# Ergonomics Applied to the Development and Evaluation of Insoles for Protective Footwear
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Kinematic Variables
With the removal of some outliers that will be evaluated later, it was observed that in the left foot, the Ankle_X variable on average showed that the innovative insole showed a lower variability of 0.95 compared to the standard insole that obtained an average of 1.44. In Ankle_Y, the innovative insole showed an average variation of 20.03, and the standard insole showed an average of 24.00. In the FETBA, the innovative insole showed an average variation of 20.96 and the standard insole showed 38.40. In the FFHFA, the innovative insole showed an average variability of 5.95, and the standard insole showed 4.88. In the HXFFA, the innovative insole showed an average of 13.82, and the standard insole showed an average of 12.46. On the right foot in Ankle_X, the innovative insole presented an average of 2.25 variability and the standard insole 0.16. In Ankle_Y, the innovative insole obtained an average of 1.50 and the standard an average of 2.20. In the FETBA, the average obtained was 10.64 for the innovative insole and 6.41 for the standard. In the FFHFA, the innovative insole obtained 35.62 and the standard 40.68. In the HXFFA, the average obtained was 4.36 for the innovative insole and 4.49 for the standard (Table 8). Therefore, the innovative insole showed a lower mean variability in the left foot at the Ankle_X, Ankle_Y, and FETBA angles. On the right foot, on average, there was less variability in the Ankle_Y, FFHFA, and HXFFA angles. The values were compared in relation to the barefoot environment because, according to [PERSON] et al. [32], barefoot walking is a less restrictive environment for movement control due to the increased sensitivity of the sensory mechanisms and the better activation of the foot and leg muscles. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [33] reported in their study that footwear design must provide a balance between ensuring that the foot is protected by the footwear and allows the foot's natural movement and structure to be maintained. Figure 8: Scatter plot of amplitude data in the five kinematic variables in all subjects (Ankle_X—green circle, Ankle_Y—orange circle, FETBA—purple circle, FFHFA—yellow circle, and HXFFA—blue circle), in both feet. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Left Foot** & **Ankle\_X** & **Ankle\_Y** & **FETBA** & **FFHFA** & **HXFFA** \\ \hline Standard & 1.44 & 24.00 & 38.40 & 4.88 & 12.46 \\ Innovative & 0.95 & 20.03 & 20.96 & 5.95 & 13.82 \\ \hline Right foot & & & & & \\ \hline Standard & 0.16 & 2.20 & 6.41 & 40.68 & 4.49 \\ Innovative & 2.25 & 1.50 & 10.64 & 35.62 & 4.36 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Averages module of the differences between each insole and the barefoot environment. In view of this, the evidence in the biomechanical analysis of the gait performed in this study demonstrates that the insole did not cause any loss in terms of amplitude and variability in the normal dynamics of the gait in most of the participants; therefore, any kinematic alteration that may arise with the addition of the complete shoe is more likely to be associated with the shoe itself than the insole.