Fashion and textile practice transitioned over the past decade from a physically engaged design practice into a screen-based design practice with textiles simulated on digital bodies. Digital designers use tangible interaction with textiles for post-phenomenological design considerations. Our research indicates a complementary relationship between tangible interaction and drape observation, which allows for new approaches when considering textile materials. The drape observation based on drape measurement methods developed in textile science equips designers with a deeper material understanding. As the flat textile is placed in the scientific setup, the deformation and the designer's experience co-shape design considerations. The physical-to-digital paradigm shift disconnects designers from the tangible interaction with the textile. Fashion designers' approach contrasts with textile science methods to measure textile properties (needed to simulate textiles) and drape. Equipping designers with this understanding of textile technology requires interdisciplinary developments to make combined tangible drape tools accessible in physical and digital design spaces. Understanding design considerations in physical-digital practices and material drape, utilizing simulated textile properties, is essential for this endeavor. Cross-disciplinary understanding of textiles and similar soft materials between fashion designers, design researchers, textile and computer researchers, and cultural heritage researchers seems valuable in reducing measurement hurdles and creating tools to increase relationships between the physical and digital textiles and improving visual analyses and assessment of textiles. Our reflection to sharpen the post-phenomenological lens and cross-disciplinary collaborations of our past and future research contributes to understanding physical-digital textile design considerations and required cross-disciplinary interaction.
MULTIFILE
Background: Currently, the Ponseti method is the gold standard for treatment of clubfeet. For long-term func- tional evaluation of this method, gait analysis can be performed. Previous studies have assessed gait differences between Ponseti treated clubfeet and healthy controls. Research question/purpose: The aims of this systematic review were to compare the gait kinetics of Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls and to compare the gait kinetics between clubfoot patients treated with the Ponseti method or surgically. Methods: A systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl ebsco, and Google scholar, for studies reporting on gait kinetics in children with clubfeet treated with the Ponseti method. Studies were excluded if they only used EMG or pedobarography. Data were extracted and a risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses and qualitative analyses were performed. Results: Nine studies were included, of which five were included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses showed that ankle plantarflexor moment (95% CI -0.25 to -0.19) and ankle power (95% CI -0.89 to -0.60, were significantly lower in the Ponseti treated clubfeet compared to the healthy controls. No significant difference was found in ankle dorsiflexor and plantarflexor moment, and ankle power between clubfeet treated with surgery compared to the Ponseti method. Significance: Differences in gait kinetics are present when comparing Ponseti treated clubfeet with healthy controls. However, there is no significant difference between surgically and Ponseti treated clubfeet. These results give more insight in the possibilities of improving the gait pattern of patients treated for clubfeet.
