# Ergonomics Applied to the Development and Evaluation of Insoles for Protective Footwear
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Plantar Pressure Variables
rockers did not show significant differences between the analyzed insoles and, therefore, H0 is not rejected in the other regions (Table 6). Finally, the INV was compared with the innovative insole of environment five, in which both feet used the corrected insole; here, it is called INV5. The results obtained were similar to the previous test; there was a significant improvement in the rocker of the right hindfoot when using the INV5 (25.94 N/cm\({}^{2}\)) when compared to the INV (26.85 N/cm\({}^{2}\)) with one-tailed \(p\)-value = 0.04 (Table 7). According to the behavior of the maximum plantar pressure of the asymmetric participants, it was found that, a priori, there is no need to use divergent insoles; normal or asymmetry correction insoles can be used, according to the individual's requirement. According to what has been reported in other studies, adequate footwear is determined by the good adaptation of the foot and insole without losing the fit and function of the footwear, and one of the objectives of the insole is to promote stability and comfort [29]. Therefore, in terms of weight distribution on the ground, the results were positive. The INV showed a significant improvement in the distribution of maximum plantar pressure in the rockers represented by the forefoot and hindfoot, places where there is greater effort when compared to the STD, which indicates the comfort and efficiency of the insole itself, even though it is not specific to everyone. In addition, some of the participants in the sample spontaneously reported that when performing the test with the INV, they perceived greater comfort; one of the participants even declared: \"-the difference is really noticeable, and I am very sensitive in my feet\". These reports are important, as comfort is a complex and subjective measure and therefore depends on the user's perception and their physical and emotional conceptions [30]. However, it is necessary to understand at the stability level if this improvement in the plantar pressure distribution somehow altered the kinematics of the foot during gait through the biomechanical analysis of the gait. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean INV** & **s.d.** & **Mean INV4** & **s.d.** & **One-Tailed \(p\)-Value** \\ \hline Left foot & & & & & & \\  & Forefoot & 32.06 & 5.0 & 31.86 & 5.4 & 0.35 \\  & Midfoot & 18.49 & 5.3 & 17.87 & 5.1 & 0.14 \\  & Hindfoot & 25.51 & 5.1 & 25.86 & 3.7 & 0.30 \\ Right foot & & 35.31 & 5.5 & 33.46 & 4.7 & 0.10 \\  & Midfoot & 18.13 & 3.3 & 18.49 & 4.3 & 0.22 \\  & Hindfoot & 26.85 & 3.6 & 25.75 & 3.6 & 0.02 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: STD—standard insole; INV—innovative insole; s.d.—standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: \(t\)-test: paired two sample for means maximum plantar pressure (INV and INV4) of asymmetric participants (N/cm\({}^{2}\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Mean INV** & **s.d.** & **Mean INV5** & **s.d.** & **One-Tailed \(p\)-Value** \\ \hline Left foot & & & & & \\  & Forefoot & 32.06 & 5.0 & 33.33 & 5.9 & 0.08 \\  & Midfoot & 18.49 & 5.3 & 17.66 & 4.7 & 0.21 \\ Right foot & & 25.51 & 5.1 & 25.80 & 5.2 & 0.38 \\  & Forefoot & 35.31 & 5.5 & 33.63 & 5.8 & 0.09 \\  & Midfoot & 18.13 & 3.3 & 17.64 & 2.7 & 0.20 \\  & Hindfoot & 26.85 & 3.6 & 25.94 & 4.1 & 0.04 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: STD—standard insole; INV—innovative insole; s.d.—standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: \(t\)-test: paired two samples for means maximum plantar pressure (INV and INV5) of asymmetric participants (N/cm\({}^{2}\)).