## 4 Discussion
In addition, [PERSON]'s analysis revealed that these between-feet measurements (BFMs) had no significant correlations with the anthropometric measurements (height; inter-ASIS and inter-Acromion distances) in SCFP, highlighting that the subjects' choice of comfortable feet placement seems to be independent from their main anthropometric features. This evidence may indicate that the standardized foot position could be perceived as uncomfortable and restrictive by healthy subjects and unsuitable for stabilometric evaluation. The analysis of variability further supports this hypothesis. In fact, the variability of center-of-pressure sway area (CoPsa) and length surface function (LSF) demonstrated an increasing trend in SFP compared to SCFP (Figure 3 and Table 3) despite the highest variability of stabilometric parameters in both SCFP and SFP (Figure 3). Instead, the same analysis of plantar pressure parameters confirmed their lowest variability, with coefficients of variation (CVs) below 10% in both foot positions, as previously demonstrated by [5; 7; 27; 34]. In particular, significant lower CVs were observed in SCFP compared to SFP. All these findings confirm the greater reliability of plantar pressure parameters compared to stabilometric measures and demonstrate an increased response stability during comfortable foot positioning, corroborating prior research [5; 7; 27]. These results are in disagreement with observations by the authors of [15], where methodological limitations, including imprecise task instructions and inconsistent foot position across trials, likely contributed to reduced data reliability. Our results also disagree with another study [16] that reported lower variability in stabilometric parameters during the standardized foot position, compared to the closed parallel foot position (used in the Romberg test). These findings seem to suggest that a comfortable foot placement and a nearby target distance [5; 7; 27] create optimal conditions for a more reliable evaluation of stabilometric and plantar pressure parameters. Regarding the effect of foot placement on changes in plantar pressure and stabilometric parameters (Table 4), a significantly lower load was observed in the non-dominant forefoot with a lower total contact area in the dominant foot when the feet were forced in the standardized position. This finding may reveal the activation of a compensatory mechanism to maintain balance in the more unstable SFP condition. Additionally, increased mean and maximum pressures in the midfoot of the non-dominant side during SFP highlight and confirm the role of the midfoot in postural adaptation, probably due to its great sensitivity to tactile and vibration stimuli, as previously reported [5; 26; 35]. All these results regarding plantar pressure parameters underline easier postural control in a comfortable foot position while highlighting the need for the subject to regain stability by making adjustments in load distribution when foot placement is constrained. On the contrary, regarding the stabilometric parameters, a significantly greater CoP speed was observed in SCFP compared to SFP (Table 4); however, this result should be read carefully considering the slightly high variability in both SCFP and SFP conditions (Figure 3). Overall, these findings are supported by the results of our previous studies [5; 7; 27], which underscore the importance of considering both foot position and visual target distance during baropodometric exams to assess stabilometric and plantar pressure parameters. The imposition of a standardized foot position and a distant visual target can negatively impact balance and increase variability, particularly in plantar pressure parameters. All these findings have implications for future research and clinical practice.