## 3 Results  
### Participants Group Results  
Each participant's average MPP and contact area values recorded on each data acquisition device were calculated. The results are shown in Table 3.  
Figure 2 shows the average MPP values recorded by each plantar pressure assessment device, for each patient. According to [PERSON] et al. (2017), when assessing plantar pressure clinically, the peak pressure is the most reliable parameter. For all the volunteers, the values obtained in terms of MPP with the insole system were higher than those obtained with the pressure platform. In accordance with [PERSON] et al. (2019), foot measurements should be taken during gait when the foot is in motion rather than static to capture the dynamic contributions essential for assessing the foot's biomechanical behavior.  
Figure 3 displays the average values of the contact area (CA) registered for each participant and identified by measurement equipment.  
It is possible to observe substantial variations between the Pedar(r) and Physiosensing(r) systems concerning the values of MPP and contact area. A clear insight into the difference between MPP and the contact area between the volunteers can be observed in Figures 2 and 3, allowing a more in-depth analysis.  
It was possible to observe an inverse relationship between MPP and contact area. The volunteers with higher MPP values tend to show lower values in the contact area, which indicates that the pressure is concentrated in specific regions of the plantar surface. For instance, participants with ID 04 and 08 presented the highest and lowest MPP values recorded by Pedar(r) equipment, 147 kPa and 41 kPa, respectively. However, it is possible to observe an inverse relation between MPP and contact area. For participant 08, larger contact areas were observed, suggesting a more even pressure distribution.  
In relation to the equipment used in this study--Pedar(r) and Physiosensing(r)--the comparison highlights substantial differences in the sensitivity of MPP and contact area measurements. Pedar(r) consistently recorded higher MPP values than Physiosensing(r).  
For instance, in participant 04, the MPP measured 147 kPa with Pedar(r) compared to 48 kPa with Physiosensing(r), representing a difference of 206.3%. Although less pronounced, a similar trend was observed in participant 12, where the MPP was 118 kPa with Pedar(r) versus 68 kPa with Physiosensing(r), a difference of 73.5%.  
Conversely, Physiosensing(r) registered significantly higher contact area values compared to Pedar(r). This is exemplified by participant 05, who showed a contact area of 268.0 cm\({}^{2}\) with Physiosensing(r) and 80.9 cm\({}^{2}\) with Pedar(r), reflecting a difference of 231.3%.  
The Bland-Altman plots in Figure 4 compare the two plantar pressure assessment devices (Pedar(r) and Physiosensing(r)) for maximum peak pressure (MPP) and contact area.  
Figure 3: Contact area (CA) values from Pedar® and Physiosensing®.  
A systematic bias, as most points lie above zero, indicates that the Pedar(r) system tends to measure higher MPP and larger contact areas than the Physiosensing(r) device. There is increasing variability as MPP values increase, suggest that the devices are more inconsistent in measuring higher pressures. In contrast, for the contact area, the bias seems relatively stable across the range of values, as the difference does not increase with larger contact areas.