Table 1.
Sample population characteristics: Total 124 healthy young adults.
Fig 1.
The experimental set-up used for 3D posture analysis: GOALS system and baropodometric platform configuration.
Fig 2.
Protocol for 3D posture analysis: List of 27 anatomical landmarks identified by palpation.
Fig 3.
An example of full 3D skeleton reconstruction.
Fig 4.
Standard graphical report an example of skeleton model reconstruction and parameters extraction.
Table 2.
List of quantitative biomechanical parameters considered by this research; and related abbreviations (n = 25).
Table 3.
List of parameters considered for IO vs. WCO intra-subject comparison and summarizing indexes.
Table 4.
The results of Male vs. Female comparison of 3D posture parameters: Only the parameters that showed statistically significant differences are reported.
Fig 5.
Male and Female “Thoracic” kyphosis and “Lumbar” lordosis angle values (deg.) as a percentile distribution.
Fig 6.
Male and Female relative frequency distribution (percentage related to the total) of “Thoracic” kyphosis and “Lumbar” lordosis curve lengths by the number of included vertebrae.
Fig 7.
Relative frequency of Male and Female “Thoracic” kyphosis and “Lumbar” lordosis Upper and Lower limit vertebrae (KLV, LLV: see Table 2 for definitions) along the spine.
The frequency of KLV and LLV is expressed by each identified limit vertebrae shown as a percentage of the total number in the sample.
Table 5.
The Results of IO vs. WCO comparison of 3D posture parameters.
Table 6.
Normative data (3D postural parameters) for IO and WCO.
Table 7.
The results of intra-subject statistical analysis.