# A New Wearable System for Postural Balance Assessment: Comparison with EquiTest and Static Posturography in Healthy Adults

## TL;DR

This paper introduces a wearable system for assessing balance in healthy adults and compares it to traditional methods like EquiTest and static posturography.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the reliability and agreement of a wearable IMU-based system for balance assessment in comparison to established methods.

## Key findings

- Gravity demonstrated higher reliability for length-based balance measures compared to area-based measures.
- Gravity showed narrower limits of agreement when compared to static posturography.
- Moderate agreement was found between Gravity and computerised dynamic posturography for certain scores.

## Abstract

Background: Objective assessment of postural control is central to the clinical evaluation of vestibular disorders. Although force-platform-based posturography is considered the gold standard, its use may be limited by cost and infrastructural requirements. Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) represent a promising alternative; however, their clinical validation should account for intrinsic differences in measurement paradigms rather than strict metric equivalence. Objective: To preliminarily evaluate the within-session reliability of a wearable IMU-based medical device for balance assessment (Gravity), and its agreement with established static (SBP) and computerised dynamic posturographic systems (CDP) in healthy subjects. Methods: Sixty-three healthy adults were enrolled in two independent method comparison studies: a wearable IMU-based balance system versus a static stabilometric platform (GRAVITY vs. SVEP; n = 42) and a wearable IMU-based balance system versus computerised dynamic posturography (Gravity vs. EquiTest; n = 21). Gravity measurements were obtained simultaneously with reference systems across standardised sensory conditions. Within-session reliability and method agreement were assessed. Results: Within-session reliability of Gravity was outcome-dependent. Length-based components demonstrated higher repeatability (ICC (single) = 0.25–0.35; ICC (average) = 0.41–0.52), with narrower limits of agreement (LoA = ±9–12%) and lower measurement error (SEM = 3.3–4.3%). In comparison with SBP, length-based measures exhibited narrower limits (LoA = ±12–17) and more consistent relationships. Comparison with CDP revealed moderate agreement for composite and preferential scores (LoA: −2.20–7.07; −5.54–8.12). Conclusions: Gravity sensor may represent a clinically meaningful, outcome-dependent performance, with superior reliability and comparability for length-based postural measures compared with area-based measures. The device could provide balance assessments compatible with both static and dynamic posturographic systems, accounting for physiological variability. These findings support the potential clinical use of wearable IMU-based posturography, particularly in settings where conventional force-platform systems are not readily available, and warrant further validation in larger, more clinically diverse populations.