Abstract
The ability to control the body's center of mass (CoM) is critical for preventing falls, which are a major health concern in aging populations. Control of the CoM has been assessed by characterizing dynamic margins of stability (MoS) which capture the dynamic relationship between the CoM and the base of support. Accurate estimation of CoM dynamics is best accomplished using a full-body marker set. However, a number of simplified estimates have been used throughout literature. Here, we determined the biases and sources of bias when computing MoS using four simplified CoM models, and we characterized how these biases varied in straight walking versus turning. CoM kinematics were characterized using a full-body marker set, the lower extremities and trunk, lower extremities only, an average of four pelvic markers, and one pelvic marker alone. Significant bias was demonstrated for most methods and was larger during turning tasks compared to straight walking. In the fore-aft direction, only overestimates in the MoS were observed, and these ranged from 15 to 110% larger than the true MoS value. In the mediolateral direction, both under- and over-estimates were observed and ranged from -175 to 225%. Across tasks, bias was smallest when using the lower extremity plus trunk (-23 to 62%) and pelvis average methods (-71 to 43%). Sources of bias were attributed to misestimates of CoM height, velocity, and position. Together, our findings suggest that the 1) lower extremity and trunk model and 2) pelvis average model should be considered in future studies to minimize bias when simplified models of CoM dynamics are desired.