FOUNDATIONAL STUDIES	RELATED TO

FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION	EVIDENCE

Introduction

The following is a list	of	research	that	has	been	conducted in	the	forensic	footwear	discipline,	divided

into	particular	topics.

For a	list of active	research being conducted in the	field of footwear and tire	impression evidence,

please refer to	the active	research and development projects at TreadForensics.com.

Please	note, there	are	currently two on-going	decision analysis studies to test the	accuracy	of examiner

opinions (i.e. black box) being conducted	at West Virginia University and	the Federal Bureau	of

Investigation	Forensic	Laboratory.	These	types	of	studies	were	singled	out	by	PCAST	as	needed to

establish the	scientific validity and degree	of reliability of footwear impressions evidence.

As this is a “living” document, it will be updated	as new research	is released. However, should	you	have

any references you feel need to be	added or have	any	comments regarding	the list, please email the	

chair of the IAI Footwear & Tire Track Examination Sub-Committee.

STUDIES	THAT RELATE	TO THE	RELIABILITY AND EXAMINATION OF

CLASS (MANUFACTURED) CHARACTERISTICS

Benedict, I. et. al. (2014), Geographical Variation	of Shoeprint Comparison	Class Correspondence,

Science	and Justice, 54(5): P. 335-337.

Birkett, J. (1983). Variations in Adidas “Kick” and Related Soles, MPFSL Report Number 34, Metropolitan

Police	Forensic Science Laboratory, London.

Bodziak, W. J. (1986), Manufacturing Processes for Athletic Shoe Outsoles and Their Significance in the

Examination of Footwear	Impression Evidence, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 31(1): P. 153-176.

Champod, C., Voisard, R., Girod, A. (2000), A	Statistical Study of	Air Bubbles on	Athletic Shoe Soles,

Forensic Science	International, 109(2): P. 105-123.

Davis, R. et. al. (1977), A Survey of Men’s Footwear, Journal of	the Forensic Society, 17(4): P. 271-285.

Gross, S. et al. (2013), The Variability and Significance of Class Characteristics in	Footwear Impressions,

Journal of	Forensic Identification, 63(3): P. 332-351.

Hamm, E.D. (1989), The Individuality of Class Characteristics in Converse All-Star Footwear, Journal of

Forensic	Identification,	39(5):	P.	277-292.

Hancock, S. et. al. (2012), The Interpretation of Shoeprint Comparison	Class Correspondence, Science

and Justice, 52(4): P. 243-248.

Kainuma, A. (2005), Manufacturing Variations in a Die-Cut Footwear Model, Journal of Forensic

Identification,	55(4):	P. 503-517.

Version 20170224 Page	1 of 7
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

Foundational Studies Related to Footwear Impression Evidence

Jay, C.B. and Grub, M.J. (1985), Defects in Polyurethane-soled Athletic	Shoes	– Their Importance to the

Shoeprint Examiner, Journal of	the Forensic Science Society, 25:

P. 233-238.

Keijzer, J. (1990), Identification	Value	of	Imperfections in	Shoe	with	Polyurethane	Soles in	Comparative

Shoeprint Examination, Journal of Forensic	Identification, 40(4): P. 217-223.

Music, D.K., Bodziak, W.J. (1988), Evaluation of the air bubbles present in polyurethane shoe outsoles as

applicable	in footwear impression comparisons, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 33(5):	P. 1185-1197.

Nisida, T., Suemoto, A. (2008), A	Study of a Production	Characteristic Caused by the Footwear	Sole,

Japanese Journal of	Forensic Science	and Technology, Vol. 13(1): P. 101-106.

Parent, S. (2010), The Significance of Class Associations of Footwear Evidence, Unpublished, Presented

at the	2010	Impression and Pattern Evidence	Symposium, Clearwater Beach, Florida.

Zmuda, C.W. (1953), Identification	of	Crepe-Sole	Shoes, Journal of Criminology, Criminal Law and Police

Science, 44(3): P. 374-378.

STUDIES	THAT RELATE	TO THE RELIABILITY	AND EXAMINATION OF

WEAR	AND RANDOMLY ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS

Adair, T. W., Lemay, J., McDonald, A., Shaw, R. & Tewes, R. (2007), The Mount Bierstadt study: An

Experiment in Unique Damage	Formation	in	Footwear, Journal of	Forensic Identification, 57	(2): P. 199-

205.

Banks, R. et. al. (2010), Evaluation of the Random Nature of Acquired	Marks	on	Footwear	Outsoles,

Presented at	the 2010 Impression and Pattern Evidence Symposium, Clearwater	Beach, Florida.

Bodziak, W. et. al. (2012), Determining the Significance of Outsole Wear Characteristics During Forensic

Examination of Footwear Impression	Evidence, Journal of	Forensic Identification, 62(3): P. 254-276.

Chen, J., Donovan, J.A. (1994), The Relation of Schallamach Pattern to Rubber Properties and Wear

Conditions, Rubber World,	211(2)	P. 23-27.

Davis, R.J, Keeley, A. (2000), Feathering of Footwear, Science	and Justice, 40(4): P. 273-276.

DeHaan, J. D. (1987), Wear Characteristics of Men’s Footwear, Presented at	the International	

Association	of Forensic Science	meeting, Vancouver, B.C.

Deskiewicz, Kevin J., (2000), Schallamach Pattern on Shoe	Outsole	Acknowledged by Court in	Footwear

Identification, Journal of Forensic Identification, 50(1): P. 1-4.

Facey, O.E., Hannah, I.D., Rosen, D. (1992), Shoe	Wear Patterns and Pressure Distribution Under Feet

and Shoes Determined by Image	Analysis, Journal of Forensic Science	Society, 32(1): P. 15–25.

Fruchtenicht, T.L., Herzig, W.P., Blackledge, R.D. (2002), The Discrimination	of Two-Dimensional	Military

Version 20170224 Page	2 of 7
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

			

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Foundational Studies Related to Footwear Impression Evidence

Boot Impressions Based on Wear Patterns, Science	& Justice, 42(2): P. 97-104.

Hamburg, C. & Banks, R. (2010), Evaluation of the Random Nature	of Acquired Marks on Footwear

Outsoles, Presented at	the 2010 Impression and Pattern Evidence Symposium, Clearwater	Beach,

Florida.

Hara, T. (2004), Qualitative Evaluation of the Distinguishing Characteristics in Footprints Identification

and Their Evidential Values, Japanese Journal of	Science and Technology for Identification, 9(1): P.	59-

63.

Hayes, A. J. (1994), Factors	that influence	wear	on	shoes, Presented at	the International Symposium on

the Forensic Aspects of	Footwear and Tire	Impression Evidence, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA.

LeMay, J. (2013), Accidental Characteristics in	a Footwear Outsole Caused	by Incomplete Blending of	

Fillers in the	Outsole	Rubber, Journal of	Forensic Identification, 63(5):	P.	525-530.

Petraco, N. D. K., et. al. (2010),	Statistical	Discrimination	of	Footwear:	A	Method	for	the	Comparison	of

Accidentals on	Shoe Outsoles Inspired	by Facial Recognition	Techniques, J. Forensic Science, 55(1): P. 34-

41.

Sheets,	H.	et.	al.	(2013), Shape	Measurement Tools in Footwear Analysis: A Statistical Investigation of

Accidental Characteristics Over Time, Forensic Science	International, 232(1-3): P. 84-91.

Speir, J.A., Richetelli,	N.,	Fagert,	M.,	Hite,	M., Bodziak W. J. (2016), Quantifying Randomly Acquired

Characteristics on	Outsoles in	Terms of Shape and	Position, Forensic Science	International,	266: P. 399-

411.

Speir, J.A., Richetelli, N., Nobel, M., Bodziak, W.	(2017), Quantitative Assessment of Similarity Between

Randomly Acquired Characteristics on	High Quality Exemplars and Crime Scene Impressions via Analysis

of Feature	Size	and Shape,	Forensic	Science	International, 270: P. 211–222.

Speller, H. C. (1949), The Identification of Crepe Rubber Sole Impressions, The Police Journal, 22: P. 269-

274.

Stone, R.S., (2006), Footwear Examinations: Mathematical Probabilities of Theoretical Individual

Characteristics, Journal of	Forensic Identification, 56	(4): P. 577-599.

Tart, M.S., Downey, A.J, Goodyear, J.G., Adams, J. (1996), The Appearance and Duration of Feathering as

a	Feature	of Wear, The Forensic Science Service, FSS Report	No. RR 786.

Tart, M.S., Adams, J., Ohene, A. (1999), Wear Patterns: Location and Rate of Advancement, The Forensic

Science	Service, FSS	Report No. RR 801.

Tart, M.S., Downey, A.J, Goodyear, J.G., Adams, J.,	Ohene,	A.	(1998),	Feathering,	Transient	Wear

Features and Wear Pattern Analysis: A	Study of the Progressive Wear of Training Shoe Outsoles,

Information	Bulletin	for	Shoeprint	and	Toolmark	Examiners,	41(1):	P.	51-68.

Toso, B. & Girod A. (1997), Evolution of Random Characteristics (Appearance and	Disappearance,

Presentation conducted at the	First European Meeting of Forensic Science, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Version 20170224 Page	3 of 7
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Foundational Studies Related to Footwear Impression Evidence

Wilson, H. (2012), Comparison	of the Individual Characteristics in	the Outsoles of Thirty-Nine	Pairs	of

Adidas Supernova Classic Shoes, Journal of Forensic Identification, 62(3): P.	194-203.

Wyatt, J. M., Duncan, K., Trimpe, M. A. (2005), Aging of Shoes and	its Effect	on Shoeprint Impressions,

Journal of Forensic Identification, 55(2): P. 181-188.

Yekutieli, Y., Shor, Y., Wiesner, S., Tsach, T. (2016), Expert Assisting Computerized System for Evaluating

the Degree of Certainty in	2D Shoeprints, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250336.pdf

STUDIES	THAT RELATE	TO

EXAMINER CONCLUSIONS

Bodziak, W.J. (2012), Traditional Conclusions in	Footwear Examinations vs. the Use of the Bayesian

Approach	and	Likelihood Ratio: a	Review of a	Recent UK	Appellate Court Decision, Law, Probability	and

Risk, 11(4): 279-287.

Collaborative Testing Services Inc., (2010), CTS Statement on	the Use of Proficiency Testing Data for	

Error rate Determination,	www.collaborativetesting.com.

Duffy, K., Hammer, L., Daeid, N., Fraser, J., (2013), A	Study of	the Variability in Footwear Impression

Comparison	Conclusions,	Journal of	Forensic Identification, 63(2):	P.	205-218.

Evett, I.W.,	Lambert,	J.A.,	Buckleton,	J.S.,	(1998), A	Bayesian	Approach	to	Interpreting Footwear Marks in

Forensic Casework, Science	&	Justice,	38: P. 241-247.

Kerstholt J.H., Paashuis R., Sjerps, M. (2007), Shoe	Print	Examinations: Effects of Expectation, Complexity

and Experience, Forensic	Science International, 165(1): P. 30-34.

Majamaa, H., Ytti, A. (1996), Survey of Conclusions Drawn of	Similar Footwear Cases in Various Crime

Laboratories, Forensic Science	International, 82(1): P. 109-120.

Peterson, J.L., Markham, P. (1995), Crime Lab	Proficiency Testing Results, 1978-1991, II: Resolving

Questions of Common Origin, Journal of	Forensic Sciences,	40(6),	1009-1029.

Raymond, J., Sheldon, P., (2015), Standardizing Shoe Mark Evidence- An	Australian	and	New Zealand	

Collaborative Trial,	Journal of Forensic Identification, 65(5):	868-883.

Shor, Y., Weisner, S. (1999), A	Survey on	the Conclusions Drawn on the Same	Footwear Marks Obtained	

in Actual Cases by Several Experts Throughout the World, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44	(2): P. 380-

384.

Skerrett, et al., (2011), A	Bayesian	Approach	for Interpreting Shoemark Evidence in Forensic Casework:

Accounting for Wear Features, Forensic Science	International, 210(1-3): P. 26-30.

Ytti, A., Majamaa, H., Virtanen, J. (1998), Survey of the Conclusions Drawn of Similar Shoeprint Cases,

Part II, Information Bulletin for Shoeprint and Toolmark Examiners, 4(10): P. 157-169.

Version 20170224 Page	4 of 7
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

Foundational Studies Related to Footwear Impression Evidence

STUDIES	THAT RELATE	TO

AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION OF FOOTWEAR, DATABASE CREATION AND INTELLIGENCE

AlGarni,	G.,	Hamiane,	M.,	(2008), A	Novel Technique	for Automatic Shoeprint Image Retrieval,	Forensic

Science	International, 181(1-3): P. 10-14.

Ashley, W. (1996),	What Shoe Was That? The Use of Computerised	Image Database	to Assist in

Identification, Forensic Science	International, 82(1): P. 7-20.

Belser, Ch., Ineichen, M., Pfefferli, P. (1996), Evaluation of the ISAS	System after Two Years of Practical

Experience in Forensic Police Work, Forensic	Science International, 82(1): P. 53-58.

Bowen,	R., Schneider,	J. (2007), Forensic Databases: Paint, Shoe	Prints, and Beyond, National Institute of

Justice Journal,	58:	P. 34-38.

Dardi, F., Cervelli, F., Carrato, S. (2009),	An Automatic Footwear Retrieval System for Shoe Marks from

Real Crime Scenes, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Image	and Signal Processing and

Analysis, P. 668-672.

David, R. (1981), An	Intelligence Approach	to	Footwear and	Toolmarks, Journal of	the	Forensic Science	

Society, 21: P. 183–193.

Gao, B., Allinson, N.M. (2009), A	Novel Model-Based Approach	for 3D Footwear Outsole Feature	

Extraction, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Image	and	Signal	Processing and

Analysis, P. 673-677.

Geradts, Z., Keijzer, J. (1996), The Image-Database	REBEZO for Shoeprints with	Developments on

Automatic Classification	of Shoe Outsole Designs,	Forensic Science	International, 82(1): P. 21-31.

Girod, A. (1996), Computerized	Classification	of	the Shoeprints of Burglar’s Soles, Forensic Science	

International,	82(1):	P.	59-65.

Hannigan, T.J., Fleury, L.M., Reilly, R.B., O’Mullane, B.A.,	deChazal	P. (2006), Survey of 1276	Shoeprint

Impressions and Development of an	Automatic Shoeprint Pattern Matching Facility, Science	& Justice,

46(2): P. 79-89.

Hire, V.R., Shaikh, F.I., Jadhav, J.B., Joshi, M.V. (2012), A	Novel Automated	Shoeprint Matching

Technique for use as Forensic Evidence in Criminal	Investigation, International	Journal	of Computer

Applications, 48(4): P. 25-31.

Jing, M.Q., Ho, W., Chen, L.H. (2009), A	Novel Method for Shoeprints Recognition and Classification,

International	Conference	on	Machine	Learning	and Cybernetics, P. 2846-2851.

Keijzer, J., Geradts, Z., Keereweer, I. (1995), Nationwide Classification System for Shoe Outsoles Designs,

Journal of	Forensic Identification, 45(1): P. 30-37.

Lai, M.,Y., Wang, L.,L. (2008), Automatic Shoe-Pattern Boundary Extraction by	Image-Processing

Techniques, Robotics and	Computer-Integrated	Manufacturing,	24: P. 217-227.

Version 20170224 Page	5 of 7
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Foundational Studies Related to Footwear Impression Evidence

Lin, G.,	Elmes,	G.,	Walnoha,	M.,	Chen, X. (2009), Developing a Spatial-Temporal Method for the	

Geographic Investigation	of Shoeprint Evidence, Journal of	Forensic Sciences,	54(1): P. 152–158.	

Luostarinen, T., Lehmussola, A. (2014), Measuring the Accuracy	of Automatic Shoeprint Recognition	

Methods, Journal of	Forensic Sciences, 59(6): P. 1627-1634.

Majamaa, H. (2000), Footwear Databases Used in Police and	Forensic Laboratories, Information	Bulletin

for	Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners, 6: P. 133–157.

Mikkonen, S., Suominen, V., Heinonen, P. (1996). Use of Footwear Impressions in Crime Scene

Investigations Assisted by Computerised	Footwear Collection	System, Forensic Science	International,	

82(1): P. 67-79.	

Mikkonen, S., Astikainen, T. (1994), Databased Classification System for Shoe Sole Patterns:

Identification	of Partial Footwear Impression Found	at a Scene of Crime, Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences,

39(5): P. 1227-1236.

Milne,	B.	(2013), Forensic Intelligence,	CRC	Press.

Milne, R. (2001), Operation Bigfoot, a Volume Crime Database	Project, Science	& Justice, 41: P. 215-217.

Napier, T.J. (2002). Scene	Linking	using Footwear Mark Databases, Science & Justice,

42	(1): P. 39-43.	

Natarajan, N., Ranjit, G., M. (2005), Computer Assisted Analysis of Footprint Geometry, Journal of

Forensic Identification, 55(4): P. 489-498.

Patil, P.,M., Kulkarni, J.V. (2009), Rotation	and	Intensity Invariant Shoeprint Matching using Gabor

Transform with Application	to	Forensic Science, Pattern Recognition, 42(7): P. 1308-1317.

Pavlou, M., Allinson, N., M. (2009), Automated	Encoding of Footwear Patterns for Fast Indexing, Image

and Vision	Computing,	27(4): P. 402–409.

Rathinavel, S., Arumugam, S. (2011), Full Shoe	Print Recognition Based on Pass Band DCT	and Partial

Shoe	Print Identification using Overlapped Block	Method	for	Degraded	Images, International	Journal	of

Computer	Applications, 26(8): P. 16-21.

Saxena, A., Khosla, N., Venkataraman, V. (2013), Building an	Image-Based Shoe Recommendation

System, Stanford University.

Tang, Y., Kasiviswanathan, H., Srihari, S. (2012), An	Efficient	Clustering-Based Retrieval Framework for	

Real Crime Scene Footwear Marks, International	Journal	of	Granular	Computing,	Rough	Sets	and

Intelligent	Systems,	2(4): P.	327-360.

Tang, Y., Srihari, S. N., Kasiviswanathan, H. (2010), Similarity and Clustering of Footwear Prints, IEEE

International	Conference	on	Granular	Computing,	P. 459-464.

Version 20170224 Page	6 of 7
	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Foundational Studies Related to Footwear Impression Evidence

Wei, Chia-Hung. (2013), The Use of Scale-Invariance Feature	Transform Approach	to	Recognize	and

Retrieve	Incomplete Shoeprints, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(3): P.	625-630.

TERMINOLOGY	AND TEXTS RELATED TO

THE EXAMINATION OF FOOTWEAR EVIDENCE

Abbot,	J.	(1964), Footwear Evidence,	Charles	C.	Thomas.

Bodziak,	W.	(2000),	Footwear Impression Evidence	2nd Ed., CRC	Press.

Bodziak,	W.	(2016), Forensic Footwear Evidence, CRC	Press.

Cassidy,	M.	(1980),	Footwear Identification, Canadian	Government Publishing	Centre.

Girod,	A.,	Champod,	C.,	Ribaux, O. (2008), Traces de Souliers, Presses Polytechniques et	Universitaires

Romandes.	

Hilderbrand,	D.	(1999), Footwear, the Missed Evidence, Staggs Publishing Company.

Sharma, B. (1980), Footprints- Tracks and Trails in Criminal Investigation	and	Trials, Central Law Agency.

Scientific Working Group for Shoeprint and Tire	Tread Evidence	(SWGTREAD)

Standard for Terminology Used for Forensic Footwear and Tire	Impression Evidence

http://www.swgtread.org/images/documents/standards/published/swgtread_15_terminology_evidenc

e_201303.pdf

Version 20170224 Page	7 of 7