## 5 Conclusions and Future Directions  
This study presents a comparative analysis of plantar pressure data collected under static conditions using two measurement systems: the Physiosensing(r) pressure platform and the Pedar(r) sensorized insoles. The results reveal notable pressure distribution and measurement variability differences between the two systems. These differences are justified by their distinct sensing technologies, calibration methods, and measurement contexts. Both devices demonstrated the capacity to capture plantar pressure data during static evaluations. However, the findings suggest that each system may be more appropriate for different applications. These conclusions are limited to static; as such, they should be interpreted cautiously, and further research is needed to confirm these observations in dynamic contexts or broader clinical populations. From a practical standpoint, this study provides meaningful insights into each system's specific strengths within biomechanical analysis and rehabilitation. The Physiosensing(r) platform appears particularly suited for static assessments, offering higher precision and consistency in measuring plantar pressure during quiet standing. This makes it especially relevant in clinical rehabilitation and physiotherapy, where accurate postural and balance analysis supports individualized therapeutic planning and continuous patient monitoring. In contrast, the Pedar(r) insole system seems better adapted for dynamic applications, effectively capturing variations in pressure and contact area during movement. These capabilities make it valuable for studies involving walking, running, and other repetitive motor tasks. Its ability to monitor pressure patterns during movement is beneficial for gait retraining, postural correction, and rehabilitation, aiding in identifying pressure imbalances associated with dysfunction or injury. These insights can inform interventions that reduce overload in vulnerable areas and support gradual, safe recovery. The observed differences between the systems highlight the importance of understanding their technical specifications, particularly aspects such as sensor density, which significantly influence the accuracy of data collection and the appropriateness of each system for specific applications. In conclusion, the selection between the Pedar(r) and Physiosensing(r) systems should be guided by the study's specific objectives or clinical evaluation. Using the most appropriate device helps ensure the reliability of the data and contributes to a more precise and meaningful analysis of plantar pressure distribution. Future directions for research should include expanding the participant sample to encompass a more diverse population, such as older adults, high-performance athletes, and individuals with musculoskeletal or metabolic conditions (e.g., diabetic foot). In addition, a longitudinal analysis of plantar pressure across different rehabilitation phases would provide valuable insights into the evolution of therapeutic outcomes and functional recovery. Monitoring these pressure changes over time could support more tailored interventions and enhance clinical decision-making. Finally, conducting a comparative analysis with other commercially available systems--pressure platforms and sensorized insoles--would help broaden the spectrum of available technologies and offer a more comprehensive perspective on their clinical and research applicability. Conceptualization, M.A.C. and A.M.A. ; methodology, C.M.A., M.F.P., M.A.C., and A.M.A. ; validation, C.M.A., M.F.P., L.R., M.A.C., and A.M.A. ; formal analysis, C.M.A., M.F.P., S.V., L.R., M.A.C., and A.M.A. ; investigation, C.M.A. and M.F.P. ; writing--original draft preparation, S.V., M.A.C., and A.M.A. ; writing--review and editing, C.M.A., M.F.P., S.V., L.R., M.A.C., and A.M.A. ; supervision, M.A.C. and A.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. C.M.A.