Dussault-Picard Cloé, Tisserand Romain, Robidou Claire, Cherni Yosra
Ecole de Kinésiologie et des Sciences de L'activité Physique, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Laboratoire de Neurobiomécanique et Neuroréadaptation de la locomotion (NNL), Centre de recherche Azrieli du CHU Sainte Justine, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Front Sports Act Living. 2025 Jun 5;7:1571994. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1571994. eCollection 2025.
The 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.
Using 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 -tests with statistical parametric mapping and root mean square differences (RMSD) relative to the CoP-based approach.
Results 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).
These 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.
稳定裕度(MoS)是步态期间动态稳定性的一种广泛使用的生物力学测量指标,通常计算为外推质心(xCoM)与压力中心(CoP)之间的距离。根据霍夫模型,基于CoP的方法被认为是定义xCoM相对于支撑面(BoS)位置并计算MoS的首选方法。然而,由于实际限制,基于标记的方法在研究和临床环境中经常被使用,并且标记选择缺乏标准化会导致MoS估计值存在变异性。本研究旨在评估不同基于标记的方法与基于CoP的方法之间的差异。
使用一个包含30名健康成年人以自选速度行走的开放获取数据集,在站立期的前后(AP)和内外侧(ML)方向上连续计算MoS。评估了各种基于标记的方法,包括常用标记(AP:足跟、足尖;ML:足跟、脚踝、M5、中点)以及一种新方法,即使用每个时间点与地面接触的最前方(用于AP MoS)或最外侧(用于ML MoS)标记(AP:最前方;ML:最外侧)。使用配对t检验、统计参数映射以及相对于基于CoP的方法的均方根差异(RMSD)来量化差异。
结果表明,对于AP MoS,最前方方法与基于CoP的方法一致性最高(RMSD = 47.04毫米),而对于ML MoS估计,足跟标记与基于CoP的方法一致性最高(RMSD = 17.93毫米)。
这些发现突出了标记选择在MoS分析中的重要性,并表明特定的标记配置,特别是那些基于AP - MoS的足底与地面接触的配置,相对于基于CoP的方法能提供最接近的估计值。本研究为未来使用基于标记的方法的MoS研究提高一致性和可比性提供了循证建议。