
the insoleforce Fz component
andplate
forcedata provided by
plate data
the Moticon insole (where Fz is equivalent to the sum of PP multiplied by the sensor ar-
InInthe
theabsence
absence of aofdirect method
a direct for digitally
method or analogically
for digitally synchronizing
or analogically the data the dat
synchronizing
eas). Note that the length of the insole data is shorter than that of the force plate data. We
from the
fromthe theforce plate with the insole data, we adopted a time-shift synchronization approach
took Fz force
curve plate
from the with theand
insole insole data,
shifted we adopted
it relative to the Fzacurve
time-shift
from thesynchronization
force plate ap
for both the
proach for right
both and right
the left foot.
and We
leftutilized
foot. We theutilized
unique the
Fz component
unique Fz provided by provided
component the b
over a given time range. Then, for each time shift, we calculated the Root Mean Square
Moticon insole (where Fz is equivalent to the sum of PP multiplied by the sensor areas).
the Moticon
Error (RMSE) valueinsoleand
(where Fz is equivalent
the correlation to (R)
coefficient theas
sumtwoof PP multiplied
functions by the
of the time shift.sensor ar
Note that the length of the insole data is shorter than that of the force plate data. We took
eas). Note that the length of the insole data is shorter than that of the force plate data. W
took the Fz curve from the insole and shifted it relative to the Fz curve from the force plat
over a given time range. Then, for each time shift, we calculated the Root Mean Squar
Error (RMSE) value and the correlation coefficient (R) as two functions of the time shif
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 7 of 20

Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

the Fz curve from the insole and shifted it relative to the Fz curve from the force plate
over a given time range. Then, for each time shift, we calculated the Root Mean Square
Error (RMSE) value and the correlation coefficient (R) as two functions of the time shift.
The The
timetime
shiftshift
valuevalue
thatthat yielded
yielded thethe lowest
lowest RMSE
RMSE corresponds
corresponds totothe
theoptimal
optimalmoment
moment for
synchronizing the force plate
for synchronizing plate data
data with
withthe
theinsole
insoledata.
data.A A
high
high R value ensured
R value a strong
ensured a
correlation
strong between
correlation betweenthethe
twotwo curves, thereby
curves, affirming
thereby thethe
affirming chosen
chosen time shift
time value.
shift Figure
value.
7 illustrates
Figure anan
7 illustrates example
example ofofsynchronization
synchronizationforforananexcerpt
excerptof
of walking
walking activity with the
Moticoninsole
the Moticon insolefor
forthe
theright
rightfoot.
foot.

Note that the size of the insole

data is 2023 points and that of the
force plate is 2035 points. We shift
the Fz curve of the insole relative
to that of the force plate over a
range of 12 points.

Synchronize the insole data with the force

plate data at the optimal value of the time
shift among the 12 points.

Data to be deleted

Figure 7. An example of synchronization for an excerpt of walking activity with the Moticon insole
Figure 7. An example of synchronization for an excerpt of walking activity with the Moticon insole
for the
forright foot. foot.
the right

• Deletion of the data outside the force plate for the two walking activities
• Deletion of the data outside the force plate for the two walking activities
For the
Fortwo
the walking activities,
two walking the subject
activities, performed
the subject trials on
performed theon
trials force
theplate
force(Figure 3).
plate (Figure
We had samples of steps of the insole taken outside the force plate. We eliminated these
3). We had samples of steps of the insole taken outside the force plate. We eliminated these
samples and and
samples considered onlyonly
considered thosethose
performed on the
performed onforce plateplate
the force (Figure 7). 7).
(Figure
2.3. Determination of the Optimal Architecture and Parameters of SML and DL Methods for GRF
2.3. Determination
Component Estimation of the Optimal Architecture and Parameters of SML and DL Methods for
GRF Component Estimation
To determine the optimal architecture and parameters of SML and DL methods for
To determine
GRF component the optimal
estimation, architecture
we conducted anddifferent
tests with parameters of SML and
parameters and architectures
DL methods for
GRF component
for ANN, LSTM, CNN, estimation, wefor
RF, and SVR conducted
the right tests
foot. with different
For more parameters
details on the DLand architec-
methods
tures for
for ANN, ANN,
LSTM, andLSTM,
CNN,CNN,
pleaseRF, and
refer to SVR for the right
[23,24,30,31], foot. For more details on the DL
respectively.
methods for ANN, LSTM, and CNN, please refer to [23,24,30,31], respectively.
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
(1) initialization: 1 input layer with 16 neurons, 2 hidden layers of (256, 128) neurons,
(1) initialization: 1 input layer with 16 neurons, 2 hidden layers of (256, 128) neurons,
activation function: sigmoid, normalization method for input (PP) and output (GRF
activation function: sigmoid, normalization method for input (PP) and output (GRF
components) data: mean, optimizer: Adamax, batch size: 32, learning rate: 0.01;
components) data: mean, optimizer: Adamax, batch size: 32, learning rate: 0.01;
(2) modify the optimizer: Adagrad, AdamW, Adadelta, Adam, Adamax, NAdam,
RMSprop, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) with different momentum values: 0,
0.5, and 0.9;
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 8 of 20

(2) modify the optimizer: Adagrad, AdamW, Adadelta, Adam, Adamax, NAdam, RM-
Sprop, Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) with different momentum values: 0, 0.5,
and 0.9;
(3) modify the learning rate: 0.04, 0.08, 0.01, 0.005, and 0.008;
(4) modify the batch size: 1, 4, 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256;
(5) modify the number of hidden layers (and their neurons): 1 layer: (150); 2 layers: (50,
50), (125, 125), (256, 128), and (128, 256); 3 layers: (256, 256, 128); 4 layers: (100, 100,
100, 100);
(6) modify the activation function: tanh, leaky relu, softSign, relu, sigmoïde, wavelet,
softPlus, and elu;
(7) modify the normalization method: Min-Max in the range [0, 1] and [ − 1, 1], Mean,
Z-Score, Robust Scaler, Vector Standardization, Maximum Linear Standardization,
Decimal Scaling, Median, Tanh, Body Weight (BW), and Length Insole. These
12 normalization methods are explained in this study [24].
• Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)
(1) initialization: 1 input layer with 16 neurons, 1 LSTM layer with 128 cells, an ANN
with 2 hidden layers of (128, 50) neurons, an input sequence size equal to 20 (the
LSTM uses the PP data at the current time t as well as previous samples at times
t − 19, . . ., t − 1 to estimate GRF components at the time t);
(2) modify the number of LSTM layers (and their cells): 1 LSTM layer (128); 2 LSTM
layers: (400, 200), (400, 100), and (800, 400);
(3) modify the number of hidden layers of ANN (and their neurons): 1 layer (400);
2 layers (256, 128); 3 layers: (400, 100, 50) and (400, 300, 150);
(4) test BLSTM instead of LSTM with the best architecture and parameters obtained from
these 3 steps;
(5) modify the number of BLSTM layers (and their cell): 1 layer (400); 2 layers: (400, 200)
and (600, 200);
(6) modify the size of the input sequence: 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100.
• Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)
(1) initialization: 1 input layer with 16 neurons, 3 one-dimensional convolutional layers
(Conv1D): Conv1D (number of filters = 14, kernel size = 4), Conv1D (number of
filters = 10, kernel size = 4), Conv1D (number of filters = 8, kernel size = 4), 3 pooling
layers: AvgPool1d (kernel size = 2), an ANN with 1 hidden layer of (32) neurons;
(2) test MaxPool1d instead of AvgPool1d;
(3) modify the kernel size of the convolutional layers (Conv1D): 2, 3, 4, and 5;
(4) modify the number of convolutional layers: 1, 2, and 3;
(5) modify the number of filters of Conv1D: 4, 8, 14, and 20;
(6) modify the number of hidden layers of ANN (and their neurons): 1 layer (96); 2 layers
(96, 50); 3 layers: (96, 60, 25) and (96, 100, 50).
For these three DL methods, to prevent overfitting, the learning rate was divided by a
factor of 10 when the loss function on the validation set failed to decrease for 10 consecutive
epochs, while the training loss decreased. If the validation loss kept decreasing for
45 consecutive epochs or reached 1000 epochs, the training stops.
To implement ANN, LSTM, and CNN models, we used Pytorch (v3.10.7) library and
NVIDIA RTX A4500 GPU.
• Support Vector Regression (SVR)
The purpose of this method is to determine the hyperplane function (which may be
nonlinear) that maximizes the number of measured data within the decision boundary [24].
We conducted tests with both linear and Radial Basis Function (RBF) kernels, varying the
parameters. In particular, we conducted tests for both the linear and RBF kernels, varying
ξ = 15 and 20, along with different values of C, including 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 50, 100, 300 600,
and 900. Furthermore, we explored a supplementary parameter γ specific for RBF kernel,
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 9 of 20

testing values of 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 50, 100, 300, 600, and 900. The parameters ξ, C, and γ are
explained in [24].
• Least Squares (LS)
The Least Squares (LS) method is a regression technique that allows for finding linear
equations relating the GRF components to the PP data for both feet. This method revolves
around minimizing the quadratic criterion between the measured and estimated output
quantities from the selected linear mathematical model [24].
• Random Forest (RF)
Random Forest (RF) is used to solve classification and regression problems. The RF
method consists of multiple decision trees [32]. We tested the RF method composed of T
trees, where T varies according to the following values: T = [10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000,
10,000].
RF, LS, and SVR methods were implemented using Python (v3.10.7) and an Intel Xeon
Gold 5218R @ 2.10GHz CPU.
The optimal parameters and architectures for the ANN, CNN, BLSTM, SVR, and RF
obtained from the simulations, which exhibited the highest accuracy in estimating GRF
components for the right foot, are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Optimal parameters and architectures of the SML and DL methods. Optimal parameters
(batch size, optimizer, learning rate etc.) of ANN are applied for CNN and BLSTM.

ANN CNN BLSTM SVR RF

2 hidden layers of (256, 128) 1 convolution layer: Conv1D
2 BLSTM layers with (400,
neurons, activation function: (number of filters = 8, kernel
200) cells, an ANN with RBF kernel model
leaky relu, normalization size = 4), 1 MaxPool1d layer
3 hidden layers of (400, 300, with ξ = 20, C = 100, T = 1000
method: BW, batch size: 4, (kernel size = 2), an ANN
150) neurons, an input and γ = 0.1
optimizer: Adamax, learning with 3 hidden layers of (96,
sequence size equal to 20
rate: 0.01 60, 25) neurons

The CNN and BLSTM methods used the optimal parameters (batch size, optimizer,
learning rate etc.) of ANN.
For the sake of simplification, when modeling SML and DL methods for the left foot,
we utilized the same optimal parameters and architectures that were used for estimating
GRF components for the right foot.

2.4. SML and DL Modeling

To evaluate the performance of the six SML and DL models for estimating GRF
components for each activity, metrics were calculated between the estimated (by insole
PP data) and measured (by force plate) GRF components of the test datasets of both feet.
This evaluation employed both intrasubject (intras) and intersubject (inters) strategies. The
metrics include the correlation coefficient (R) and RMSE.
To develop the SML and DL models for estimating GRF components, we used the
datasets of 8 subjects for both feet. For the training set, 70% of the datasets were used. For
the validation set, 10% of the datasets were used exclusively of the ANN, BLSTM, and CNN
models. The models were evaluated using the intras strategy, where the model was tested
on the test datasets of the 8 subjects, which accounted for 20% of the datasets. Furthermore,
we evaluated the generalization capacity of our models using the inters strategy, where all
the remaining dataset from the 9th subject was utilized for evaluation purposes. Table 2
presents the number of samples (steps or trials) of the whole dataset for the 9 subjects.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 10 of 20

Table 2. The number of samples (steps or trials) of the whole dataset for the 9 subjects.

Right Foot Left Foot

Activity
Total Dataset: 160,183 Total Dataset: 164,526
Normal walk 11,100 (101) 12,719 (111)
Slow walk 15,008 (112) 17,732 (128)
Static situation 27,032 27,032
Static situation with CL 24,197 24,197
Bottom-top with CL 41,777 (86) 41,777 (86)
Left-right with CL 41,069 (72) 41,069 (72)

For the SML and DL methods, both intras and inters strategies involved rotating
the training and test datasets to ensure robust results, employing a leave-one-subject-out
cross-validation approach. This means that we constructed 9 models for each SML and
DL method.

2.5. Metrics
We employed Root Mean Square Loss (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (R) [24] to
assess the accuracy of the model for estimating GRF components:
s
( y i − y i )2
RMSE = ∑in=1 , [N] (1)
n

and
∑in=1 (yi − µ(Y ))(yi − µ(Y ))
R= q . (2)
∑in=1 (yi − µ(Y ))2 ∑in=1 (yi − µ(Y ))2
where n is the length of data of GRF components, yi is the measured GRF component
(Fx, Fyor Fzby the force plate at time i, ŷi is the estimated GRF component by the insole,
Y = y1 , . . . , yn is the measured GRF components, Y = ŷ1 , . . . , ŷn is the estimated GRF
component, µ(Y ) is the mean of estimated GRF components, and µ(Y ) is the mean of
measured GRF components.

3. Results
The performance of the nine models of ANN, BLSTM, CNN, SVR, LS, and RF is
assessed using RMSE and R metrics. Figures 8 and 9 display the mean of these metrics for
the test dataset for each GRF component estimation and each activity, for both feet and
both strategies, for each DL and SML method. The optimal estimation results are achieved
using the method, whether DL or SML, that produces the most accurate results with the
lowest mean RMSE value and ensures a higher mean R value.
Rather than present voluminous tables listing the metrics for all activities for each GRF
component for both feet according to strategy, we opted for a graphical representation to
facilitate reading and analysis. For more details, Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A present
the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the RMSE and R metrics.
Figure 10 presents the curves of Fz estimated for both feet and measured using the RF
method for samples from the test dataset for the intras strategy for the static situation with
CL and the static situation. It also displays the curves of the summation of Fz estimated
and measured for both feet and the curves of the subject’s weight for the static situation or
the subject’s weight plus an additional 5 kg for the static situation with CL.
Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21

Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 “static situation”, CNN for “bottom-top with CL”, and RF was the most effective method
11 of 20
for “static situation with CL”.

The curves
Figure 8. The
Figure curves ofof mean
mean RMSE
RMSE between
between thethe estimated
estimated (by
(by insole
insole PP
PP data)
data) and
and measured
measured (by(by
force plate)
plate) GRF
GRF components
components of of the
the right
right foot
foot for
for each
each DL
DL and
and SML
SML method
method for
for the
the test
test dataset,
dataset,
covering both
both strategies
strategiesand
andeach
eachactivity.
activity. The
The black
black curve
curve represents
represents the the “normal
“normal walk”,
walk”, the ma-
the magenta
genta
curve curve represents
represents the “slow
the “slow walk”,walk”,
the redthe red curve
curve represents
represents the “static
the “static situation”,
situation”, the bluethecurve
blue
curve represents the “static situation with CL”, the green curve represents “bottom-top
represents the “static situation with CL”, the green curve represents “bottom-top with CL”, and the with CL”,
and the cyan curve represents “left-right with CL”. The mean R values are indicated on the RMSE
cyan curve represents “left-right with CL”. The mean R values are indicated on the RMSE values for
values for each DL and SML method.
each DL and SML method.
Sensors 2024,
Sensors 2024, 24,
24, 5318
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12
12of 21
of 20

Figure 9.9. The

Thecurves
curvesofofmean
meanRMSE
RMSE between
between thethe estimated
estimated (by(by insole
insole PP data)
PP data) and measured
and measured (by
(by force
force plate)
plate) GRF components
GRF components of theofleft
thefoot
leftfor
footeach
for each
DL andDLSML
and SML method
method fortest
for the thedataset,
test dataset, cov-
covering
eringstrategies
both both strategies andactivity.
and each each activity. The curve
The black black curve represents
represents the “normal
the “normal walk”,walk”, the magenta
the magenta curve
represents the “slow walk”, the red curve represents the “static situation”, the blue curveblue
curve represents the “slow walk”, the red curve represents the “static situation”, the curve
represents
represents the “static situation with CL”, the green curve represents “bottom-top with CL”, and the
the “static situation with CL”, the green curve represents “bottom-top with CL”, and the cyan curve
cyan curve represents “Left-right with CL”. The mean R values are indicated on the RMSE values
represents “Left-right with CL”. The mean R values are indicated on the RMSE values for each DL
for each DL and SML method.
and SML method.
For the inters strategy, RF proved to be the most effective method for all the activities
across the three GRF component estimations.
Sensors 2024, 24,
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
13 of 20

Figure 10. The

The curves
curvesof ofFz
Fzestimated
estimatedfor forboth
bothfeet
feet(the
(the solid
solid blue
blue andand green
green lines
lines for for
thethe right
right andand
left
left foot, respectively) and measured (the solid red and black lines for the right and left
foot, respectively) and measured (the solid red and black lines for the right and left foot, respectively) foot, respec-
tively)
using theusing
RFthe RF method
method for samples
for samples from thefrom thedataset
test test dataset forintras
for the the intras strategy.
strategy. The The curves
curves of
of the
the summation of Fz for both feet estimated are presented by the dashed green line and those meas-
summation of Fz for both feet estimated are presented by the dashed green line and those measured
ured are presented by the dashed red line. The curves of the subject’s weight for the static situation
are presented by the dashed red line. The curves of the subject’s weight for the static situation or the
or the subject’s weight plus an additional 5 kg for the static situation with CL are presented in the
subject’sblack
dashed weight
line.plus
Thean additional
right 5 kg forto
image pertains the
thestatic
staticsituation
situationwith
withCLCLare
andpresented in thepertains
the left image dashed
black line. The right image pertains to the static situation with CL and
to the static situation. In both images, g is the gravity, which is equal to 10 m/s². the left image pertains to the
static situation. In both images, g is the gravity, which is equal to 10 m/s².
For the left foot, upon analyzing Figure 9, we found that for the intras strategy and
We conducted an analysis to identify the most effective estimation method (SML and
for Fz estimation, ANN was the most effective method for “normal walk”, “static situation
DL) for each activity among the six methods for estimating each GRF component for both
with CL”, “bottom-top with CL”, and “left-right with CL”. RF was shown to be the most
feet using the two strategies.
effective method for “static situation” and SVR for “slow walk”. For Fy estimation, ANN
For the right foot, upon analyzing Figure 8, we found that for the intras strategy
was proven to be the most effective method for “normal walk” and “left-right with CL”,
and for Fz estimation, ANN was the most effective method for the “static situation with
SVR for “slow walk”, BLSTM for “static situation”, LS for “bottom-top with CL”, and RF
CL”, “bottom-top with CL”, and “left-right with CL” activities. SVR proved the most
for “static situation with CL”. Regarding Fx estimation, ANN was the most effective
effective method for “normal walk”, CNN for “slow walk”, and RF for “static situation”.
method for “bottom-top with CL” and “left-right with CL”, BLSTM for “static situation
Regarding Fy estimation, RF was the most effective method for “normal walk”, “slow
with CL”, SVR for “normal walk”, and RF for “static situation” and “slow walk”.
walk”, “static situation”, and “bottom-top with CL”, while BLSTM proved to be optimal
For the
for “static inters strategy,
situation with CL” RFand
emerged
ANN for as the most effective
“left-right with CL”. method
For Fx forestimation,
all the activities
ANN
across
was thethe three
most GRF components.
effective method for For Fx estimation,
“normal walk” andSVR also proved
“left-right with to be BLSTM
CL”, the second for
most effective
“slow walk” and method
“staticfor the “left-right
situation”, CNNwith CL” activity.with CL”, and RF was the most
for “bottom-top
Aftermethod
effective analyzing forFigures 8 and 9, RF
“static situation wasCL”.
with shown to be the most accurate estimation for the
staticFor
situation, with mean RMSE values
the inters strategy, RF proved to be the most ranging fromeffective
1.35 N tomethod
12.59 Nfor forallthe
thethree GRF
activities
components for both feet and strategies
across the three GRF component estimations. (the minimum value of 1.35 is the mean RMSE for Fy
in theFor
inters
the strategy
left foot,for the analyzing
upon right foot, Figure
the maximum
9, we foundvaluethatof 12.59 is the
for the mean
intras RMSEand
strategy for for
Fz
in the inters strategy for the left foot). In contrast, LS gave the
Fz estimation, ANN was the most effective method for “normal walk”, “static situationleast accurate results for normal
walking,
with CL”,with mean RMSE
“bottom-top with values
CL”, ranging from 17.22
and “left-right withNCL”. to 86.04 N (the
RF was minimum
shown to be the value
mostof
17.22 is the mean RMSE for Fx in the inters strategy for the left
effective method for “static situation” and SVR for “slow walk”. For Fy estimation, ANN foot, the maximum value of
86.04 is the mean
was proven to beRMSE
the mostfor Fz in the inters
effective method strategy for the left
for “normal foot).and “left-right with CL”,
walk”
SVR In forFigure
“slow10, we used
walk”, BLSTM the RFfor method to present Fz
“static situation”, LS curves for both feet
for “bottom-top with in CL”,
the static
and
situation with situation
RF for “static and without withCL because
CL”. it shows
Regarding Fx the best results.
estimation, ANN The wasobjective
the most of effective
this Fig-
ure is to for
method provide an example
“bottom-top withdemonstrating
CL” and “left-right that the subject’s
with weight for
CL”, BLSTM in the “static
“static situa-
situation
tion” or the subject’s weight plus an additional 5 kg in
with CL”, SVR for “normal walk”, and RF for “static situation” and “slow walk”. the “static situation with CL” is
equalForto the
the summation
inters strategy, of Fz RFfor both feet.
emerged as the most effective method for all the activities
acrossIn the
the case
threeofGRFthe “static situationFor
components. withFx CL”, there is a SVR
estimation, smallalso
difference
proved between
to be the thesecond
curves
of theeffective
most summation of Fz for
method measured for bothwith
the “left-right feet CL”
and the subject’s weight plus an additional 5
activity.
kg, varying from 5 to 14
After analyzing N. This8 variation
Figures and 9, RFimplies
was shown that external
to be the forces
mostare added to
accurate the Fz force.
estimation for
the static
These situation,
external forceswith mean
are due to RMSE values ranging
its movements, which canfrom 1.35 Nposture
include to 12.59adjustments
N for the threeand
GRF components
rocking movements fortoboth feet and
maintain strategies
balance (the minimum
(the subject carrying the valueloadofis1.35
notistotally
the mean RMSE
immobile).
for Fy in the inters strategy for the right foot, the maximum value of 12.59 is the mean
RMSE
4. for Fz in the inters strategy for the left foot). In contrast, LS gave the least accurate
Discussion
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 14 of 20

results for normal walking, with mean RMSE values ranging from 17.22 N to 86.04 N (the
minimum value of 17.22 is the mean RMSE for Fx in the inters strategy for the left foot, the
maximum value of 86.04 is the mean RMSE for Fz in the inters strategy for the left foot).
In Figure 10, we used the RF method to present Fz curves for both feet in the static
situation with and without CL because it shows the best results. The objective of this Figure
is to provide an example demonstrating that the subject’s weight in the “static situation” or
the subject’s weight plus an additional 5 kg in the “static situation with CL” is equal to the
summation of Fz for both feet.
In the case of the “static situation with CL”, there is a small difference between the
curves of the summation of Fz measured for both feet and the subject’s weight plus an
additional 5 kg, varying from 5 to 14 N. This variation implies that external forces are
added to the Fz force. These external forces are due to its movements, which can include
posture adjustments and rocking movements to maintain balance (the subject carrying the
load is not totally immobile).

4. Discussion
Based on the optimal mean R values from Figures 8 and 9, our study indicated
that, across both strategies, both feet, and six activities, the vertical component (Fz) of
GRF (R_Fz = 0.878–0.994) could be estimated more accurately compared to the anterior–
posterior component (Fy) (R_Fy = 0.459–0.876) and the medial–lateral component (Fx)
(R_Fx = 0.538–0.950). This higher range of correlation values for estimating the Fz com-
ponent could be attributed to DL- and SML-constructed models that better described the
relation between the Fz component and the pressure sensors. This can be explained by
the linear physical relationship between the Fz component and the pressure sensors (Fz
is equal to the sum of the pressure sensors multiplied by the sensor area), which makes
modeling much simpler than for other components.
In the literature, the authors in [18] used ANN to estimate Fy and found R_Fy = 0.621–0.963.
The authors in [19] used LRG to estimate GRF components and found R_Fx = 0.719, R_Fy = 0.928,
and R_Fz = 0.989, 0.992. The authors in [20] used ANN, LRG, and LLNF to estimate GRF
components and found R_Fx = 0.764–0.937, R_Fy = 0.906–0.984, and R_Fz = 0.952–0.992. The
authors in [7] used ANN, WNN, LRG, and LLNF to estimate GRF components and found
R_Fx = 0.730–0.930, R_Fy = 0.878–0.979, and R_Fz = 0.921–0.993. The authors in [22] used ANN
and WNN to estimate GRF components and found R_Fx = 0.730–0.900, R_Fy = 0.650–0.940, and
R_Fz= 0.650–0.980. The authors in [23] used BLSTM and LRG to estimate Fy and Fz components
and found R_Fy = 0.800–0.960 and R_Fz = 0.900–0.980. The authors in [24] used ANN, SVR,
and LS to estimate GRF components and found R_Fx = 0.634–0.888, R_Fy = 0.606–0.675, and
R_Fz = 0.952–0.979. This confirms the conclusion that the R values of the Fz component are
higher than those of the Fy and Fx components, irrespective of the estimation method and the
technology of the insole and the force plate.
We concluded that for estimating GRF components for both feet and both strategies,
RF was the most effective method, followed by ANN, SVR, BLSTM, CNN, and finally, LS, in
decreasing order of effectiveness (Figures 8 and 9). These effectiveness rankings were based
on 46, 14, 5, 5, 2, and 1 optimal configurations among the 72 total configurations. These
configurations included three components, six activities, two feet, and two strategies. The
RF method showed superior results compared to DL methods, particularly for the inters
strategy for both feet. Contrary to the suggestions from previous research [7,18–24], our
findings indicated that DL methods may not always be the optimal method for estimating
GRF components compared to SML methods. Additionally, BLSTM (a very complex
method to implement) and SVR (a simpler method) gave similar performances.
SML methods not only provide good results compared to DL methods but also offer
other benefits. They frequently require less time for training to find the optimal model
(see Section 2.3) and are more robust to variations in hyperparameters due to their fewer
number. Adjusting hyperparameters in DL methods can be a challenge and a significant
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 15 of 20

computational burden. In our study, training DL methods required the use of a GPU, while
for SML methods, a CPU sufficed.
Figures 8 and 9 suggested that the accuracy of each activity depends on the SML
and DL methods (RF, SVR, LS, ANN, BLSTM, and CNN), as well as the strategy (intras
or inters) used to estimate GRF components for both feet. Generally, for estimating GRF
components across all six activities, both strategies and both feet, we recommended using
the RF method, which exhibited mean RMSE values ranging from 1 to 1.4 times greater
than the optimal results (the maximum value of 1.4 is the ratio between the mean RMSE
of RF (26.78 N) and that of ANN (19.14 N) for “bottom-top with CL” for Fz in the intras
strategy for the right foot). Appendix B presents the curves of the three GRF components
for a “slow walk” step and a trial of “bottom-top with CL” and “left-right with CL” of the
test dataset for the right foot using the RF method for the intras strategy.
In most cases, whatever the DL and SML method, whatever the foot, and whatever
the strategy, the “static situation with CL” and “static situation” yielded the best results
compared to “bottom-top with CL” and “left-right with CL”, which in turn yielded better
results than “normal walk” and “slow walk”. In other words, the two static situations
exhibited higher accuracy than the dynamic situations (MMH and walking), which is
consistent because estimating GRF components in static cases is much easier (the variations
of PP and measured GRF components by the force plate are small) than in dynamic cases.
Note that the accuracy of GRF components may highly depend on the strategy em-
ployed. For example, ANN yielded good estimation results for intras strategy across all
three components and the six activities for both feet, with mean RMSE values ranging
from 1 to 1.26 times greater than the optimal results (the maximum value of 1.26 is the
ratio of the mean RMSE of ANN (4 N) and that of BLSTM (3.18 N) for the “static situation
with CL” for Fy in the intras strategy for the right foot). Conversely, the ANN method
produced the worst results for the inters strategy, with mean RMSE values ranging from
1.42 to 12.02 times greater than the optimal results (the minimum value of 1.42 is the ratio
of the mean RMSE of ANN (10.85 N) and that of RF (7.64 N) for “bottom-top with CL” for
the right foot for Fx in the inters strategy for the left foot, the maximum value of 12.02 is the
ratio of the mean RMSE of ANN (16.23 N) and that of RF (1.35 N) for “static situation” for Fy
in the inters strategy for the right foot). This showed a lack of robustness and generalization
capacities of ANN modeling. This problem could be partially solved by adding additional
subjects and increasing the number of trials per subject [20].

5. Conclusions
We compared the accuracy of three DL and three SML methods for estimating GRF
components for both feet for six activities. Many studies [7,18,20–24] recommend using DL
methods for GRF component estimation without testing SML methods. Our study showed
that DL methods are not always the best choice for GRF component estimation. The RF
method yielded better results than the three DL methods. Additionally, the RF method
require less hyperparameter tuning compared to DL models. It’s quicker and easier to find
the best RF model, as there are not several combinations of hyperparameters to test. Also,
implementing an RF model is simpler than the DL method.
However, our study is restricted to normal foot morphology, emphasizing the need for
further research concerning other foot characteristics. In other words, for other conditions,
it is essential to reassess the performance of the three DL and three SML methods in
estimating GRF components.
In future work, our goal is to identify the important pressure sensors from the whole
sensors of the insole, employing selection methods such as PCA. This selection process aims
to decrease the number of sensors while preserving a high level of accuracy in estimating
the GRF components.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 16 of 20

Author Contributions: Software, A.K.; analyzing the results, P.R., O.B. and A.K.; Writing, P.R., O.B.
and A.K.; Reviewing, P.R. and O.B.; supervision; P.R. and O.B. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was financially was partly supported by French “Association Nationale Recherche
Technologie” (ANRT) and Emka-Electronique Company under contract N◦ 2021/0445.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This research was in accordance with the ethical guidelines
provided by the French ethical research committee (reference Jardé Law, Order 2016/800).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data unavailable for public sharing due to confidentiality.
Acknowledgments: Invaluable assistance and financial support towards our project are acknowl-
edged, and special gratitude is extended to Emka-Electronique Company.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Amal Kammoun was employed by the company Emka-Electronique
Company. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 17 of 20

Appendix A

Table A1. Mean ± SD of RMSE (R) between the estimated (by insole PP data) and measured (by force plate) GRF components of the right foot are calculated for the
DL/SML methods for the test dataset for the 6 activities. The most accurate estimation results based on RMSE and R values are highlighted in bold for each activity,
for both intras and inters strategies.

Strategy Component DL/SML Method Normal Walk Slow Walk Static Situation Static Situation with CL Bottom-Top with CL Left-Right with CL
ANN 61.66 (0.976) ± 1.56 (0.001) 53.45 (0.985) ± 2.49 (0.001) 13.36 (0.969) ± 0.91 (0.008) 10.90 (0.991) ± 0.46 (0.002) 19.14 (0.976) ± 0.47 (0.004) 25.85 (0.994) ± 0.67 (0.001)
BLSTM 63.27 (0.975) ± 2.10 (0.001) 54.52 (0.984) ± 2.84 (0.002) 11.64 (0.976) ± 1.10 (0.006) 12.26 (0.989) ± 0.61 (0.002) 21.39 (0.970) ± 0.97 (0.004) 29.04 (0.992) ± 1.14 (0.000)
CNN 63.38 (0.975) ± 2.27 (0.002) 52.58 (0.985) ± 2.61 (0.001) 13.65 (0.968) ± 1.08 (0.008) 11.47 (0.990) ± 0.60 (0.001) 19.38 (0.975) ± 0.68 (0.004) 27.99 (0.993) ± 0.91 (0.000)
Fz[N]
SVR 60.88 (0.977) ± 1.26 (0.001) 65.57 (0.978) ± 2.88 (0.002) 14.33 (0.964) ± 0.62 (0.008) 11.07 (0.991) ± 0.24 (0.002) 19.47 (0.975) ± 0.58 (0.003) 26.95 (0.993) ± 0.92 (0.000)
LS 79.84 (0.961) ± 2.80 (0.002) 81.67 (0.963) ± 4.31 (0.003) 26.79 (0.877) ± 2.79 (0.031) 20.70 (0.968) ± 1.45 (0.007) 28.89 (0.947) ± 1.32 (0.009) 49.53 (0.977) ± 2.68 (0.001)
RF 69.69 (0.971) ± 3.10 (0.002) 60.15 (0.982) ± 3.63 (0.002) 11.17 (0.979) ± 1.13 (0.004) 12.45 (0.988) ± 1.10 (0.003) 26.78 (0.953) ± 1.71 (0.006) 33.08 (0.990) ± 1.21 (0.001)
ANN 33.40 (0.706) ± 1.68 (0.051) 30.04 (0.605) ± 1.49 (0.029) 2.66 (0.761) ± 0.21 (0.015) 4.00 (0.694) ± 0.53 (0.045) 8.15 (0.462) ± 0.45 (0.043) 11.27 (0.635) ± 0.47 (0.031)
BLSTM 35.94 (0.652) ± 2.19 (0.049) 30.00 (0.575) ± 1.90 (0.027) 2.14 (0.826) ± 0.21 (0.039) 3.18 (0.749) ± 0.74 (0.071) 7.99 (0.445) ± 0.53 (0.049) 11.89 (0.589) ± 0.66 (0.048)
Intras CNN 35.36 (0.664) ± 1.81 (0.039) 31.79 (0.551) ± 2.54 (0.016) 3.05 (0.715) ± 0.43 (0.058) 3.92 (0.647) ± 0.38 (0.065) 8.06 (0.439) ± 0.53 (0.052) 11.61 (0.612) ± 0.77 (0.048)
Fy[N]
SVR 33.41 (0.705) ± 1.93 (0.051) 29.29 (0.583) ± 1.36 (0.019) 6.84 (0.384) ± 0.43 (0.102) 6.57 (0.422) ± 0.45 (0.098) 10.42 (0.179) ± 0.38 (0.034) 13.28 (0.446) ± 0.38 (0.04)
LS 42.05 (0.581) ± 1.67 (0.047) 31.19 (0.413) ± 1.64 (0.054) 4.80 (0.272) ± 0.50 (0.111) 4.37 (0.319) ± 0.21 (0.126) 10.12 (−0.018) ± 0.27 (0.052) 14.89 (0.142) ± 0.43 (0.057)
RF 33.01 (0.712) ± 1.39 (0.038) 28.45 (0.598) ± 1.75 (0.015) 1.97 (0.847) ± 0.26 (0.031) 4.03 (0.732) ± 0.92 (0.053) 7.70 (0.474) ± 0.37 (0.039) 12.44 (0.528) ± 0.80 (0.062)
ANN 12.75 (0.884) ± 0.56 (0.012) 10.42 (0.889) ± 0.55 (0.010) 2.46 (0.947) ± 0.20 (0.007) 3.01 (0.938) ± 0.33 (0.014) 7.03 (0.829) ± 0.53 (0.027) 8.77 (0.807) ± 0.44 (0.019)
BLSTM 13.27 (0.872) ± 0.61 (0.004) 9.62 (0.905) ± 0.52 (0.009) 2.45 (0.948) ± 0.31 (0.013) 3.14 (0.930) ± 0.40 (0.016) 7.12 (0.815) ± 0.46 (0.038) 9.40 (0.775) ± 0.30 (0.014)
CNN 13.57 (0.867) ± 0.65 (0.010) 10.79 (0.880) ± 0.94 (0.028) 3.22 (0.912) ± 0.33 (0.018) 3.37 (0.924) ± 0.20 (0.011) 6.91 (0.823) ± 0.53 (0.032) 9.66 (0.759) ± 0.42 (0.023)
Fx[N]
SVR 14.19 (0.845) ± 0.67 (0.015) 10.56 (0.885) ± 0.63 (0.007) 9.32 (0.415) ± 0.78 (0.165) 5.46 (0.791) ± 0.53 (0.046) 10.52 (0.641) ± 0.34 (0.046) 10.30 (0.732) ± 0.33 (0.017)
LS 18.62 (0.772) ± 1.05 (0.024) 12.28 (0.844) ± 0.51 (0.020) 8.43 (0.432) ± 0.60 (0.115) 6.19 (0.690) ± 0.63 (0.074) 7.88 (0.776) ± 0.38 (0.034) 12.76 (0.589) ± 0.55 (0.022)
RF 13.33 (0.873) ± 0.68 (0.008) 9.99 (0.895) ± 0.55 (0.008) 2.59 (0.940) ± 0.14 (0.013) 2.94 (0.936) ± 0.42 (0.017) 6.91 (0.832) ± 0.30 (0.032) 9.67 (0.758) ± 0.39 (0.022)
ANN 92.92 (0.954) ± 20.50 (0.023) 79.36 (0.972) ± 26.34 (0.011) 36.64 (0.641) ± 26.40 (0.250) 42.15(0.698) ± 30.45(0.148) 45.50 (0.789) ± 19.58 (0.125) 67.40 (0.984) ± 24.57 (0.007)
BLSTM 83.69 (0.956) ± 16.85 (0.023) 67.14 (0.973) ± 13.50 (0.009) 24.63 (0.610) ± 9.75 (0.286) 34.50 (0.582) ± 13.20(0.187) 53.65 (0.739) ± 21.56 (0.143) 73.60 (0.973) ± 20.40 (0.015)
CNN 87.32 (0.955) ± 18.42 (0.025) 75.38 (0.971) ± 21.62 (0.015) 24.13 (0.722) ± 11.54 (0.157) 27.68 (0.726) ± 12.05 (0.183) 46.82 (0.795) ± 18.35 (0.104) 69.63 (0.982) ± 30.27 (0.008)
Fz[N]
SVR 60.35 (0.974) ± 21.86 (0.024) 47.57 (0.986) ± 17.26 (0.012) 15.64 (0.775) ± 6.09 (0.188) 15.44 (0.814) ± 7.25 (0.091) 24.77 (0.909) ± 13.29 (0.050) 30.91 (0.990) ± 14.00 (0.009)
LS 84.59 (0.959) ± 25.38 (0.03) 75.66 (0.969) ± 26.15 (0.021) 21.33 (0.752) ± 13.07 (0.177) 20.25 (0.770) ± 8.80 (0.110) 34.84 (0.838) ± 10.13 (0.102) 60.98 (0.983) ± 21.00 (0.007)
RF 52.70 (0.976) ± 27.53 (0.033) 36.57 (0.989) ± 21.34 (0.016) 7.97 (0.894) ± 5.75 (0.082) 15.00 (0.878) ± 25.14 (0.116) 21.25 (0.921) ± 18.09 (0.052) 25.51 (0.990) ± 18.41 (0.014)
ANN 50.73 (0.402) ± 15.64 (0.236) 44.85 (0.328) ± 18.58 (0.193) 16.23 (0.000) ± 17.98 (0.141) 16.55 (−0.015) ± 18.45 (0.239) 20.61 (0.126) ± 8.20 (0.338) 30.71 (−0.146) ± 16.16 (0.291)
BLSTM 44.79 (0.455) ± 17.29 (0.262) 36.73 (0.430) ± 12.02 (0.165) 10.97 (−0.048) ± 7.51 (0.223) 13.22 (−0.047) ± 9.49 (0.225) 21.10 (−0.024) ± 9.58 (0.316) 30.67 (−0.126) ± 15.40 (0.278)
Inters CNN 48.60 (0.437) ± 15.63 (0.158) 42.79 (0.331) ± 14.87 (0.188) 10.68 (0.066) ± 6.97 (0.160) 13.52 (0.159) ± 7.91 (0.220) 21.32 (0.219) ± 11.42 (0.388) 31.14 (−0.054) ± 13.29 (0.271)
Fy[N]
SVR 28.27 (0.786) ± 14.79 (0.125) 20.72 (0.758) ± 7.41 (0.091) 6.93 (0.026) ± 2.28 (0.220) 6.63 (−0.128) ± 1.92 (0.240) 13.00 (0.19) ± 6.90 (0.378) 14.22 (0.328) ± 8.13 (0.338)
LS 43.39 (0.527) ± 15.35 (0.151) 31.49 (0.360) ± 10.63 (0.172) 7.53 (0.061) ± 5.23 (0.251) 6.70 (0.048) ± 3.15 (0.368) 13.29 (−0.281) ± 6.68 (0.293) 6.89 (−0.068) ± 4.62 (0.337)
RF 22.31 (0.876) ± 14.36 (0.088) 16.35 (0.850) ± 7.49 (0.082) 1.35 (0.571) ± 1.27 (0.465) 2.81 (0.660) ± 4.32 (0.281) 7.31 (0.662) ± 8.11 (0.369) 9.60 (0.652) ± 7.50 (0.395)
ANN 19.72 (0.716) ± 5.58 (0.098) 14.74 (0.753) ± 4.64 (0.131) 10.22 (0.074) ± 4.39 (0.380) 10.58 (0.227) ± 7.27 (0.202) 16.46 (0.230) ± 6.58 (0.315) 18.28 (0.527) ± 7.73 (0.236)
BLSTM 17.42 (0.765) ± 4.63 (0.094) 12.58 (0.819) ± 2.47 (0.075) 11.07 (0.140) ± 3.82 (0.165) 7.42 (0.158) ± 2.61 (0.201) 14.58 (0.192) ± 4.63 (0.282) 15.67 (0.514) ± 5.83 (0.268)
CNN 18.79 (0.717) ± 5.06 (0.090) 13.56 (0.792) ± 3.43 (0.078) 9.53 (0.221) ± 4.11 (0.241) 7.09 (0.015) ± 2.25 (0.238) 13.31 (0.235) ± 6.06 (0.260) 16.38 (0.523) ± 6.24 (0.261)
Fx[N]
SVR 13.06 (0.865) ± 4.06 (0.069) 10.48 (0.874) ± 1.79 (0.043) 10.72 (0.144) ± 5.79 (0.313) 5.29 (0.312) ± 1.88 (0.304) 9.56 (0.280) ± 2.74 (0.218) 9.90 (0.646) ± 2.06 (0.198)
LS 19.01 (0.766) ± 3.74 (0.083) 12.50 (0.817) ± 1.72 (0.064) 9.03 (0.048) ± 5.75 (0.234) 8.00 (0.193) ± 3.67 (0.186) 9.30 (0.368) ± 4.90 (0.136) 14.81 (0.539) ± 6.25 (0.208)
RF 9.29 (0.924) ± 4.88 (0.071) 6.62 (0.945) ± 3.48 (0.041) 1.65 (0.602) ± 1.59 (0.277) 1.33 (0.696) ± 0.99 (0.153) 4.39 (0.651) ± 2.50 (0.184) 6.43 (0.796) ± 4.12 (0.252)
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 18 of 20

Table A2. Mean ± SD of RMSE (R) between the estimated (by insole PP data) and measured (by force plate) GRF components of the left foot are calculated for the
DL/SML methods for the test dataset for the 6 activities. The most accurate estimation results based on RMSE and R values are highlighted in bold for each activity,
for both intras and inters strategies.

Strategy Component DL/SML Method Normal Walk Slow Walk Static Situation Static Situation with CL Bottom-Top with CL Left-Right with CL
ANN 56.60 (0.981) ± 2.63 (0.001) 50.48 (0.985) ± 2.98 (0.001) 12.44 (0.978) ± 0.62 (0.005) 12.56 (0.977) ± 0.65 (0.003) 19.84 (0.968) ± 1.09 (0.003) 27.10 (0.992) ± 0.78 (0.001)
BLSTM 56.70 (0.981) ± 3.20 (0.002) 51.18 (0.985) ± 4.16 (0.002) 11.42 (0.981) ± 0.69 (0.005) 13.58 (0.974) ± 1.21 (0.003) 22.04 (0.961) ± 1.44 (0.005) 30.97 (0.99) ± 3.36 (0.002)
CNN 57.94 (0.98) ± 3.56 (0.002) 51.86 (0.984) ± 2.81 (0.002) 13.23 (0.976) ± 0.98 (0.004) 13.17 (0.975) ± 0.63 (0.002) 21.77 (0.962) ± 1.83 (0.006) 28.77 (0.991) ± 0.59 (0.001)
Fz[N]
SVR 61.26 (0.979) ± 1.41 (0.001) 49.31 (0.986) ± 1.67 (0.001) 13.23 (0.974) ± 0.53 (0.004) 13.85 (0.973) ± 0.52 (0.004) 23.35 (0.957) ± 1.59 (0.005) 29.45 (0.991) ± 0.97 (0.001)
LS 74.89 (0.967) ± 2.18 (0.002) 71.60 (0.971) ± 2.12 (0.001) 27.60 (0.909) ± 1.22 (0.026) 26.70 (0.916) ± 1.68 (0.019) 36.72 (0.892) ± 2.24 (0.016) 44.32 (0.980) ± 1.72 (0.002)
RF 71.16 (0.971) ± 3.62 (0.002) 59.08 (0.980) ± 2.79 (0.002) 11.29 (0.981) ± 0.73 (0.003) 14.89 (0.969) ± 0.89 (0.004) 27.04 (0.942) ± 2.05 (0.008) 37.09 (0.986) ± 1.13 (0.001)
ANN 33.55 (0.685) ± 2.01 (0.040) 24.45 (0.715) ± 1.17 (0.024) 3.67 (0.569) ± 0.42 (0.091) 3.51 (0.703) ± 0.40 (0.116) 8.28 (0.459) ± 0.39 (0.049) 11.33 (0.623) ± 0.57 (0.031)
BLSTM 37.04 (0.599) ± 1.95 (0.049) 24.55 (0.707) ± 1.10 (0.025) 3.03 (0.678) ± 0.74 (0.130) 3.07 (0.761) ± 0.51 (0.097) 8.41 (0.432) ± 0.45 (0.039) 11.44 (0.598) ± 0.47 (0.056)
Intras CNN 36.39 (0.615) ± 1.73 (0.044) 25.83 (0.672) ± 2.17 (0.041) 4.16 (0.460) ± 0.60 (0.140) 3.88 (0.635) ± 0.30 (0.086) 8.46 (0.414) ± 0.46 (0.035) 11.96 (0.549) ± 0.73 (0.065)
Fy[N]
SVR 34.51 (0.659) ± 1.54 (0.032) 22.12 (0.759) ± 0.47 (0.011) 7.99 (0.092) ± 0.25 (0.132) 8.01 (0.093) ± 0.43 (0.118) 9.31 (0.292) ± 0.37 (0.036) 13.47 (0.390) ± 0.69 (0.058)
LS 42.57 (0.369) ± 1.31 (0.047) 27.53 (0.563) ± 1.16 (0.009) 6.55 (−0.109) ± 0.59 (0.146) 7.50 (−0.442) ± 0.41 (0.054) 9.96 (0.119) ± 0.41 (0.057) 14.83 (0.079) ± 0.55 (0.074)
RF 39.03 (0.543) ± 1.87 (0.046) 22.82 (0.734) ± 0.90 (0.017) 3.84 (0.563) ± 0.59 (0.110) 2.92 (0.768) ± 0.39 (0.085) 8.55 (0.359) ± 0.38 (0.053) 13.13 (0.434) ± 0.75 (0.052)
ANN 17.46 (0.621) ± 1.26 (0.033) 10.47 (0.836) ± 0.57 (0.018) 3.41 (0.929) ± 0.25 (0.017) 3.58 (0.927) ± 0.53 (0.022) 6.64 (0.858) ± 0.46 (0.022) 9.28 (0.842) ± 0.52 (0.015)
BLSTM 16.89 (0.628) ± 1.03 (0.023) 10.12 (0.846) ± 0.36 (0.008) 3.27 (0.936) ± 0.24 (0.010) 3.47 (0.935) ± 0.34 (0.011) 7.00 (0.840) ± 0.37 (0.031) 9.88 (0.818) ± 0.38 (0.016)
CNN 17.56 (0.594) ± 0.90 (0.025) 10.82 (0.821) ± 0.36 (0.018) 3.95 (0.914) ± 0.53 (0.017) 4.29 (0.895) ± 0.27 (0.015) 6.97 (0.839) ± 0.57 (0.030) 10.01 (0.818) ± 0.54 (0.011)
Fx[N]
SVR 16.29 (0.642) ± 0.857 (0.017) 10.24 (0.839) ± 0.148 (0.017) 9.08 (0.549) ± 0.47 (0.143) 8.29 (0.665) ± 0.62 (0.046) 10.10 (0.659) ± 0.32 (0.052) 10.95 (0.769) ± 0.34 (0.021)
LS 18.09 (0.613) ± 0.76 (0.018) 11.62 (0.791) ± 0.20 (0.019) 6.08 (0.779) ± 0.40 (0.051) 7.00 (0.721) ± 0.59 (0.056) 8.60 (0.742) ± 0.42 (0.042) 13.29 (0.661) ± 0.59 (0.029)
RF 17.42 (0.584) ± 0.94 (0.025) 9.87 (0.849) ± 0.27 (0.017) 2.73 (0.950) ± 0.24 (0.010) 3.46 (0.931) ± 0.35 (0.011) 6.77 (0.850) ± 0.37 (0.027) 10.40 (0.797) ± 0.46 (0.015)
ANN 99.22 (0.945) ± 33.67 (0.023) 90.54 (0.958) ± 25.95 (0.014) 44.55 (0.582) ± 26.22 (0.203) 49.28 (0.563) ± 23.17 (0.189) 47.17 (0.765) ± 17.17 (0.122) 56.15 (0.976) ± 9.94 (0.012)
BLSTM 81.82 (0.958) ± 23.63 (0.024) 76.53 (0.967) ± 17.79 (0.015) 46.49 (0.610) ± 26.05 (0.162) 41.30 (0.561) ± 22.93 (0.164) 54.41 (0.781) ± 26.75 (0.114) 61.89 (0.977) ± 20.62 (0.011)
CNN 90.18 (0.954) ± 26.81 (0.019) 84.33 (0.959) ± 19.68 (0.016) 49.60 (0.468) ± 22.45 (0.270) 50.34 (0.547) ± 25.04 (0.170) 49.48 (0.808) ± 24.70 (0.078) 57.22 (0.982) ± 14.71 (0.008)
Fz[N]
SVR 65.58 (0.969) ± 26.53 (0.027) 59.44 (0.978) ± 30.01 (0.019) 32.96 (0.746) ± 34.13 (0.194) 28.35 (0.742) ± 28.13 (0.147) 30.62 (0.887) ± 23.70 (0.061) 32.60 (0.989) ± 18.06 (0.011)
LS 86.04 (0.960) ± 23.95 (0.027) 85.54 (0.964) ± 24.22 (0.018) 37.20 (0.703) ± 19.36 (0.202) 38.65 (0.685) ± 23.69 (0.178) 53.48 (0.846) ± 18.00 (0.090) 59.58 (0.982) ± 19.79 (0.009)
RF 51.17 (0.976) ± 28.68 (0.033) 38.99 (0.987) ± 22.74 (0.017) 12.59 (0.878) ± 18.41 (0.121) 9.20 (0.889) ± 6.74 (0.082) 19.51 (0.921) ± 12.73 (0.051) 28.01 (0.989) ± 21.20 (0.015)
ANN 49.40 (0.472) ± 18.14 (0.218) 36.12 (0.542) ± 8.42 (0.110) 17.23 (−0.055) ± 12.22 (0.247) 14.53 (−0.096) ± 12.53 (0.341) 19.90 (−0.053) ± 10.55 (0.200) 25.67 (−0.191) ± 9.55 (0.146)
BLSTM 41.37 (0.538) ± 9.71 (0.107) 32.98 (0.559) ± 8.53 (0.121) 14.12 (−0.055) ± 12.56 (0.209) 13.51 (−0.105) ± 12.73 (0.295) 16.11 (−0.07) ± 8.63 (0.180) 25.57 (−0.060) ± 13.27 (0.204)
Inters CNN 46.25 (0.455) ± 15.78 (0.254) 38.01 (0.503) ± 12.49 (0.250) 14.86 (0.070) ± 9.48 (0.291) 13.81 (−0.035) ± 10.60 (0.389) 14.93 (0.064) ± 7.54 (0.256) 21.50 (0.030) ± 9.17 (0.275)
Fy[N]
SVR 27.65 (0.817) ± 12.60 (0.075) 19.94 (0.810) ± 7.11 (0.089) 8.98 (−0.216) ± 6.38 (0.309) 12.09 (−0.095) ± 7.97 (0.347) 9.35 (0.143) ± 3.84 (0.263) 12.77 (0.452) ± 6.27 (0.258)
LS 42.55 (0.483) ± 13.72 (0.183) 29.24 (0.600) ± 8.27 (0.109) 9.50 (−0.234) ± 7.59 (0.143) 9.62 (−0.346) ± 8.83 (0.310) 11.717 (−0.148) ± 4.55 (0.213) 17.27 (−0.243) ± 5.28 (0.224)
RF 23.32 (0.874) ± 11.10 (0.055) 15.31 (0.893) ± 6.38 (0.053) 3.56 (0.585) ± 5.77 (0.267) 1.94 (0.544) ± 1.48 (0.357) 6.07 (0.580) ± 3.70 (0.345) 10.02 (0.720) ± 8.45 (0.269)
ANN 23.34 (0.406) ± 8.16 (0.227) 18.33 (0.514) ± 7.78 (0.228) 12.86 (0.124) ± 8.71 (0.143) 13.39 (0.032) ± 7.34 (0.220) 10.85 (0.277) ± 4.73 (0.202) 17.67 (0.350) ± 2.73 (0.267)
BLSTM 18.63 (0.513) ± 5.38 (0.212) 12.84 (0.681) ± 2.34 (0.098) 8.35 (0.13) ± 4.84 (0.254) 9.79 (0.031) ± 5.15 (0.247) 12.26 (0.265) ± 4.08 (0.122) 15.74 (0.369) ± 4.14 (0.322)
CNN 20.05 (0.473) ± 5.23 (0.198) 14.91 (0.606) ± 3.25 (0.149) 9.11 (−0.045) ± 5.10 (0.203) 11.73 (0.116) ± 6.29 (0.242) 11.23 (0.294) ± 4.46 (0.109) 16.26 (0.414) ± 4.15 (0.260)
Fx[N]
SVR 14.63 (0.672) ± 4.95 (0.223) 10.34 (0.772) ± 1.57 (0.117) 10.23 (0.151) ± 4.30 (0.235) 8.39 (0.239) ± 4.02 (0.264) 9.64 (0.323) ± 2.791 (0.133) 10.50 (0.524) ± 2.37 (0.262)
LS 17.22 (0.578) ± 4.85 (0.146) 13.27 (0.703) ± 3.33 (0.097) 7.50 (0.114) ± 3.32 (0.167) 8.20 (0.188) ± 4.22 (0.157) 9.16 (0.433) ± 4.44 (0.136) 14.88 (0.508) ± 4.29 (0.195)
RF 7.01 (0.803) ± 3.08 (0.149) 4.43 (0.681) ± 3.16 (0.233) 2.29 (0.562) ± 2.41 (0.269) 1.78 (0.538) ± 1.44 (0.340) 7.64 (0.888) ± 4.82 (0.114) 12.09 (0.760) ± 6.90 (0.262)
 Sensors 2024, 24, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 21
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 19 of 20

Appendix
Appendix B
B

Figure A1.
Figure A1. The
The curves
curves of
of the
the three
three GRF
GRF components
componentsfor foraa“slow
“slowwalk”
walk”step
step(top
(topimage),
image),aatrial
trialofof
“bottom-top with CL” (middle image) and “left-right with CL” (bottom image) of the test dataset
“bottom-top with CL” (middle image) and “left-right with CL” (bottom image) of the test dataset for
for the right foot using the RF method for intras strategy. The measured curves are presented in
the right foot using the RF method for intras strategy. The measured curves are presented in blue and
blue and the estimated curves are presented in red.
the estimated curves are presented in red.
References
References
1.1. Logar,G.;
Logar, G.;Munih,
Munih,M. M.Estimation
EstimationofofJoint
Joint Forces
Forces andand Moments
Moments forfor
thethe In-Run
In-Run andand Take-Off
Take-Off in Ski
in Ski Jumping
Jumping Based
Based on Measure-
on Measurements
ments
with with Wearable
Wearable Inertial Inertial
Sensors.Sensors.
SensorsSensors
2015, 15,2015, 15, 11258–11276.
11258–11276. [CrossRef]
2.2. Hori, N.;
Hori, N.; Newton,
Newton, R.U.;
R.U.; Kawamori,
Kawamori, N.; N.; McGuigan,
McGuigan, M.R.; M.R.; Kraemer,
Kraemer, W.J.;
W.J.; Nosaka,
Nosaka, K.K. Reliability
ReliabilityofofPerformance
PerformanceMeasurements
Measurements
Derived from Ground Reaction Force Data during Countermovement Jump
Derived from Ground Reaction Force Data during Countermovement Jump and the Influence of Sampling and the Influence of Sampling Frequency.
Frequency. J.
J. Strength
Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 874–882.
Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 874–882. [CrossRef]
3.3. Ericksen,H.M.;
Ericksen, H.M.;Gribble,
Gribble,P.A.;
P.A.;Pfile,
Pfile, K.R.;
K.R.; Pietrosimone,
Pietrosimone, B. B. Different
Different Modes
Modes of Feedback
of Feedback andand
PeakPeak Vertical
Vertical Ground
Ground Reaction
Reaction Force
Force during
during Jump Landing:
Jump Landing: A Systematic
A Systematic Review.Review.
J. Athl.J.Train.
Athl. Train. 2013,
2013, 48, 48, 685–695.
685–695. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.4. Fregly,B.J.;
Fregly, B.J.;Reinbolt,
Reinbolt,J.A.;
J.A.;Rooney,
Rooney, K.L.;
K.L.; Mitchell,
Mitchell, K.H.;
K.H.; Chmielewski,
Chmielewski, T.L.T.L. Design
Design of Patient-Specific
of Patient-Specific GaitGait Modifications
Modifications for
for Knee
Knee Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis Rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation. IEEE Trans.
IEEE Trans. Biomed. Biomed. Eng. 2007,
Eng. 2007, 54, 1687–1695.
54, 1687–1695. [CrossRef]
5.5. Houck,J.;
Houck, J.;Kneiss,
Kneiss,J.A.;
J.A.;Bukata,
Bukata,S.V.;
S.V.;Puzas,
Puzas,J.E.
J.E.Analysis
Analysisof ofVertical
VerticalGround
GroundReaction
ReactionForce
ForceVariables
Variablesduring
duringaaSit
SittotoStand
StandTask
Taskin
in Participants Recovering from a Hip Fracture. Clin. Biomech. 2011, 26, 470–476.
Participants Recovering from a Hip Fracture. Clin. Biomech. 2011, 26, 470–476. [CrossRef]
6. Shin, K.Y.; Rim, Y.H.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, H.S.; Han, J.S.; Park, C.H.; Lee, K.S.; Mun, J.H. A Joint Normalcy Index to Evaluate Patients
with Gait Pathologies in the Functional Aspects of Joint Mobility. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2010, 24, 1901–1909. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2024, 24, 5318 20 of 20

7. Sim, T.; Kwon, H.; Oh, S.E.; Joo, S.; Choi, A.; Heo, H.; Kim, K.-S.; Mun, J.H. Predicting Complete Ground Reaction Forces and
Moments during GAIT with Insole Plantar Pressure Information Using a Wavelet Neural Network. J. Biomech. Eng. 2015, 137,
091001. [CrossRef]
8. Parry, R.; Lalo, E.; Roussel, J.; Jabloun, M.; Riff, J.; Welter, M.; Buttelli, O. Caractérisation Du Freezing de La Marche En Situation
Réelle. Neurophysiol. Clin. 2015, 45, 392. [CrossRef]
9. Parry, R.; Sellam, N.; Lalo, E.; Welter, M.; Buttelli, O. Pattern Électromyographique de La Marche Parkinsonienne En Condition de
Vie Réelle. Neurophysiol. Clin. 2016, 46, 273–274. [CrossRef]
10. Odebiyi, D.O.; Okafor, U.A.C. Musculoskeletal Disorders, Workplace Ergonomics and Injury Prevention. In IntechOpen eBooks;
IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023.
11. Yazji, M.; Raison, M.; Aubin, C.-É.; Labelle, H.; Detrembleur, C.; Mahaudens, P.; Mousny, M. Are the Mediolateral Joint Forces in
the Lower Limbs Different between Scoliotic and Healthy Subjects during Gait? Scoliosis 2015, 10, S3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Bezzini, R.; Crosato, L.; Losè, M.T.; Avizzano, C.A.; Bergamasco, M.; Filippeschi, A. Closed-Chain Inverse Dynamics for the
Biomechanical Analysis of Manual Material Handling Tasks through a Deep Learning Assisted Wearable Sensor Network. Sensors
2023, 23, 5885. [CrossRef]
13. Matijevich, E.S.; Völgyesi, P.; Zelik, K.E. A Promising Wearable Solution for the Practical and Accurate Monitoring of Low Back
Loading in Manual Material Handling. Sensors 2021, 21, 340. [CrossRef]
14. Larsen, F.G.; Svenningsen, F.P.; Andersen, M.S.; De Zee, M.; Skals, S. Estimation of Spinal Loading during Manual Materials
Handling Using Inertial Motion Capture. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2019, 48, 805–821. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Muller, A.; Pontonnier, C.; Robert-Lachaîne, X.; Dumont, G.; Plamondon, A. Motion-Based Prediction of External Forces and
Moments and Back Loading during Manual Material Handling Tasks. Appl. Ergon. 2020, 82, 102935. [CrossRef]
16. Corbeil, P.; Plamondon, A.; Handrigan, G.; Vallée-Marcotte, J.; Laurendeau, S.; Have, J.T.; Manzerolle, N. Biomechanical Analysis
of Manual Material Handling Movement in Healthy Weight and Obese Workers. Appl. Ergon. 2019, 74, 124–133. [CrossRef]
17. Gagnon, D.; Plamondon, A.; Larivière, C. A Comparison of Lumbar Spine and Muscle Loading between Male and Female
Workers during Box Transfers. J. Biomech. 2018, 81, 76–85. [CrossRef]
18. Savelberg, H.H.C.M.; Lange, A. Assessment of the Horizontal, Fore-Aft Component of the Ground Reaction Force from Insole
Pressure Patterns by Using Artificial Neural Networks. Clin. Biomech. 1999, 14, 585–592. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Fong, D.T.-P.; Chan, Y.M.; Hong, Y.; Yung, P.S.; Fung, K.P.; Chan, K. Estimating the Complete Ground Reaction Forces with
Pressure Insoles in Walking. J. Biomech. 2008, 41, 2597–2601. [CrossRef]
20. Rouhani, H.; Favre, J.; Crevoisier, X.; Aminian, K. Ambulatory Assessment of 3D Ground Reaction Force Using Plantar Pressure
Distribution. Gait Posture 2010, 32, 311–316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Jacobs, D.A.; Ferris, D.P. Estimation of Ground Reaction Forces and Ankle Moment with Multiple, Low-Cost Sensors. J. Neuroeng.
Rehabil. 2015, 12, 90. [CrossRef]
22. Joo, S.; Oh, S.E.; Mun, J.H. Improving the Ground Reaction Force Prediction Accuracy Using One-Axis Plantar Pressure: Expansion
of Input Variable for Neural Network. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 3153–3161. [CrossRef]
23. Honert, E.C.; Hoitz, F.; Blades, S.; Nigg, S.; Nigg, B.M. Estimating Running Ground Reaction Forces from Plantar Pressure during
Graded Running. Sensors 2022, 22, 3338. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Kammoun, A.; Ravier, P.; Buttelli, O. Impact of PCA Pre-Normalization Methods on Ground Reaction Force Estimation Accuracy.
Sensors 2024, 24, 1137. [CrossRef]
25. Taye, M.M. Understanding of Machine Learning with Deep Learning: Architectures, Workflow, Applications and Future
Directions. Computers 2023, 12, 91. [CrossRef]
26. Wu, D.; Jennings, C.; Terpenny, J.; Gao, R.X.; Kumara, S. A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Algorithms for Smart
Manufacturing: Tool Wear Prediction Using Random Forests. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2017, 139, 071018. [CrossRef]
27. Nawar, S.; Mouazen, A.M. Comparison between Random Forests, Artificial Neural Networks and Gradient Boosted Machines
Methods of On-Line Vis-NIR Spectroscopy Measurements of Soil Total Nitrogen and Total Carbon. Sensors 2017, 17, 2428.
[CrossRef]
28. Belina, Y.; Kebede, A. Comparative Study of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Support Vector Regression (SVR) in Rainfall-
Runoff Modeling of Awash Belo Watershed, Awash River Basin, Ethiopia. Preprint 2023. [CrossRef]
29. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191. [CrossRef]
30. Alcantara, R.S.; Edwards, W.B.; Millet, G.Y.; Grabowski, A.M. Predicting Continuous Ground Reaction Forces from Accelerometers
during Uphill and Downhill Running: A Recurrent Neural Network Solution. PeerJ 2022, 10, e12752. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Haidar, A.; Verma, B. Monthly Rainfall Forecasting Using One-Dimensional Deep Convolutional Neural Network. IEEE Access
2018, 6, 69053–69063. [CrossRef]
32. Pangarkar, D.J.; Sharma, R.; Sharma, A.; Sharma, M. Assessment of the Different Machine Learning Models for Prediction of
Cluster Bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Taub.) Yield. Adv. Res. 2020, 21, 98–105. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.