## 3 Results
### The Effect of the Foot Positions (SCFP and SFP) on CVs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Plantar Pressure and Stabilometric Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LS**} & **SCFP (A)** & **SFP (B)** & **SCFP vs. SFP (A vs. B)** \\ \cline{3-5}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median (25 th–75 th Percentiles)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Load Tf [\%]} & 1 & 46.1 (44.8; 47.8) & 46.6 (44.8; 48.5) & 0.217 \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 53.9 (52.2; 55.2) & 53.4 (51.5; 55.2) & 0.217 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Load Rf [\%]} & 1 & 46.9 (45.0; 50.0) & 48.2 (46.6; 51.4) & 0.099 \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 42.7 (39.0; 46.1) & 43.7 (41.2; 45.9) & 0.131 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Load Mf [\%]} & 1 & 11.3 (4.8; 14.4) & 11.9 (4.2; 16.9) & 0.455 \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 13.3 (5.9; 18.9) & 12.4 (4.1; 18.4) & 0.332 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Load Ff [\%]} & 1 & 41.7 (38.7; 48.3) & 39.9 (35.6; 45.9) & **0.017 (A)** \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 44.0 (40.1; 47.5) & 43.9 (38.8; 47.8) & 0.181 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pmean Tf [KPa]} & 1 & 37.4 (33.7; 42.6) & 38.9 (33.4; 44.5) & **0.027 (B)** \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 38.0 (34.3; 42.1) & 39.2 (35.3; 43.6) & 0.205 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pmean Rf [KPa]} & 1 & 50.4 (44.6; 57.1) & 51.6 (45.2; 58.9) & 0.305 \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 49.6 (43.0; 57.8) & 51.3 (46.5; 56.5) & 0.274 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pmean Mf [KPa]} & 1 & 21.9 (17.9; 26.8) & 23.1 (19.9; 25.3) & **0.027 (B)** \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 21.5 (18.4; 24.2) & 22.4 (20.4; 24.4) & 0.181 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Inter-subject median and percentiles (25%, 75%) of plantar pressure and stabilometric parameters; significant differences (level of significant \(\alpha\) = 0.05) between the two different conditions of foot position (SCFP and SFP) via [PERSON] signed rank test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Coefficient of Variation (CV)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LS**} & **SCFP (A)** & **SFP (B)** & **SCFP vs. SFP (A vs. B)** \\ \cline{3-5}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median (25 th–75 th Percentiles)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Pmax Ff [KPa]} & 1 & 3.5 (1.9; 5.4) & 9.3 (6.9; 11.3) & **0.001 (B)** \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 4.1 (2.9; 7.3) & 6.5 (5.2; 10.5) & **0.027 (B)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{FCA [cm\({}^{2}\)]} & 1 & 3.3 (2.3; 4.8) & 6.5 (2.4; 11.6) & **0.002 (B)** \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 3.1 (2.4; 4.7) & 5.4 (2.1; 8.2) & **0.025 (B)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{AI [\%]} & 1 & 8.3 (4.1; 14.9) & 13.9 (7.8; 28.6) & **0.032 (B)** \\ \cline{2-5}  & r & 4.5 (3.2; 17.8) & 16.3 (6.7; 28.6) & **0.001 (B)** \\ \hline CoPsa [mm\({}^{2}\)] & & 42.8 (26.7; 58.1) & 54.1 (36.0; 67.7) & 0.060 \\ \hline CP speed [mm/s] & & 11.5 (8.2; 17.6) & 15.4 (10.0; 25.4) & 0.129 \\ \hline LSF [mm\({}^{-1}\)] & & 35.4 (30.4; 55.8) & 50.8 (39.7; 70.8) & 0.060 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Each condition is identified as follows: SCFP (A) and SFP (B). The letter in bold indicates the condition in which the significant increase was found. Limb side (L); left (L); right (R); total foot (Tf); reorient (Rf); midfoot (Mf); forefoot (Ff); mean pressure (Pmean); maximum pressure (Pmax); foot contact area (FCA); arch index (AI); center of pressure (CoP); center-of-pressure sway area (CoPsa); center of pressure speed (CP speed); length surface function (LSF); self-selected comfortable foot position (SCFP); standardized foot position (SFP).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._A statistically significant higher CP speed was observed in SCFP with respect to SFP. Regarding the plantar pressure parameters, SCFP showed significantly lower left Pmean at Tf, left Pmean and Pmax at Mf, and significantly higher right FCA and left Load at Ff compared to SFP.