## 3 Results
### Inter-Subject Comparison Between SCFP and SFP for Between-Feet Measurements (BFMs)  
The [PERSON] signed-rank test revealed no significant differences between the right foot standing angle (RFSA) and the left foot standing angle (LFSA). The one-sample \(t\)-test revealed a significant effect of feet placement on between-feet parameters, as shown in Table 2. In particular, results showed that the between-feet angle (BFA) was significantly smaller, while the IHMD and IHPD were significantly larger in the SCFP compared to the SFP. Intra-Subject (Inter-Trial) Variability of Stabilometric and Plantar Pressure Parameters in SCFP and SFP  
Figure 3 shows the boxplots (median, 25 th-75 th percentiles) of the intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV) and their inter-subject distribution for each parameter. CVs are arranged in ascending order based on their median value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AMs**} \\  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD (min; max)** & \\ \cline{2-4}
**BFMs** & & **Height [cm]** & **Inter-Acromion** & **Inter-ASIS** \\
**Mean \(\pm\) SD (Min; Max) Or Median** & & **Distance [cm]** & **Distance [cm]** \\ \cline{2-4}
**(25 th–75 th Percentiles)** & & **172.1 \(\pm\) 7.6 (160; 183)** & **34.5 \(\pm\) 2.7 (29.0; 39.0)** & **24.8 \(\pm\) 2.6 (20.5; 29.5)** \\ \cline{2-4}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pearson Correlation Coefficient R (\(p\)-Value)**} \\  & & **[95\% Confidence Interval]** & \\ \hline BFA [Deg] & 12.2 (6.8; 16.4) & 0.369 (0.100) & 0.373 (0.095) & 0.281 (0.218) \\
[\(-\)0.075; 0.691] & [\(-\)0.070; 0.693] & [\(-\)0.172; 0.635] \\ \hline IHMD [cm] & 15.1 \(\pm\) 2.9 (8.0; 22.5) & 0.266 (0.244) & 0.128 (0.581) & 0.415 (0.061) \\
[\(-\)0.322; 0.530] & [\(-\)0.020; 0.718] \\ \hline IHPD [cm] & 19.6 \(\pm\) 3.1 (12.2; 26.9) & 0.238 (0.296) & 0.110 (0.634) & 0.273 (0.096) \\
[\(-\)0.215; 0.608] & [\(-\)0.337; 0.517] & [\(-\)0.070; 0.693] \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: between-feet angle (BFA); anthropometric measurements (AMs); between-feet measurements (BFMs); Inter-Heels Medial Distance (IHMD); Inter-Heels Posterior Distance (IHPD); Anterior Superior Iliac Spine (ASIS); standard deviation (SD); minimum (Min); and maximum (Max).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Pearson correlation coefficients (R) with \(p\)-values and 95% confidence interval between anthropometric measurements (AMs) and between-feet measurements (BFMs) in SCFP. Variables are also reported as mean \(\pm\) SD (min; max). \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean \(\pm\) SD (Min; Max) or Median**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standardized Value**} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(25 th–75 th Percentiles)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standardized Value**} \\ \hline BFA [Deg] & 12.2 (6.8; 16.4) & 30 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline IHMD [cm] & 15.1 \(\pm\) 2.9 (8.0; 22.5) & 5 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline IHPD [cm] & 19.1 \(\pm\) 3.1 (12.2; 26.9) & 9 & \textless{}0.001 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  Note: between-feet measurements (BFMs); self-selected comfortable foot position (SCFP), standardized foot position (SFP), between-feet angle (BFA), left foot standing angle (IFSA); Hertz’s Medical Distance (IHMD);hertz-Heels Posterior Distance (HPD); barroodometric software (BS); standard deviation (SD), minimum (Min), and maximum (Max); between-feet measurements (BFMs). Significant differences are highlighted in bold and are indicated via “_”. Figure 3: Boxplot of intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV) in percentage for all stabilometric and plantar pressure parameters, sorted in ascending order according to the median values (black segments), in SCFP (**a**) and SFP (**b**) conditions. Figure note: total foot (Tf), rearfoot (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).