Quantifying variation in the physical size of footwear test impressions

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Samantha K. Brady , Jacqueline A. Speir , Christopher Hamburg , Jeffery Jagmin
{"title":"Quantifying variation in the physical size of footwear test impressions","authors":"Samantha K. Brady ,&nbsp;Jacqueline A. Speir ,&nbsp;Christopher Hamburg ,&nbsp;Jeffery Jagmin","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The analysis of forensic footwear evidence often requires the preparation of test impressions created under controlled laboratory conditions. When these test impressions are compared to questioned impressions, (dis)agreement in physical size is an important attribute that must be evaluated and documented. Integral to this comparison is an understanding of the variation that may exist between replicate test impressions, and test impressions created using different methods. The aim of this study was to empirically characterize the variation that exists within and between test impressions prepared using a static benchtop and a dynamic walking method, as well as explore the potential influence of the wearer’s foot size when using the walking method. To examine this variation, twenty-three participants were recruited to prepare test impressions of two different shoe makes and models in four different manufacturer’s sizes. Five replicate benchtop impressions per make/model/size and three replicate walking impressions per participant/make/model/size were created, resulting in approximately 550 test samples, to which an additional 150 quality control copies were blindly added, resulting in almost 700 processed test impressions. Using reproducible and reliable ground control points, the physical size of toe-to-heel length and medial-to-lateral ball of the toe width measurements were collected and compared. For the shoe make/models examined in this study, a systematic bias was observed between benchtop and walking impressions, such that benchtop impressions were almost always longer and narrower than walking impressions, and that within the walking method, physical size differences vary with foot/shoe size mismatch. Of the experimental shoes and groups examined in this study, the variation in toe-to-heel length measurements between benchtop and walking impressions was greatest when the shoe was two sizes smaller than the foot, resulting in a maximum physical size difference of 4.18 mm for a Nike® Downshifter 11 outsole. Similarly, when comparing the variation in toe-to-heel length measurements between walking impressions created using a correctly-fitted shoe versus a shoe that was two sizes smaller than the wearer’s foot, a maximum physical size difference of 3.25 mm was observed. Based on these findings, best practice suggests that footwear analysts document the foot size of the wearer preparing walking test impressions, refrain from using benchtop impressions to form opinions about physical size consistency/differences, and to be cognizant that a large mismatch between foot/shoe size when creating walking impressions can lead to length differences greater than 3.0 mm.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"365 ","pages":"Article 112245"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907382400327X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The analysis of forensic footwear evidence often requires the preparation of test impressions created under controlled laboratory conditions. When these test impressions are compared to questioned impressions, (dis)agreement in physical size is an important attribute that must be evaluated and documented. Integral to this comparison is an understanding of the variation that may exist between replicate test impressions, and test impressions created using different methods. The aim of this study was to empirically characterize the variation that exists within and between test impressions prepared using a static benchtop and a dynamic walking method, as well as explore the potential influence of the wearer’s foot size when using the walking method. To examine this variation, twenty-three participants were recruited to prepare test impressions of two different shoe makes and models in four different manufacturer’s sizes. Five replicate benchtop impressions per make/model/size and three replicate walking impressions per participant/make/model/size were created, resulting in approximately 550 test samples, to which an additional 150 quality control copies were blindly added, resulting in almost 700 processed test impressions. Using reproducible and reliable ground control points, the physical size of toe-to-heel length and medial-to-lateral ball of the toe width measurements were collected and compared. For the shoe make/models examined in this study, a systematic bias was observed between benchtop and walking impressions, such that benchtop impressions were almost always longer and narrower than walking impressions, and that within the walking method, physical size differences vary with foot/shoe size mismatch. Of the experimental shoes and groups examined in this study, the variation in toe-to-heel length measurements between benchtop and walking impressions was greatest when the shoe was two sizes smaller than the foot, resulting in a maximum physical size difference of 4.18 mm for a Nike® Downshifter 11 outsole. Similarly, when comparing the variation in toe-to-heel length measurements between walking impressions created using a correctly-fitted shoe versus a shoe that was two sizes smaller than the wearer’s foot, a maximum physical size difference of 3.25 mm was observed. Based on these findings, best practice suggests that footwear analysts document the foot size of the wearer preparing walking test impressions, refrain from using benchtop impressions to form opinions about physical size consistency/differences, and to be cognizant that a large mismatch between foot/shoe size when creating walking impressions can lead to length differences greater than 3.0 mm.
量化鞋类测试印模物理尺寸的变化。
对法医鞋类证据的分析通常需要在受控实验室条件下制备测试印模。在将这些测试印模与质疑印模进行比较时,物理尺寸(不)一致是必须评估和记录的重要属性。要进行这种比较,就必须了解复制的测试印模和使用不同方法制作的测试印模之间可能存在的差异。本研究的目的是根据经验确定使用静态台式和动态步行方法制备的测试印模内部和之间存在的差异,并探索使用步行方法时穿戴者脚型的潜在影响。为了研究这种差异,我们招募了 23 名参与者,让他们准备两种不同品牌和型号、四种不同制造商尺码的鞋的测试印模。每个品牌/型号/尺码制作了 5 个重复的台式印模,每个参与者/品牌/型号/尺码制作了 3 个重复的步行印模,共制作了约 550 个测试样本,在此基础上又盲法添加了 150 个质量控制样本,共制作了近 700 个经过处理的测试印模。利用可重复和可靠的地面控制点,收集并比较了脚趾到脚跟长度和脚趾宽度内侧到外侧球的物理尺寸测量值。对于本研究中检测的鞋的品牌/型号,观察到台式印模和步行印模之间存在系统性偏差,例如台式印模几乎总是比步行印模更长更窄,而且在步行方法中,物理尺寸差异随脚/鞋尺寸不匹配而变化。在本研究考察的实验鞋和实验组中,当鞋的尺寸比脚小两个尺码时,台式压印和步行压印之间的脚趾到脚跟长度测量值差异最大,耐克® Downshifter 11 大底的最大物理尺寸差异为 4.18 毫米。同样,当比较使用正确合脚的鞋子和比穿鞋者脚小两个尺码的鞋子所产生的步行印痕之间的脚趾到脚跟长度测量值的差异时,观察到的最大物理尺寸差异为 3.25 毫米。基于这些发现,最佳实践建议鞋类分析师记录准备步行测试印模的穿着者的脚的尺寸,避免使用台式印模来形成物理尺寸一致性/差异的意见,并认识到在创建步行印模时脚/鞋尺寸之间的巨大不匹配会导致长度差异超过 3.0 毫米。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信