## 3 Results
The magnitude of pressure is significantly greater than PMCP at the MH of 0% to 50% A (that is, 34.07%, 25.09% and 19.30% of PMCP, respectively). In relation to the length of spur, the pressures applied at the MH, LH and CH for five percentage areas of shoe insole are shown in Table 5 and Figure 7. As percentage area of shoe insole increased, the pressure in the calcaneal region decreased for all lengths of the spur. For the small and medium lengths of spur, the pressure at MH is greater than PMCP at percentage area of shoe insole 0-50%, while for the large length of spur, the pressure at MH is greater than PMCP at percentage area of shoe insole 0-75%. At LH, the pressure is slightly higher than PMCP at small length of spur only in the 0% A, while at the medium length of spur, the pressure is lower than PMCP for all percentage areas of shoe insole. For large lengths of spur, the pressure at the LH is greater than the PMCP in the percentage area of shoe insole 0-50%. The significant lowered pressure is seen at the CH for all lengths of spur and percentage areas of the shoe insole, compared to the PMCP. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Percentage Area** & **0\%** & **25\%** & **50\%** & **75\%** & **100\%** \\ \hline Calcaneal region & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Comparison to the BW (mean \(\pm\) SD)} \\ MH & 10.14 \(\pm\) 1.46 & 8.93 \(\pm\) 1.16 & 8.26 \(\pm\) 1.65 & 7.01 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 3.64 \(\pm\) 0.60 \\ LH & 7.46 \(\pm\) 1.28 & 6.70 \(\pm\) 1.06 & 5.53 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.52 & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.16 \\ CH & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 1.05 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.06 \\ Calcaneal region & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Comparison to all sensors (mean \(\pm\) SD)} \\ MH & 53.31 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 53.60 \(\pm\) 1.55 & 56.69 \(\pm\) 1.26 & 71.49 \(\pm\) 2.36 & 75.47 \(\pm\) 3.04 \\ LH & 39.11 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 40.11 \(\pm\) 1.04 & 38.20 \(\pm\) 0.78 & 22.44 \(\pm\) 2.55 & 19.44 \(\pm\) 2.41 \\ CH & 7.58 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 5.11 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 6.07 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 5.09 \(\pm\) 1.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of load of each sensor to the BW and all sensors (%). Figure 5: Example of negative casts of the foot from one subject. Figure 6: Calcaneal loading during standing for the five percentage areas of shoe insole, compared to the PMCP measured using the algometer (mean \(\pm\) SD). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Spur** & **PMCP** & **Calcaneal** & **Calcaneal Loading for Each Percentage Area of Shoe Insole (kg/cm\({}^{2}\))** & **Region** & **0\%** & **25\%** & **50\%** & **75\%** & **100\%** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Small} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(2.14\pm 1.15\)} & MH & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 2.67 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 2.37 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 2.06 \(\pm\) 0.27 & 1.02 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\  & & LH & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 1.96 \(\pm\) 0.27 & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\  & & CH & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.00 \\  & & MH & 3.11 \(\pm\) 0.33 & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 2.52 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.22 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Medium} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(2.29\pm 0.66\)} & LH & 2.28 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 2.06 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 1.70 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\  & & CH & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Large} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(1.73\pm 0.13\)} & MH & 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.69 & 2.91 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 2.34 \(\pm\) 0.56 & 1.13 \(\pm\) 0.18 \\  & & LH & 2.52 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.54 & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.08 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Large} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(1.73\pm 0.13\)} & LH & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The distribution of pressure at the MH, LH and CH for each length of spur.