AUTHOR=Dussault-Picard Cloé , Tisserand Romain , Robidou Claire , Cherni Yosra 

TITLE=Comparison of marker-based and center-of-pressure-based approaches for calculating the margin of stability

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

VOLUME=Volume 7 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2025.1571994

DOI=10.3389/fspor.2025.1571994

ISSN=2624-9367

ABSTRACT=IntroductionThe margin of stability (MoS) is a widely used biomechanical measure of dynamic stability during gait, typically computed as the distance between the extrapolated center of mass (xCoM) and the center of pressure (CoP). According to Hof's model, the CoP-based approach is considered the preferred approach for defining where the xCoM is relative to the BoS and calculating the MoS. However, marker-based approaches often need to be used in research and clinical settings due to practical constraints and the lack of standardization in marker selection introduces variability in MoS estimates. This study aimed to assess the difference between different marker-based approaches and the CoP-based approach.MethodsUsing an open-access dataset of 30 healthy adults walking at a self-selected speed, MoS was calculated continuously during the stance phase in both the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions. Various marker-based approaches were evaluated, including commonly used markers (AP: HEEL, TOE; ML: HEEL, ANKLE, M5, MID) and a novel approach using the most anterior (for AP MoS) or most lateral (for ML MoS) marker in contact with the ground at each time point (AP: MOST ANTERIOR; ML: MOST LATERAL). Differences were quantified using paired t-tests with statistical parametric mapping and root mean square differences (RMSD) relative to the CoP-based approach.ResultsResults showed that the MOST ANTERIOR approach had the closest agreement with the CoP-based approach for AP MoS (RMSD = 47.04 mm), while the HEEL marker provided the closest agreement with the CoP-based approach for the ML MoS estimates (RMSD = 17.93 mm).ConclusionThese findings highlight the importance of marker selection in MoS analysis and suggest that specific marker configurations, particularly those grounded in foot-ground contact for the AP-MoS, provide closest estimates relative to the CoP-based approach. This study offers evidence-based recommendations for improving consistency and comparability in future MoS studies using marker-based approaches.