— Several studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of real-time biofeedback for improving postural control. However, the application for daily activities, which also include postural transitions, is still limited. One crucial aspect is the time point of providing feedback, and thus its reliability. This might depend on the sensor system used, but also on how the threshold is defined. This study investigates which wearable sensor system and what kind of threshold is more reliable in a situation of a postural transition. To this end, we compared three sensor systems regarding their accuracy in timing in a stable and unstable postural transition in 16 healthy young adults: a multiple Inertial Measurement Unit system (IMU), a pressure Insoles System (IS), and a combination of both systems (COMB). Further, we contrasted two threshold parameters for each system: a Quiet Standing-based threshold (QSth) and a Limits of Stability-based threshold (LoSth). Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs and Wilcoxon tests (α = 0.05) indicated highest accuracy in the COMB LoSth, though with small differences to the IS LoSth. The LoSth showed more accurate timing than the QSth, especially in medio-lateral direction for IS and COMB. Consequently, for providing a reliable timing for a potential biofeedback applied by a wearable device in everyday life situations applications should focus on pressure insoles and a functional stability threshold, such as the LoS-based threshold.     «

— Several studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of real-time biofeedback for improving postural control. However, the application for daily activities, which also include postural transitions, is still limited. One crucial aspect is the time point of providing feedback, and thus its reliability. This might depend on the sensor system used, but also on how the threshold is defined. This study investigates which wearable sensor system and what kind of threshold is more reliable in a...     »