Paper | CoM definition | Pendulum length | BoS definition | MoS calculation | MoS reference edge | Point of gait | Results as reported in original paper | Standardised results interpretation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stroke (n = 8) | ||||||||
Hak, et al. (2013) [14] | Centre of the polygon described by 4 pelvic markers | Maximal height of the origin of the pelvis | AP: Lateral malleolar marker of the leading foot | BoS – XcoM | AP: Posterior | AP: Heel strike | No significant group effects. | No significant difference for MoSML or MoSAP. |
ML: Lateral malleolar marker of the leading foot | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value per step | ||||||
Kao, et al. (2014) [27] | Not specified. | Height of the COM during quiet standing | AP: Front toe marker of the leading foot | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | Post-stroke individuals had smaller average MOSAP (p = 0.042) but no difference in MOSML, compared to controls. Post-stroke individuals had greater variability of MOSAP and MOSML compared to controls (p < 0.001). | Post-stroke individuals had significantly less stable MoSAP and no difference for MoSML. Post-stroke individuals had greater MoSAP and MoSML variability, compared to controls. MoSML variability was significantly greater for the affected leg in post-stroke individuals. |
ML: Lateral toe marker of the leading foot | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Hak, et al. (2015) [23] | Centre of the polygon described by 4 pelvic markers | Maximal height of the estimated CoM | AP: Heel marker of the leading foot | XcoM - BoS | AP: Posterior | AP: Minimum value per step | MoSAP increased when stride length (p < 0.001) and stride frequency (p < 0.001) were increased. MoSML increased when stride frequency was increased (p < 0.001). | MoSAP increased with increased stride length and stride frequency and MoSML increased with stride frequency. Increased MoSAP and MoSML was limited during faster than comfortable stride frequency suggesting inability of post-stroke individuals to regulate MoS using stride frequency. |
ML: Lateral malleolar marker of the leading foot | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value per step | ||||||
van Meulen, et al. (2016) [20] | Fusion of low-pass filtered CoP data with high-pass filtered double-integrated CoM acceleration data. | Vertical CoM position | AP: Midpoint between the front of each foot | MoSAP = XcoM – BoS MoSML = |BoS – XCoM| | AP: Anterior | AP: Continuous during double-limb support | A positive, significant correlation was found between fall risk and percentage of time spent with a positive MoSAP (r = 0.75, p = 0.014). MoSML asymmetry was not correlated with participant’s fall risk. | MoSAP was more often more stable for more affected post-stroke participants. MoSAP and MoSML were less stable on participants’ affected side. |
ML: Lateral shoe position | ML: Lateral | ML: Continuous during double-limb support | ||||||
van Meulen, et al. (2016) [19] | Fusion of low-pass filtered CoP data with high-pass filtered double-integrated CoM acceleration data. | Greater trochanter height estimated from total body height | AP: Line connecting the front of each foot. | XcoM-BoS | AP: Anterior | AP: Continuous during double-limb support | Participants with lower BBS scores tend to have a slower walking speed and small positive average MoSAP. There is no significant correlation between BBS and MoSAP (r = 0.41, p = 0.167). | MoSAP was not significantly correlated with a standard clinical parameter, but MoSAP was more often stable for more affected post-stroke participants. |
ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ||||||
Vistamehr, et al. (2016) [26] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (13 segment) | 1.34 x leg length (m) | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | MoSML was inversely correlated with the clinical scores (BBS and DGI). | MoSML was significantly moderately negatively correlated with other balance measures (more stable for lower Berg Balance Score). When feet were separated, only the affected side correlated with other balance measures. |
ML: CoP | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Punt, et al. (2017) [24] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (14 segment) | Not specified | AP: Not specified | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | MoSAP and MoSML were similar during steady-state gait at a fixed speed for faller and non-faller groups. | MoSAP and MoSML was not significantly different between faller and non-faller groups for the paretic and non-paretic legs. MoSAP variability was significantly different between faller and non-faller groups for the paretic leg, and for MoSML variability for the paretic and non-paretic leg. |
ML: Not specified | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Tisserand, et al. (2018) [25] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (number of segments not specified) | 1.34 x leg length (m) | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | Post-stroke participants had a larger MoSML than controls during baseline treadmill walking (p < 0.01), with a larger MoSML on the non-paretic side than on the paretic side at ipsilateral foot-strike (p < 0.05). | MoSML was significantly more stable for non-paretic and paretic limbs at heel strike compared to controls. MoSML was significantly more stable for the non-paretic limb compared to the paretic limb at heel strike. |
ML: Midpoint between the heel marker and 2nd metatarsal marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike & toe off | ||||||
Unilateral transtibial amputees (n = 5) | ||||||||
Curtze, et al. (2011) [33] | Not specified | 1.34 x leg length (m) | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | There was no significant difference between amputee and control groups for MoSML (p = .763). | MoSML was not statistically different between amputees and controls, or between prosthetic and sound limbs for the amputee group. |
ML: AP axis defined by the 2nd metatarsal and calcaneal markers | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value during stance phase | ||||||
Gates, et al. (2013) [32] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (number of segments not specified) | 1.34 x leg length (m) | AP: n/a | BoS – XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | Amputees had a greater mean MoSML than controls (p = 0.018). Amputees had a smaller MoSML on their prosthetic limb compared to intact limb (p = 0.036), while controls had no significant between-limb differences. | MoSML was significantly more stable for amputees than controls. Amputees had a significantly less stable MoSML on their prosthetic limb compared to their sound limb. |
ML: 5th metatarsal marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value during stance phase | ||||||
Hak, et al. (2013) [31] | Centre of the polygon described by 4 pelvic markers | Maximal height of the origin of the pelvis | AP: Lateral malleolar marker of the leading foot | BoS - XcoM | AP: Posterior | AP: Continuous | MoSAP was smaller for amputees than for controls (p = 0.02). In Amputees had a larger MoSML than controls (p = .013). | MoSAP was significantly less stable for amputees than controls. MoSML was significantly more stable for amputees than controls, possibly due to a compensatory wider step width. |
ML: Lateral malleolar marker of the leading foot | ML: Lateral | ML: Continuous | ||||||
Beltran, et al. (2014) [30] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (13 segment model) | 1.34 x leg length (m) | AP: n/a | XcoM – BoS | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | There was no significant difference between mean MoSML and MoSML variability between amputees and controls or between intact and prosthetic limbs for the amputee group. | MoSML was not significantly different between amputees and controls. MoSML variability was not significantly different between amputees and controls. |
ML: 5th metatarsal marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value during stance phase | ||||||
Hak, et al. (2014) [28] | Centre of the polygon described by 4 pelvic markers | Maximal height of the estimated CoM | AP: Lateral malleolar marker of the leading foot | XcoM - BoS | AP: Posterior | AP: Heel strike & toe off | The MoSAP was significantly larger (p = 0.018) for the sound limb compared to the prosthetic limb. There was a significant (p = 0.001) increase of MoSAP between initial contact and contralateral toe-off. | MoSAP was significantly more stable at heel strike for the prosthetic limb, compared to the sound limb of amputees, but not significantly different at toe off. |
ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ||||||
Other amputees (n = 4) | ||||||||
Hof, et al. (2007) [34] | Low-pass filter of CoP data | 1.34 x trochanter height (m) | AP: n/a | BoS - XCoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | In amputees MoSML for the prosthetic leg was always larger than for the non-prosthetic leg and larger than the values for the control subjects. | MoSML was significantly more stable for amputees compared to controls at all speeds (Glass’s Δ: control vs. prosthetic limb = 1.6; control vs. non-prosthetic limb = 0.3). MoSML was significantly more stable for amputee’s prosthetic limb compared to their sound limb at all speeds. |
ML: CoP | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Major, et al. (2013) [3] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (number of segments not specified) | Not specified | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | Amputee step widths were greater than controls at all speeds and prosthetic type (p = 0.002). The XcoM exceeded the lateral borders of the BoS in all amputees at fast walk and when using the prosthetic with greater ankle joint motion, but this never happened in controls. | XcoM frequently exceeded the BoS (became unstable) in the ML direction for the prosthetic group wearing a prosthetic limb with additional ankle motion compared to controls and the same participants wearing a prosthetic limb with more limited ankle motion where the XcoM was always maintained within the BoS (remained stable). |
ML: CoP of the stance limb | ML: Lateral | ML: Peak XcoM | ||||||
Brandt, et al. (2019) [29] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (number of segments not specified) | 1.34 x leg length (m) which was the average of the 2 trochanters | AP: n/a | BoS – XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | Mean MoSML was 5.71 cm (1.18 cm) for the prosthetic limb and 4.92 cm (1.18 cm) for the sound limb during baseline treadmill walking. | MoSML stability was more stable for the prosthetic side compared to the intact side, but this was not compared statistically. |
ML: CoP | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value per step | ||||||
Major, et al. (2019) [35] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (12 segment) | 1.34 x trochanter height (m) | AP: n/a | BoS – XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | MOSML was significantly greater on the sound limb side compared to the prosthetic limb side (p = 0.005). | MoSML was significantly less stable for the prosthetic limb compared to the sound limb in all conditions. |
ML: Fifth metatarsal of the stance limb | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value per step | ||||||
Spinal cord injury (SCI) (n = 2) | ||||||||
Day, et al. (2012) [38] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (13 segment model) | Not specified | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | Participants with SCI had significantly greater MoSML variability compared to controls (p < 0.007). | MoSML had significantly greater variability in post-SCI participants compared to controls suggesting compensatory control mechanisms to avoid falls. |
ML: CoP | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value during double-limb support | ||||||
Arora, et al. (2019) [13] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (12 segment) | Not specified | AP: Anterior foot boundary | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | MoSAP for participants with spinal cord injury was significantly smaller than controls walking at matched speeds (p < 0.01). | MoSAP was not significantly different between SCI participants and controls walking at their self-selected speed. MoSAP was significantly less stable for SCI participants compared to controls walking slower than their self-selected pace to more closely match walking speed on the SCI individuals (Glass’s Δ = 2.9). |
ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ||||||
Multiple Sclerosis (MS) (n = 2) | ||||||||
Peebles, et al. (2016) [12] | Geometric centre of the triangle formed by 2 anterior superior iliac spine markers and the midpoint between the 2 posterior superior iliac spine markers | Distance between the estimated CoM and the ankle marker | AP: Toe marker | BoS – XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike & mid-stance | MS participants with gait impairments had a higher MoSAP than controls (p < 0.001) and MS participants without gait impairments (p < 0.001) at heel strike and mid-stance. At heel strike, MS participants with gait impairments had a higher MoSML than controls (p = 0.010). | MoSAP was significantly more stable for MS participants with a gait impairment, compared to those without and compared to controls at heel strike and mid-stance (Glass’s Δ: Heel strike = 1.3; Mid-stance = 1.2). MoSML was significantly more stable for the MS participants with a gait impairment compared to controls at heel strike (Glass’s Δ = 1). |
ML: Lateral metatarsophalangeal joint | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike & mid-stance | ||||||
Peebles, et al. (2017) [39] | Centre of the polygon described by 4 pelvic markers. | Distance between the estimated CoM and the ankle marker | AP: Toe marker | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | MS fallers had a decreased mean MoSAP (p < 0.001) and an increased MoSAP variability (p < 0.001) compared to both MS non-fallers and controls. MS non-fallers had an increased mean MoSML (p = 0.011) compared to controls only, and MS fallers had an increased MoSML variability (p < 0.001) compared to both MS non-fallers and controls. | MS fallers had less stable MoSAP (Glass’s Δ = 1.5) and increased MoSAP variability compared to MS non-fallers and controls. MS non-fallers were more stable for MoSML (Glass’s Δ = 0.6) and had increased MoSML variability compared to controls. MS fallers had increased MoSML variability compared to MS non-fallers and controls. |
ML: Lateral metatarsophalangeal joint | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Parkinson’s Disease (PD) (n = 3) | ||||||||
Stegemöller, et al. (2012) [37] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (15 segment) | Distance between the COM and the centre of the ankle joint in the sagittal plane | AP: Marker positions on the foot | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike & toe off | At heel strike and toe from the leading and trailing foot the PD group had a significantly larger MoSAP than controls. | PD participants were more stable than controls during baseline walking at heel strike and toe off for the leading (Glass’s Δ: Heel strike = 6.9; Toe off = 2.6) and trailing (Glass’s Δ: Heel strike = 8.5; Toe off = 5.3) foot in the AP direction. |
ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ||||||
Catalá, et al. (2016) [36] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (number of segments not specified) | Distance between the estimated CoM and the ankle marker | AP: AP distance between the toes of the anterior foot and heel of the posterior foot | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | MoSAP was significantly lower (p < 0.05) in the PD group compared to controls, reflecting more unstable gait patterns in unperturbed walking at the same walking velocity. | MoSAP was significantly less stable for PD participants compared to controls. |
ML n/a | ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ||||||
Martelli, et al. (2017) [11] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (13 segment) | Instantaneous distance between the body CoM and the ankle joint of the leading leg | AP: Tip of the toe | BoS – XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | PD participants always walked with a significantly lower MoSAP than controls (p = 0.044). No significant difference for MoSML. | MoSAP was significantly less stable for PD participants than controls. No significant difference for MoSML. |
ML: Fifth metatarsal marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Miscellaneous (n = 7) | ||||||||
McCrum, et al. (2014) [18] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (12 segment model) | Instantaneous distance between the body CoM and the ankle joint of the leading leg | AP: Toe marker of the leading foot | BoS - XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | No significant differences in MoSAP between UPVD patients and controls. Both groups had a positive MoSAP, which indicates a stable body position. | No significant difference for MoSAP between UPVD participants and controls. |
ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ML: n/a | ||||||
Hoogkamer, et al. (2015) [44] | Cluster of markers at pelvis | Not specified | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | No significant different between cerebellar lesion participants and controls for MoSML during treadmill walking. | MoSML was not significantly different between cerebellar lesion participants and controls during treadmill walking. |
ML: Lateral boundary of the feet | ML: Lateral | ML: Contralateral toe off | ||||||
Rijken, et al. (2015) [40] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (12 segment model) | 0.55 x body height (m) | AP: Heel marker | BoS – XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | No significant differences between groups were found in MoSAP or MoSML values. | No difference in MoSAP or MoSML for affected participants between mild and moderate severity groups or compared to controls. |
ML: Ankle marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value during stance phase | ||||||
Ghomian, et al. (2017) [43] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (15 segment) | Distance between the COM and the lateral heel marker at heel strike | AP: Toe marker | BoS – XcoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike | MoSAP was significantly different for barefoot condition compared to all three shoe conditions. The barefoot condition had a positive MoSAP while all shoe conditions were negative. No significant differences for mean MoSML across all conditions. | MoSAP was significantly different for barefoot compared to all shoe trials. MoSAP was more stable for barefoot than all rocker shoes. No significant differences were found between any condition for MoSML. |
ML: Lateral rocker or 5th metatarsal marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
Simon, et al. (2017) [42] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (13 segment) | Trochanteric height (calculation not specified) | AP: n/a | BoS - XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | MoSML was smaller in the spinal deformity group compared to the control group. 14 spinal deformity participants were unstable and the remaining 3 patients were stable. | MoSML was less stable for spinal deformity participants than controls. |
ML: Lateral aspect of the foot created by the line between the lateral toe and lateral malleolar marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike | ||||||
van Vugt, et al. (2019) [41] | Cumulative anthropometric segmental mass properties (number of segments not specified) | Vertical distance between the CoP and the CoM during static trial | AP: Metatarsal marker of the stance foot | BoS - XCoM | AP: Anterior | AP: Heel strike & mid-stance | HSP participants had a significantly lower MoSML at heel strike and mid-stance. HSP participants had a significantly less negative MoSAP at mid-stance, but there was no difference for MoSAP at heel strike. | HSP participants were significantly more stable than controls for MoSAP at mid-stance (Glass’s Δ = 2.1). HSP participants were significantly less stable than controls for MoSML at heel strike and mid-stance (Glass’s Δ: Heel strike = 1.7; Mid-stance = 1.8) . |
ML: 2 cm lateral to the 2nd metatarsal marker | ML: Lateral | ML: Heel strike & mid-stance | ||||||
de Jong, et al. (2020) [45] | Centre of the polygon described by 4 pelvic markers. | Maximum height of the CoM | AP: n/a | BoS – XcoM | AP: n/a | AP: n/a | No significant difference for MoSML between spinal deformity and control groups. | No significant difference between groups for MoSML. |
ML: CoP | ML: Lateral | ML: Minimum value at the start of single-support phase |