Mechanography in children: pediatric references in postural control

Abstract

Objective:

To establish pediatric age- and sex-specific references for measuring postural control with a mechanography plate in a single centre, prospective, normative data study.

Methods:

739 children and adolescents (396 male/343 female) aged 4 to 17 years were studied. Each participant completed the following test sequence three times: Romberg, semi-tandem, tandem, each with eyes open and closed, and a one-leg stand with eyes open, and a single two-legged jump. Normal ranges were determined based on percentile calculations using the LMS method. Results from the two-legged jump were compared to a reference population the single two-legged jump (s2LJ) assessment in 2013.

Results:

38 different equilibrium parameters calculated were analysed. Of all parameters Path Length, vCoFmean, Equilibrium Score and Sway Angle showed a low variation within the same age group but high dependency on age and were thus chosen for automated balance assessment.

Conclusion:

Standard values of postural control in healthy children derived from automated balance testing using a mechanography plate were successfully acquired and a subset of parameters for automated balance assessment identified.

Katharina Vill has received speaker fees from Biogen and RG Ärztefortbildung Gesellschaft für Information und Organisation and received travel expenses from Biogen and Santhera. Rainer Rawer is an employee of Novotec Medical GmbH. Michaela Bonfert has received a Leonardo mechanograph as a loan to set up a study protocol to investigate postural control in children who sustained traumatic brain injury (Novotec Medical). Wolfgang Müller-Felber has served as a member of a scientific advisory board for Biogen, Avexis, PTC, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Sarepta and Cytokinetics and received travel expenses and speaker fees from Biogen, Avexis, PTC, Sarepta and Sanofi-Aventis. Astrid Blaschek received speaker fees from Roche, Avexis, Sanofi Genzyme, Admedicum and RG Ärztefortbildung Gesellschaft for Information und Organisation. Astrid Blasch also received honoraria for advisory board (Novartis) outside the submitted work. Franziska Pilz and Moritz Tacke have nothing to disclose.

Introduction

Neurological and neuromuscular disorders can affect muscular strength and coordination. Quantification of both entities has been largely based on assessing motor performance with standardized evaluator-based clinical tests.

With increasing availability of targeted therapies, methods to quantify the trajectory of disorders and changes during therapy are essential. Aspects such as balance can currently only be measured using semi-quantitative scales as in the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) or the pediatric balance scale in children with cerebral palsy[1,2]. Mechanography allows the automatic assessment of physical performance as well as postural control. A ground reaction force plate (GRFP) is used to record variation of ground reaction forces enabling quantification of function and movements relevant to everyday life. Mechanography is an easy, safe and reliable tool to measure lower limb muscle function[3-6].

Paediatric reference values regarding force measurements have been assessed in several cohorts of more than 300 children and adolescents for grip force, one-leg whole body stiffness and multiple one-leg hopping and for counter movement jumps and chair rising tests[7,8]. The use of force measurements in sports medicine is well established, the same parameters have been used for children with neuromuscular disorders[9,10]. Mechanography is also capable of assessing balance by measuring variation of ground reaction forces to calculate a variation in the Centre of Force (CoF). In adult neurology and sports medicine, instrumental assessment of postural control using a force plate is already a widely used diagnostic approach to provide a more precise analysis of body sway than clinical examination[11]. Preliminary studies in children with mild traumatic brain injury show a correlation with conventional scales such as the BESS[1], Bonfert et al., submitted. However, no reference values to examine balance have been published to date in the paediatric population, for whom motor performance is highly age-dependent.

The purpose of this study was to generate reference values for postural control in children and adolescents.

Methods

Study Population

A total cohort of 739 children (396 male, 343 female) took part in the study (Table 1).

Table 1.

Age and sex distribution of the study population.

Age (years)	Males	Females
4	16	21
5	25	24
6	22	23
7	23	37
8	29	28
9	27	32
10	53	44
11	55	22
12	32	26
13	36	28
14	22	25
15	24	19
16	19	8
17	13	6
Sum	396	343

The children were pre-schoolers, students from kindergarten and regular schools in the city of Munich with its surrounding area. In total six kindergarten sites, three elementary schools and three high schools participated. Only children with attendance in regular (school-) sports activities with written informed parental consent were included.

The over-all physical performance of this cohort was compared to the cohort from 2013 used as normative data built-into in the Leonardo Mechanography v4.4 software. Jumping Mechanography assessments, the SD-Scores (SDS) of the Esslinger Fitness Index (EFI, power output per body mass in relation to age and gender, a performance parameter) as well as the Force Efficiency (FE, force invested for the generated power output, a movement quality parameter) were compared between these two cohorts.

Testing Protocol

The test series were conducted in the setting of regular school sports classes. Precise instruction was given to perform each test, but no training was done before. Each child first performed a single two-leg jump (s2LJ, countermovement jump without restrictions) for comparison to already published reference data, and then the balance test battery with specific test in the following order:

Romberg test eyes open (Rom EO), Romberg test eyes closed (Rom EC), Semi-Tandem test eyes open (SemTan EO), Semi-Tandem test eyes closed (SemTan EC), Tandem test eyes open (Tan EO), Tandem test eyes closed (Tan EC) and One-Leg stand test eyes open (1LS EO). For all tests arms were hanging extended along the body. The dominant foot was determined as the foot that is used preferentially to climb stairs and the one that is more stable in a one-leg stand.

The duration of each test was ten seconds, the total duration of measurements was about five to ten minutes, depending on age and comprehension of the task.

For the Romberg test, the children were asked to stand on the plate with closed, parallel feet for a maximum of ten seconds, with the knees extended. For the Semi-tandem test, the dominant foot was placed forward by half a foot length, with feet closed. For the tandem test, the two feet (the dominant one in front) were placed one behind the other in a straight line. For the one-leg standing test, children were asked to stand on their dominant foot for as long as possible. For jumping, the patients were advised to jump as high as possible trying to land on their forefeet. Every patient performed the test items three times in a row, in exceptional cases with difficult understanding or technical difficulties more often. Individual measurements in which a foot was set down or the position was left were excluded from the statistical calculation. The result, included in the reference data calculation, is the mean of all valid measurements of the test person (occasionally one (1.6%) and four (15.1%) measurements, usually three (77.0%) measurements).

Instrumentation

Mechanography was assessed using the Leonardo Mechanograph® GRFP (Novotec Medical GmbH, Pforzheim, Germany). This device measures ground reaction forces, allowing evaluation of dynamic forces over time as well as calculation of the variation of the Centre of Force (CoF, in literature also referenced as centre of pressure, CoP). The sampling rate of the system is 800 measurements per second per force sensor. The software for data acquisition, storage, calculation, basic statistics, and automated data transfer to the statistics package R was Leonardo Mechanography v4.4, also provided by Novotec Medical GmbH. The principle of Mechanography measurements was published in detail in 2013[7].

Mechanography CoF Calculation

Like standard stabilography and posturography, mechanography measures the displacement of the Centre for Force (CoF) to estimate variation of the Centre of Gravity (CoG). The CoF is defined as the vertical reaction vector on the surface of a force platform. Due to the inverted Definition of the Equilibrium Score for this parameter larger values (in terms of variation) are considered better.

The Leonardo Mechanograph™ uses one vertical force sensor in each of the four corners of each force plate. Based on the force distribution between those four sensors the effective CoF is calculated for each sample point. In general, Leonardo Mechanography down-samples measurement data to 100 Hz before calculating CoF analysis data, as described in[12-14].

Parameter Selection

The variation (trajectory) of the CoF is then analysed and 38 different characteristic parameters (See supplement Table S1 for a complete list) are extracted which encompass mean velocity, mean distance/path length, mean frequency, sway area, anterior-posterior (AP) and medio-lateral (ML) displacement of the CoF.

For clinical application, it is important to identify parameters that show a low variation within a given age and sex group but shows a great variation with increasing age. The coefficient of variation (cv, variation expressed as percentage of the mean value) was estimated using the 2*CV the parameter 2CVe=100*(C75-C25)/C50. It was proposed that a high effect of age on the C50 value and at the same time a low 2CVe of the parameters would be most promising for future differentiation between healthy controls and different patient populations.

To identify the most promising parameters four simple quality parameters were defined:

• • QP1: Average over all test variants of C75-C25 range divided by average C50 value. This parameter is an estimate of the variability of the specific parameter over all age groups; a small value is preferrable.

• • QP2: Variation of the average C50 value of each test variant over all test variants.

  This parameter is an estimation of the dependency of the parameter on the task difficulty; a large value is preferrable.

• • QP3: Average of the difference of the C50 data of age groups 4 and 5 compared to age groups 16 and 17 over all test variants in relation to the mean value.

  This parameter is an estimation for the age dependency of the individual parameter; a large value is preferrable.

• • QP4: Identical to OP3 but instead of analysing the mean values the difference between the Min and the Max is analysed.

This parameter is an estimation for the age dependency of the individual parameter; a large value is preferrable.

Six parameters discriminating age-dependant changes most reliable were selected for the final reference database.

Statistical analysis

Percentiles for age groups in 0.5-year steps between 4 and 17 years (percentile lines for 3% (C3), 10% (C10), 25% (C25), 50% (C50), 75% (C75), 90% (C90) and 97% (C97)) where calculated using R v4.1.0 with the GAMLSS package. A detailed description of the methods used can be found elsewhere[11].

To eliminate outliers, a two-step iteration approach was used. In a first step percentile data were calculated and then all measurements below the 0.5% and above the 99,5% threshold were eliminated and the percentile data was recalculated identically. For the parameter Std. Ellipse Area this automatic approach did not converge therefore, manual elimination of outliers was needed. This was done by analysing standard deviations per age group assuming a Gausian distribution per age group.

We were able to use the GAMLSS BCPE method in all analyses with the following parameters: Mu=2.0, Sigma=1.0 or 0.5, Nu=0.5. For all calculations 9 subgroups for z-score statistics error estimation were used.

For each gender and age group LMS parameters were calculated, allowing to calculate an accurate z-score based on the reference data for a given combination of gender, age, and individual measurement result (y) according to the following formulas[11]:

((y/M)^L-1)/S*L for L≠0

1/S*ln(y/M) for L=0

Formula 1

When applying this formula, one should notice that the supplied reference data is per age group data. However, most data shows a significant change per year. Especially for (more frequent) longitudinal measurements exact age (including fraction of years) should be used instead. In this case, a factor of 0.5 years needs to be added to the reference values, since mathematically rounding to 5 includes values from 4.5 to 5.5 but age groups include values from 5 to 6 years.

For quality estimation two additional plots generated by the GAMLSS package were used: curve fitting errors for each of the age groups and deviation vs. unit normal quantile plot giving a more detailed view of curve-fitting errors.

Results

Testing protocol and comparison to normative data from 2013

The tests were performed over all ages without problems. No participant dropped out of the study due to difficulties performing the tests. Results of the single two-leg jump (s2LJ), were within +/- 0.5 SD of the reference cohort, with only females above 15 years of age showing a slight decrease at greater than -1 SD. The male subjects showed a mean of 0.002 SD for the Esslinger Fitness Index (EFI) and 0.25 for Force Efficiency (FE); female subjects showed a mean -0.375 SD for EFI and -0.29 for FE (Figure 1). For both parameters, the cohort showed similar distribution of 0.87 SD for EFI and 1.14 SD (in the SDS plot, a mean of 0 SD means that the mean is identical to our reference cohort, and a standard deviation of 1 SD means that the group has an identical distribution to our reference cohort.

Figure 1.

EFI and FE scores compared to 2013 reference data. Comparison of SD values in relation to 2013 reference data, a value of 0 SD depicts identical values. Left: EFI SD-Scores (EFI: power output per body mass in relation to age and gender, a performance parameter) Right: Force Efficiency SD-Scores (FE, force invested for the generated power output, a movement quality parameter). Male: solid lines; female: dashed line.

Parameters identified by the quality criteria

According to the prespecified quality criteria 6/38 criteria were selected (Figure 2). In general, velocity histogram parameters were superior to frequency parameters, which showed a moderate variability but very low influence of task difficulty and age. CoF variation data showed high variability and small to moderate influence of task difficulty and age. Subsequently they were not chosen as reference parameters to measure balance.

Figure 2.

Quality parameters QP1 to QP 4 for each of the 38 analysis parameters. Parameters are grouped according to the primary outcome, selected parameters marked. Note that std. ellipse area (well-established parameter in posturography) and one-legged Stance (SD) have been selected as well. Parameter details can be found in supplemental table S1. Mean velocity (v_mean, Path length/time); vCoF_range, 95% (derived from velocity histogram).

According to this analysis fs10 parameters (analysis based on data down-sampled to 10Hz) was not considered to be superior to the equivalent data without down-sampling[14].

All parameters selected are shown in figures 3- 6. Reference values and LMS parameter tables to calculate z-scores can be found in the supplemental material (Tables S2-S7):

Figure 3.

Mean velocity (v_mean, Path length/time). Listed are all tests that were performed, in each case the mean value from all valid tests per person. Left: C50 lines of v_mean [cm/s] vs. age for all measurement variants: from bottom plots to top: Rom EO, Rom EC, SemTan EO, SemTan EC, Tan EO, Tan EC, 1LS EO) Right: 2CVe plots: C75-C25 in percent of C50 value vs. age. male: solid lines, female: dashed lines.

Figure 6.

Standard deviation of the variation of the sway angle, calculated according to 15 based on an estimated height of the CoG at 0.5527*body height. (a) Sway angle AP SD [°] Left: C50 lines Right: 2CVe plots: C75-C25 in percent of C50 value vs. age (b) Sway Angle ML SD [°] Left: C50 lines of vs. age Right: 2CVe plots: C75-C25 in percent of C50 value vs. age. male: solid lines, female: dashed lines.

• • Av. Velocity: Pathlength (total length of the CoF trajectory in mm) divided by test duration in s.

• • vCoF_mean: Velocity histogram parameter, the distance of the CoF position between two sample points can be used to calculate the velocity of the movement between two consecutive sample points. The velocity histogram shows how often each velocity value was present during the measurement. V mean is the mean value of all velocities in the velocity histogram.

• • EQ ML and AP: Equilibrium Score Anterior-Posterior in % (AP or y-axis in the area plot) and Medial Lateral in % (ML or x-axis in the area plot) separately, calculated from the AP or ML projection of the 90% Standard Ellipse and estimated height of CoG (see[15] for detailed description).

• • Sway Angle ML and AP: calculated from the average of the last 0.7s of the CoF variation and the height of the CoG estimated to be at 0.5527 * Body Height (see[15] for detailed description).

Females and males show a linear decrease in mean velocity and vCoFrange, 95% score until age 9, where the curve significantly flattens, with a lower velocity indicating a superior balance (Figures 3 and 4 left), This effect is most pronounced for the One-Leg stand (1LS) as the most difficult one of the test battery. In all test variants females show on average slightly smaller and therefore a superior balance performance as compared to males, particularly pronounced in the 1LS.

Figure 4.

vCoF_{range 95%}. Listed are all tests that were performed, in each case the mean value from all valid tests per person. Left: C50 lines of vCoFrange 95 [cm/s] vs. age for all measurement variants: from bottom plots to top: Rom EO, Rom EC, SemTan EO, SemTan EC, Tan EO, Tan EC, 1LS EO). Right: 2CVe plots: C75-C25 in percent of C50 value vs. age. male: solid lines, female: dashed lines.

Equilibrium Score

Again, girls and boys show a linear increase until the age of 9 years, at which time the curve flattens (Figure 5). In the anterior-posterior movement, the compensatory movements in the tandem test are more pronounced in younger children than in the single-leg stand. Interestingly, the EQ-Score has an extremely low variance in its raw values with, large age variability, which also makes it a promising parameter for quantifying balance.

Figure 5.

EQ-Score. Listed are all tests that were performed, in each case the mean value from all valid tests per person. (a)EQsScore AP: Left: C50 lines of EQ-Score AP [%] vs. age for all measurement variants: from bottom plots to top: Rom EO, Rom EC, SemTan EO, SemTan EC, Tan EO, Tan EC, 1LS EO). Right: 2CVe plots: C75-C25 in percent of C50 value vs. age. (b) EQ-Score ML : Left: C50 lines of EQ-Score ML [%] vs. age for all measurement variants: from bottom plots to top: Rom EO, Rom EC, SemTan EO, SemTan EC, Tan EO, Tan EC, 1LS EO). Right: 2CVe plots: C75-C25 in percent of C50 value vs. age. male: solid lines, female: dashed lines

Sway Angle

The lower the sway angle, the more stable the patient stands. Girls and boys show a linear decrease until the age of 9 years, at which time the curve flattens (Figure 6). In the medial-lateral movement, the compensatory movements in the Tandem and Semi-Tandem test are more pronounced in younger children than in the Single-Leg stand. The Sway Angle SD parameter has an average variance, but the least age variability of all analysed analysis parameters, which nevertheless qualifies it as a parameter for measuring balance.

Discussion

With this study, we provide normative values that incorporate balance performance from a large cohort of 739 healthy children attending public schools in Munich, Germany.

To ensure that the present study cohort does not differ from normative data established in 2013[7,8], physical performance measurements were compared using EFI and FE resulting in similar results(+/-0.5 SD) . The current cohort reflects an average pediatric population, as children visiting all regular school types took part. Since overall physical performance has an impact on balance skills, we propose to include EFI as well as FE data for future mechanography studies to characterize the study population[16].

Balance Parameters

We have identified four variables V_mean (path length/time), a parameter of the velocity histogram (vCoF_mean), the Equilibrium Score (ML and AP) and the Sway Angle SD (ML and AP) with a high potential to quantify balance. Since we assume that balance improves significantly during maturation in childhood, we selected parameters that show a low variation within a given age and sex group along with a great variation with increasing age.

The distinct bend in the curve reaching adult abilities around age 9 has been seen in other studies on the development of balance skills[17-19]. Interestingly, balance control in antero-posterior (AP) direction was observed earlier than in the medio-lateral direction (ML) as seen in the equilibrium score or sway angle datasets. In developmental studies postural control of AP is reached earlier than in ML plane. Blanchet et al. evaluated the centre of pressure displacement during maximum leaning in four directions showing that postural mechanisms in the anteroposterior axis reach maturity before the mechanisms involved in controlling the mediolateral axis[20]. Clear differences in postural sway have been documented even between children with minimal developmental difficulties (e.g. developmental coordination disorder) and healthy controls[21]. Control of posture in the medio-lateral direction is seen as a good parameter to describe the overall extent of postural control in healthy volunteers and patients. Patients with Multiple sclerosis compared to healthy persons exhibited greater ML motion compared to sway in the AP direction associated to a significantly greater risk of falls in daily life[22].

In our study males consistently showed poorer balance than girls, clearly justifying differentiation for reference data, although the differences are certainly not as pronounced as in the over-all physical performance measurements, especially at the adolescent age[7,8]. Sex differences have been found in other studies, among sportive and non-sportive children. These become apparent from scholar age[17-19,23]. It has been suggested that females might have a better use of vestibular information and males lag behind with their physical growth as well as the development of their neuromuscular system[24]. It should be noted that another factor for this effect might be the observation of the test operator who noticed that females during the test tended to be more focussed (less time and repetition of instructions) compared to males.

Parameter Scalability between Test Variants

For a standardized clinical application, the relation of analysis parameters between the different test variants is of interest. The more demanding a balance test becomes for an individual, the better it distinguishes balance abilities compared to a reference database. However, if the individual test is too difficult for one subject that it has to be ended before time or there is an incident with a high impact on the analysis parameters is recorded (e.g. the second foot touched the force plate during the actual test duration of a One-Leg stand). In both cases the test result is therefore not reliable.

However, it would be favourable if the tests variants of a battery best suited are used on an individual basis (as difficult as possible but still achievable) then results would still be comparable to other individuals using different test difficulties.

Although not in the focus of the current analysis, the results of the comparison of C50 plots vs. age show that for some analysis parameters (especially the mean velocity) a strict hierarchy within the test battery can be observed even when combining the EO/EC option with each test. The resulting hierarchy order with increasing difficulty is: Rom EO, Rom EC, SemTan EO, SemTand EC, Tan EO, Tan EO, 1L EO (1L EC, which was not part of the test battery but would be the next difficult test).

For v_mean in females there is a quite constant delta between C50 curves which indicate that even independent of age a scaling factor for each test variant can be calculated. This would allow a scalable comparison of a test results. For male subjects an adjustment curve per age group would be needed to make test results of the different test variants comparable.

Other analysis parameters like the Sway Angle show a less distinct hierarchy where for example the EO/EC option seem to make much less differences (Figure 6a, Sway Angle SD AP) and a separation between tests variants is not as clear (Figure 6b, Sway Angle SD ML).

Clinical relevance of this dataset

This reference dataset provides normative values to test postural control using automated analysis with the Leonardo Mechanograph force plate. Instrumented posturography is ubiquitously applicable in healthy children within the context of sports medicine, as well as in child neurology. Balance control is not only influenced by functioning cerebellar circuits, but sensory processes such as visual, vestibular and proprioceptive input. In addition, there is now a wealth of evidence indicating that balance involves higher-order brain systems for the integration of not only somatosensory, visual, and vestibular information, but for memory needed for anticipatory movements[25]. Thus, postural control can be hindered by many childhood onset disorders from peripheral neuromuscular disorders or neuropathies to global developmental disorders and cerebral palsy. Since potential new drugs are currently being developed for many neurological diseases, suitable clinical test instruments to quantify physical performance and coordination to evaluate the effects of new therapeutic targets are mandatory.

Limitations and future work

Ethics approval was only obtained for balance and strength measurements. As a result, we were not able to acquire information on lifestyle habits, nor did we document ethnic background. In a minority of participants (7,9%) less than three repetitions of tests are available. In principle, an increasing number of measurements to average decreases variability, hence it is favourable to use the average of more than one measurement.

However, given the limitations in time it was not possible to achieve four measurements of all participants. Using a cut-off of a minimum of three measurements would have resulted in 7.9% (one repetitions: 1.6%, two repetitions 6.3%) less data points but most likely representing the low performance percentiles of the study population with significant effects on the spread of the calculated percentiles for lower performance levels. Including the groups of 1 and 2 repetitions thus results in a considerable increase in variability in this group (resulting in an increased spread for the lower performance percentiles) but it also allows to represent this important sub-group. Not representing this sub-group would therefore increase the thresholds for the lower performance levels significantly. The authors therefore considered the negative effect of an increased variability for this subgroup to be acceptable compared to not representing them in the reference data at all.

Conclusion

The data from healthy participants provide a reference dataset for the assessment of postural control in childhood by mechanography. This study identified four parameters that show a low variation within a given age and sex group but a greater variation with increasing age.

In addition to sports medicine, mechanography may supplement clinical tools to assess the trajectory and effect of interventions in normal development and pediatric neurology.

Ethics approval

The local ethics committee of the Ludwig Maximillian’s University of Munich approved the study (internal No: 18-775).

Funding

This project was supported by grants from PTC Therapeutics Germany.

Table S1.

Parameters measured by Mechanography. List of names, units and description of all balance parameters currently analyzed by the Leonardo Mechanograpy Software. According to the method described in the selections section the six most promising (highlighted in bold letters) parameters have been selected for detailed discussion.

Name	Unit	Description
Path Length	mm	Total Length CoF trajectory, resulting from variation of position of the force vector entering the platform (CoF aka. CoP); Sum of the position distance between each to consecutive sample points of CoF
v mean	cm/s	Mean velocity of CoF, equivalent to pathlength divided by measurement time
Plen X (ML)	mm	Path Length, only analysing the projection in the ML plane
V mean X (ML)	cm/s	Mean velocity of CoF ML component (projection in the ML plane)
Plen Y (AP)	mm	Path Length, only analysing the projection in the AP plane
V mean Y (AP)	cm/s	Mean velocity of CoF AP component (projection in the AP plane)
Plen / Area	1/mm	Path Length / Standard Ellipse area
v mean SD	%
Std.Ellipse Area	cm2	Standard Ellipse (90% confidence ellipse) area covering 90% of all CoF points
Std.Ellipse num. Excent.		Standard Ellipse numerical eccentricity, (a value of 0.5 is equivalent to a circle, larger values is more elliptic)
Std.Ellipse Angle	°	Angle of the main axis of the standard ellipse
F tot SD	N	Std. Dev. of vertical Force variation over complete analysis section equivalent to RMS difference to average Force during analysed section
F tot rel SD	N/kg	Std. Dev. of vertical Force variation in relation to body mass over complete analysis section
CoF Dist. SD	cm	Std. Dev. of CoF Distance variation (direction independent distance to average position) over complete analysis section, equivalent to RMS distance from mean position
CoF X x (ML)	cm	Std. Dev. of CoF variation x component (ML), equivalent to RMS distance from mean position (ML) for projection in ML plane
CoF Y x (AP)	cm	Std. Dev. of CoF variation x component (AP), equivalent to RMS distance from mean position (AP) for projection in ML plane
max. Sway Angle ML	°	Max Sway Angle ML, Downsampled to 100Hz, calculated over the last 0.7 sec., assuming height of CoG is 0.5527 * Body Height according to[12]
max. Sway Angle AP	°	Max Sway Angle AP, Downsampled to 100Hz, calculated over the last 0.7 sec., assuming height of CoG is 0.5527 * Body Height according to (12)
Sw. Angle	°	Std.Dev. Sway Angle ML component (see above)
ML Std. Dev.
Sw. Angle AP Std. Dev.	°	Std.Dev. Sway Angle AP component (see above)
Bt: Sw. Angle Peak to Peak ML	°	Peak to Peak angular displacement of Sway Angle in ML direction
Bt: Sw. Angle Peak to Peak AP	°	Peak to Peak angular displacement of Sway Angle in AP direction
Std. Elllipse dimension ML	cm	90% Standard Ellipse dimension in ML direction
Std. Elllipse dimension AP	cm	90% Standard Ellipse dimension in AP direction
EQ ML	%	Equilibrium Score in ML direction. Calculated from the ML projection of the 90% Std.Ellipse and estimated height of CoG according to[12]
EQ AP	%	Equilibrium Score in AP direction. Calculated from the AP projection of the 90% Std.Ellipse and estimated height of CoG according to[12]
v CoF mean	cm/s	Velocity histogram: Mean of al values
V CoF median	cm/s	Velocity histogram: Median of al values
V CoF range	cm/s	Velocity histogram: 95% cut-of frequency (95% percentile)
Dominant frequency	Hz	Dominant frequency of CoF power spectral density (PSD), analysed frequency Band: 0.15Hz..10Hz, according to[15]
Median frequency	Hz	Median frequency of CoF power spectral density (PSD), analysed frequency Band: 0.15Hz..10Hz, according to[15]
Max. Freq. (95%)	Hz	Frequency range covering 95% of energy (95% percentile), analysed frequency Band: 0.15Hz..10Hz, according to[15]
Freq. Dispersion		Unitless measure of the variability of the power spectral density (PSD) frequency content (zero for pure sinusoid; increases with spectral bandwidth to one) analysed frequency Band: 0.15Hz..10Hz, according to[15]
fs10 rel. PLeng	mm/s	Path length / duration, data down-sampled to 10Hz according to[16]
fs10 av. R	mm	Average radial displacement (ARD), data down-sampled to 10Hz according to[16]
fs10 Ampl. ML	mm	Amplitude x-component (ML), data down-sampled to 10Hz according to[16]
fs10 Ampl. AP	mm	Amplitude y-component (AP), data down-sampled to 10Hz according to[16]
fs 10 Area/s	mm2/s	Area (90° std. Ellipse) / duration, data down-sampled to 10Hz according to[16]
fs 10 av. Freq.	Hz	Average frequency, data down-sampled to 10Hz according to[16]

Supplemental Tables S2-S7. The following tables show the LMS parameters needed to calculate ager- and gender specific z-scores according to Formula 1 (where M = C50, L = Lambda, S = Sigma) for the listed parameters and test variants. 1 (where M = C50, L = Lambda, S = Sigma) for the listed parameters and test variants.

Table S2. Parameter: mean velocity (v_mean).

Table S2a: LMS parameters per age group and gender, Romberg Tests, v_mean [m/s].

	RomEO - vmean [m/s]						RomEC - vmean [m/s]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	210,5631	-1,5059	0,1999	208,3057	-0,2005	0,1425	290,5039	-0,7244	0,2929	262,5420	-0,5259	0,1476
4	199,8784	-1,3643	0,2045	194,5369	-0,1829	0,1456	270,4257	-0,6302	0,2882	243,1005	-0,5212	0,1561
5	189,1676	-1,2231	0,2094	180,8554	-0,1667	0,1487	250,3754	-0,5360	0,2835	223,7688	-0,5164	0,1650
6	178,4202	-1,0843	0,2144	167,6730	-0,1591	0,1522	230,6207	-0,4428	0,2785	205,1791	-0,5119	0,1740
7	168,1133	-0,9503	0,2194	155,5371	-0,1669	0,1560	212,0934	-0,3556	0,2736	188,4430	-0,5114	0,1835
8	159,5112	-0,8232	0,2245	145,3911	-0,1925	0,1604	196,2458	-0,2786	0,2693	174,6545	-0,5159	0,1933
9	153,3483	-0,7038	0,2293	137,4276	-0,2357	0,1657	183,9815	-0,2147	0,2659	163,8331	-0,5245	0,2038
10	149,1456	-0,5919	0,2332	131,0420	-0,2898	0,1722	174,8893	-0,1671	0,2636	155,4624	-0,5373	0,2138
11	145,6831	-0,4872	0,2364	125,4964	-0,3482	0,1797	167,5373	-0,1337	0,2629	148,7157	-0,5535	0,2228
12	141,9226	-0,3881	0,2381	120,0695	-0,4097	0,1875	160,3425	-0,1072	0,2631	142,4607	-0,5738	0,2296
13	138,2640	-0,2956	0,2378	114,8877	-0,4754	0,1951	153,8364	-0,0834	0,2629	136,5609	-0,5999	0,2333
14	135,2121	-0,2091	0,2351	110,5001	-0,5425	0,2023	149,2411	-0,0629	0,2615	131,1627	-0,6336	0,2340
15	132,6976	-0,1280	0,2308	107,0367	-0,6063	0,2095	146,3666	-0,0451	0,2586	126,0989	-0,6735	0,2327
16	131,0683	-0,0515	0,2258	104,3571	-0,6645	0,2160	144,9874	-0,0291	0,2546	121,0734	-0,7172	0,2303
17	130,0730	0,0234	0,2210	101,9647	-0,7203	0,2223	144,2521	-0,0130	0,2500	116,0014	-0,7621	0,2273

Table S2b.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Semi-Tandem Tests, v_mean [m/s].

	SemTnEO - vmean [m/s]						SemTanEC - vmean [m/s]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	292,4163	-1,0956	0,2354	284,6394	-0,8282	0,1962	371,5929	-0,8345	0,3014	347,8633	-0,5943	0,1813
4	275,7711	-1,0260	0,2399	265,6641	-0,7639	0,2018	349,3509	-0,7722	0,2984	322,8271	-0,4574	0,1881
5	259,2450	-0,9568	0,2445	246,7650	-0,6998	0,2076	327,1306	-0,7104	0,2955	297,8943	-0,3207	0,1950
6	243,3580	-0,8897	0,2496	228,5091	-0,6374	0,2138	305,2094	-0,6507	0,2927	273,9788	-0,1864	0,2019
7	228,7380	-0,8273	0,2551	212,0727	-0,5819	0,2204	284,7888	-0,5943	0,2903	253,4775	-0,0631	0,2096
8	217,1738	-0,7693	0,2603	197,9043	-0,5404	0,2267	268,2387	-0,5404	0,2877	238,0251	0,0397	0,2181
9	210,0914	-0,7126	0,2639	186,1155	-0,5162	0,2328	256,9918	-0,4866	0,2844	227,3991	0,1178	0,2269
10	206,8103	-0,6542	0,2650	177,2012	-0,5074	0,2380	249,7886	-0,4320	0,2804	219,9852	0,1714	0,2347
11	205,2192	-0,5934	0,2637	170,8176	-0,5107	0,2417	243,4924	-0,3763	0,2762	214,4307	0,2043	0,2401
12	202,6073	-0,5323	0,2605	165,3417	-0,5221	0,2433	235,1584	-0,3171	0,2722	208,5946	0,2217	0,2431
13	198,1510	-0,4724	0,2550	159,9967	-0,5394	0,2435	224,7283	-0,2538	0,2682	201,4543	0,2277	0,2437
14	193,0131	-0,4137	0,2475	154,7734	-0,5593	0,2427	214,5277	-0,1881	0,2637	193,4666	0,2268	0,2432
15	187,9791	-0,3547	0,2386	149,4179	-0,5784	0,2415	205,1716	-0,1199	0,2587	184,4134	0,2203	0,2423
16	182,7638	-0,2929	0,2288	144,5310	-0,5968	0,2398	196,5274	-0,0493	0,2535	173,8003	0,2114	0,2408
17	177,3148	-0,2302	0,2188	139,9914	-0,6155	0,2377	187,7818	0,0228	0,2483	162,0881	0,2011	0,2387

Table S2c.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Tandem Tests, v_mean [m/s].

	TanEO - vmean [m/s]						TanEC - vmean [m/s]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	393,9302	-0,8282	0,2737	401,3895	-0,9459	0,2460	540,6653	-0,8097	0,2641	505,4153	-0,4480	0,2441
4	377,7004	-0,7654	0,2771	375,8632	-0,9099	0,2433	512,8263	-0,7198	0,2667	472,9714	-0,4389	0,2447
5	361,5912	-0,7023	0,2805	350,4055	-0,8740	0,2407	485,1718	-0,6299	0,2694	440,5595	-0,4289	0,2453
6	346,0424	-0,6379	0,2841	325,7036	-0,8386	0,2390	458,4612	-0,5405	0,2723	408,7619	-0,4140	0,2464
7	331,3893	-0,5732	0,2875	303,9024	-0,8034	0,2386	433,3058	-0,4534	0,2750	380,2120	-0,3917	0,2480
8	319,6445	-0,5104	0,2897	287,2408	-0,7689	0,2392	411,6381	-0,3721	0,2765	358,4225	-0,3590	0,2492
9	312,9876	-0,4544	0,2897	276,3362	-0,7384	0,2417	395,6283	-0,3008	0,2761	343,6336	-0,3155	0,2497
10	311,0790	-0,4099	0,2866	269,8120	-0,7176	0,2457	384,3800	-0,2404	0,2743	334,2688	-0,2639	0,2487
11	310,6400	-0,3764	0,2810	264,3268	-0,7083	0,2498	373,6339	-0,1899	0,2717	327,2838	-0,2029	0,2459
12	307,2216	-0,3514	0,2747	257,3755	-0,7076	0,2532	358,7177	-0,1462	0,2685	318,9284	-0,1336	0,2411
13	300,2890	-0,3322	0,2677	249,5213	-0,7117	0,2553	341,3804	-0,1066	0,2648	308,6109	-0,0607	0,2348
14	292,0166	-0,3169	0,2597	241,0725	-0,7167	0,2569	326,0986	-0,0704	0,2602	296,5667	0,0142	0,2275
15	282,7948	-0,3018	0,2506	230,9741	-0,7194	0,2591	313,4119	-0,0363	0,2548	283,0344	0,0896	0,2197
16	272,4543	-0,2855	0,2408	218,4634	-0,7201	0,2620	301,4853	-0,0032	0,2488	266,9870	0,1666	0,2118
17	261,1039	-0,2685	0,2309	204,2578	-0,7197	0,2655	289,0205	0,0293	0,2424	248,9475	0,2446	0,2040

Table S2d.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, One Leg Stance, v_mean [m/s].

	1L EO - vmean [m/s]
	Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	922,5746	0,3351	0,2949	711,1495	-0,5722	0,2559
4	858,7285	0,2835	0,2948	664,4194	-0,5210	0,2538
5	795,0391	0,2321	0,2946	617,6474	-0,4699	0,2517
6	732,4480	0,1815	0,2940	570,9651	-0,4186	0,2491
7	672,7598	0,1325	0,2920	526,4385	-0,3700	0,2454
8	618,7642	0,0846	0,2881	487,7524	-0,3314	0,2406
9	575,5103	0,0384	0,2828	455,2329	-0,3088	0,2354
10	547,4494	-0,0051	0,2772	431,1204	-0,3046	0,2306
11	532,0197	-0,0478	0,2729	417,1009	-0,3175	0,2258
12	522,4338	-0,0931	0,2695	406,4656	-0,3406	0,2213
13	514,4264	-0,1396	0,2665	394,2852	-0,3685	0,2179
14	507,0164	-0,1880	0,2638	378,5650	-0,3939	0,2159
15	498,3354	-0,2387	0,2610	362,7413	-0,4138	0,2150
16	488,0953	-0,2925	0,2586	350,3517	-0,4315	0,2143
17	475,3389	-0,3488	0,2565	340,1125	-0,4488	0,2139

Table S3a.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Romberg Tests, vCoF_range,95% [m/s].

	RomEO - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]						RomEC - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	3,2340	-1,4984	0,2289	3,2673	-0,4535	0,1873	4,6268	-0,9182	0,3016	4,0960	-0,2557	0,2020
4	3,0737	-1,3580	0,2368	3,0434	-0,4094	0,1875	4,2893	-0,8052	0,3010	3,7818	-0,2625	0,2078
5	2,9130	-1,2180	0,2449	2,8213	-0,3661	0,1877	3,9525	-0,6924	0,3003	3,4687	-0,2693	0,2138
6	2,7526	-1,0803	0,2533	2,6091	-0,3274	0,1880	3,6235	-0,5810	0,2996	3,1643	-0,2772	0,2201
7	2,6011	-0,9472	0,2619	2,4174	-0,2992	0,1894	3,3209	-0,4747	0,2992	2,8900	-0,2887	0,2275
8	2,4790	-0,8202	0,2702	2,2632	-0,2829	0,1924	3,0691	-0,3774	0,2996	2,6712	-0,3050	0,2360
9	2,3966	-0,6996	0,2775	2,1451	-0,2753	0,1972	2,8821	-0,2902	0,3007	2,5090	-0,3285	0,2454
10	2,3452	-0,5855	0,2833	2,0496	-0,2709	0,2038	2,7458	-0,2135	0,3027	2,3890	-0,3607	0,2546
11	2,2965	-0,4765	0,2881	1,9644	-0,2639	0,2115	2,6226	-0,1433	0,3062	2,2931	-0,4004	0,2626
12	2,2297	-0,3680	0,2909	1,8839	-0,2555	0,2199	2,4874	-0,0730	0,3102	2,1998	-0,4483	0,2682
13	2,1596	-0,2593	0,2909	1,8096	-0,2474	0,2280	2,3537	0,0008	0,3127	2,1074	-0,5049	0,2705
14	2,1044	-0,1509	0,2881	1,7507	-0,2369	0,2357	2,2536	0,0766	0,3125	2,0192	-0,5681	0,2698
15	2,0635	-0,0428	0,2833	1,7074	-0,2237	0,2435	2,1842	0,1533	0,3092	1,9327	-0,6374	0,2671
16	2,0343	0,0660	0,2773	1,6786	-0,2106	0,2512	2,1347	0,2302	0,3035	1,8421	-0,7099	0,2629
17	2,0114	0,1757	0,2711	1,6557	-0,1992	0,2590	2,0922	0,3071	0,2968	1,7491	-0,7833	0,2580

Table S3b.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Semi-Tandem Tests, vCoF_range,95% [m/s].

	SemTnEO - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]						SemTanEC - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	5,0003	-1,0078	0,2956	4,8845	-1,1304	0,2065	6,2047	-0,8634	0,3070	6,1262	-0,9273	0,2074
4	4,6883	-0,9627	0,2998	4,4980	-1,0221	0,2201	5,7957	-0,7729	0,3120	5,5876	-0,7603	0,2176
5	4,3778	-0,9180	0,3043	4,1150	-0,9144	0,2345	5,3876	-0,6827	0,3170	5,0527	-0,5938	0,2282
6	4,0772	-0,8755	0,3096	3,7576	-0,8116	0,2491	4,9900	-0,5939	0,3220	4,5497	-0,4304	0,2388
7	3,7997	-0,8361	0,3159	3,4618	-0,7221	0,2628	4,6337	-0,5084	0,3266	4,1403	-0,2753	0,2497
8	3,5790	-0,7987	0,3222	3,2350	-0,6500	0,2745	4,3653	-0,4259	0,3300	3,8596	-0,1333	0,2609
9	3,4457	-0,7606	0,3266	3,0610	-0,5942	0,2842	4,2028	-0,3467	0,3312	3,6919	-0,0038	0,2728
10	3,3948	-0,7179	0,3270	2,9350	-0,5503	0,2911	4,1117	-0,2720	0,3302	3,5878	0,1139	0,2842
11	3,3776	-0,6678	0,3238	2,8438	-0,5179	0,2951	4,0216	-0,2041	0,3283	3,5038	0,2218	0,2928
12	3,3393	-0,6096	0,3176	2,7490	-0,4950	0,2961	3,8778	-0,1438	0,3266	3,4003	0,3196	0,2976
13	3,2705	-0,5425	0,3085	2,6396	-0,4826	0,2950	3,6817	-0,0916	0,3256	3,2644	0,4075	0,2988
14	3,1973	-0,4667	0,2969	2,5262	-0,4787	0,2927	3,4875	-0,0471	0,3247	3,1102	0,4867	0,2986
15	3,1371	-0,3833	0,2838	2,4121	-0,4785	0,2899	3,3102	-0,0052	0,3242	2,9465	0,5585	0,2988
16	3,0893	-0,2952	0,2699	2,3039	-0,4789	0,2869	3,1450	0,0371	0,3244	2,7674	0,6248	0,2991
17	3,0447	-0,2063	0,2560	2,1942	-0,4793	0,2841	2,9725	0,0805	0,3247	2,5713	0,6896	0,2994

Table S3c.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Tandem Tests, vCoF_range,95% [m/s].

	TanEO - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]						TanEC - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	7,2312	-0,6253	0,3378	6,8852	-0,9910	0,3159	9,6609	-0,8533	0,3075	9,6350	-0,0723	0,3816
4	6,9080	-0,6079	0,3445	6,4668	-0,9714	0,3201	9,1372	-0,7703	0,3119	8,8778	-0,0758	0,3653
5	6,5874	-0,5902	0,3514	6,0523	-0,9522	0,3243	8,6175	-0,6875	0,3165	8,1255	-0,0794	0,3499
6	6,2809	-0,5711	0,3584	5,6616	-0,9356	0,3282	8,1195	-0,6068	0,3211	7,4073	-0,0841	0,3367
7	5,9962	-0,5502	0,3656	5,3214	-0,9239	0,3309	7,6575	-0,5303	0,3255	6,7805	-0,0909	0,3252
8	5,7557	-0,5277	0,3720	5,0555	-0,9170	0,3317	7,2570	-0,4590	0,3282	6,3082	-0,0982	0,3149
9	5,5945	-0,5054	0,3758	4,8550	-0,9150	0,3315	6,9591	-0,3955	0,3283	5,9770	-0,1047	0,3052
10	5,5116	-0,4855	0,3747	4,7060	-0,9187	0,3300	6,7470	-0,3411	0,3260	5,7470	-0,1112	0,2960
11	5,4448	-0,4685	0,3676	4,5681	-0,9246	0,3260	6,5288	-0,2955	0,3228	5,5610	-0,1149	0,2872
12	5,2991	-0,4546	0,3568	4,4030	-0,9304	0,3191	6,2163	-0,2552	0,3199	5,3453	-0,1139	0,2787
13	5,0783	-0,4430	0,3435	4,2159	-0,9341	0,3094	5,8454	-0,2179	0,3168	5,1006	-0,1109	0,2713
14	4,8587	-0,4329	0,3277	4,0177	-0,9335	0,2981	5,5193	-0,1834	0,3133	4,8435	-0,1074	0,2656
15	4,6883	-0,4235	0,3105	3,7961	-0,9297	0,2863	5,2632	-0,1512	0,3090	4,5859	-0,1042	0,2618
16	4,5861	-0,4147	0,2928	3,5241	-0,9241	0,2747	5,0412	-0,1203	0,3045	4,3087	-0,1014	0,2590
17	4,5109	-0,4065	0,2759	3,2094	-0,9177	0,2638	4,8164	-0,0896	0,2999	4,0064	-0,0980	0,2566

Table S3d.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, One Leg Stance, vCoF_range,95% [m/s].

	1L EO - vCoFrange,95% [m/s]
	Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	16,1151	0,7189	0,2906	12,5119	-0,0975	0,2813
4	15,0204	0,6334	0,2968	11,7064	-0,1017	0,2808
5	13,9267	0,5480	0,3030	10,9010	-0,1059	0,2803
6	12,8438	0,4637	0,3086	10,0988	-0,1094	0,2795
7	11,8004	0,3818	0,3123	9,3228	-0,1082	0,2784
8	10,8413	0,3022	0,3132	8,6218	-0,1035	0,2777
9	10,0704	0,2248	0,3110	8,0170	-0,1017	0,2777
10	9,5839	0,1498	0,3063	7,5702	-0,1085	0,2778
11	9,3285	0,0784	0,3004	7,3242	-0,1270	0,2765
12	9,1866	0,0107	0,2939	7,1490	-0,1571	0,2734
13	9,0746	-0,0524	0,2871	6,9450	-0,1975	0,2688
14	8,9489	-0,1114	0,2796	6,6540	-0,2423	0,2634
15	8,7743	-0,1693	0,2710	6,3285	-0,2882	0,2578
16	8,5520	-0,2292	0,2618	6,0229	-0,3356	0,2523
17	8,2724	-0,2904	0,2526	5,7296	-0,3835	0,2473

Table S4a.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Romberg Tests, Equilibrium Score ML [%].

	RomEO - Eqilibrium Score ML [%]						RomEC - Equilibirum Score ML [%]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	87,3252	17,7018	0,0520	87,2360	7,5575	0,0385	82,9529	7,3979	0,0653	84,3454	4,4830	0,0355
4	88,2540	19,3798	0,0500	88,2496	8,6836	0,0341	84,4813	10,0275	0,0633	85,7071	5,2988	0,0335
5	89,1724	21,0533	0,0481	89,2578	9,7984	0,0304	86,0052	12,6569	0,0613	87,0628	6,1213	0,0316
6	90,0812	22,6984	0,0464	90,2358	10,8636	0,0271	87,4515	15,2841	0,0593	88,3781	6,9887	0,0298
7	90,9409	24,2792	0,0447	91,1520	11,9109	0,0246	88,7649	17,9018	0,0572	89,5869	7,9674	0,0282
8	91,6822	25,7601	0,0432	91,9506	13,0092	0,0226	89,8728	20,5027	0,0547	90,5940	9,1303	0,0266
9	92,2300	27,1260	0,0415	92,5857	14,2006	0,0211	90,7281	23,0771	0,0519	91,3679	10,4688	0,0251
10	92,6013	28,3647	0,0398	93,0750	15,4930	0,0201	91,3651	25,6101	0,0489	91,9598	11,9440	0,0236
11	92,8605	29,4952	0,0382	93,4608	16,8758	0,0193	91,8680	28,0965	0,0459	92,4542	13,5445	0,0222
12	93,0718	30,5425	0,0368	93,7851	18,3378	0,0186	92,3140	30,5324	0,0430	92,9067	15,2643	0,0208
13	93,2506	31,5193	0,0355	94,0471	19,8833	0,0181	92,7082	32,9277	0,0404	93,2944	17,0888	0,0195
14	93,3421	32,4480	0,0342	94,2419	21,5101	0,0175	93,0242	35,2936	0,0379	93,5919	18,9843	0,0183
15	93,3431	33,3474	0,0328	94,3899	23,1858	0,0170	93,2623	37,6381	0,0355	93,8027	20,9089	0,0173
16	93,2943	34,2246	0,0315	94,5009	24,8829	0,0166	93,4498	39,9668	0,0333	93,9586	22,8342	0,0163
17	93,2340	35,0877	0,0303	94,5817	26,5796	0,0162	93,6360	42,2847	0,0312	94,0759	24,7556	0,0154

Table S4b.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Semi-Tandem Tests, Equilibrium Score ML [%].

	SemTnEO - Eqilibrium Score ML [%]						SemTanEC - Eqilibrium Score ML [%]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	84,4425	12,7219	0,0733	84,7461	11,2071	0,0570	81,6211	8,1007	0,0732	82,6319	7,2114	0,0541
4	85,5991	14,1373	0,0711	86,1226	13,4207	0,0568	83,0268	10,0261	0,0695	84,1317	7,4385	0,0492
5	86,7350	15,5517	0,0689	87,4793	15,6360	0,0566	84,3975	11,9487	0,0661	85,6292	7,6661	0,0448
6	87,8558	16,9618	0,0669	88,7714	17,8582	0,0563	85,7445	13,8545	0,0629	87,0788	7,9074	0,0409
7	88,9210	18,3657	0,0648	89,9272	20,0839	0,0556	87,0341	15,7287	0,0600	88,3900	8,2191	0,0374
8	89,8366	19,7419	0,0627	90,8828	22,3122	0,0545	88,1847	17,5560	0,0572	89,4678	8,6615	0,0343
9	90,5115	21,0643	0,0602	91,6080	24,5336	0,0527	89,1350	19,3301	0,0542	90,2849	9,2704	0,0316
10	90,9511	22,3214	0,0575	92,1286	26,7384	0,0506	89,8891	21,0509	0,0512	90,8947	10,0681	0,0291
11	91,2564	23,5165	0,0548	92,5275	28,9310	0,0483	90,5417	22,7102	0,0484	91,3818	11,0141	0,0268
12	91,5552	24,6594	0,0524	92,8738	31,1207	0,0459	91,1701	24,3184	0,0458	91,8128	12,0384	0,0246
13	91,8541	25,7701	0,0501	93,1814	33,3110	0,0436	91,7595	25,9001	0,0433	92,2069	13,1002	0,0226
14	92,0987	26,8636	0,0479	93,4954	35,4907	0,0414	92,1944	27,4721	0,0408	92,5846	14,1849	0,0207
15	92,2893	27,9478	0,0457	93,8085	37,6564	0,0394	92,4756	29,0409	0,0383	92,9016	15,2754	0,0190
16	92,4809	29,0282	0,0436	94,0805	39,8147	0,0374	92,6619	30,6093	0,0359	93,1692	16,3508	0,0173
17	92,7084	30,1066	0,0417	94,3129	41,9699	0,0354	92,8257	32,1771	0,0336	93,3900	17,4200	0,0158

Table S4c.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Tandem Tests, Equilibrium Score ML [%].

	TanEO - Eqilibrium Score ML [%]						TanEC - Equilibirum Score ML [%]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	80,8008	7,2002	0,0968	81,0855	7,9114	0,0902	78,0702	5,6636	0,0909	79,7420	6,5050	0,0840
4	82,4259	8,5683	0,0927	82,8240	9,2958	0,0874	80,0023	7,4765	0,0859	81,7356	8,6805	0,0802
5	83,9922	9,9346	0,0888	84,5119	10,6797	0,0847	81,8909	9,2878	0,0811	83,6705	10,8561	0,0765
6	85,4757	11,2916	0,0850	86,1008	12,0590	0,0819	83,6753	11,0942	0,0766	85,4837	13,0334	0,0728
7	86,8210	12,6356	0,0811	87,5072	13,4205	0,0790	85,3079	12,9075	0,0720	87,0810	15,2178	0,0687
8	87,9499	13,9548	0,0770	88,6800	14,7456	0,0759	86,7066	14,7386	0,0672	88,3608	17,3982	0,0641
9	88,8042	15,2335	0,0725	89,5784	15,9970	0,0727	87,8046	16,5882	0,0620	89,3340	19,5566	0,0591
10	89,3780	16,4752	0,0678	90,1920	17,1674	0,0696	88,6317	18,4577	0,0566	90,0782	21,6890	0,0540
11	89,7864	17,6977	0,0630	90,6602	18,2656	0,0666	89,3026	20,3563	0,0512	90,7107	23,8024	0,0490
12	90,1993	18,9203	0,0584	91,0664	19,3063	0,0640	89,9631	22,2789	0,0463	91,2964	25,9060	0,0445
13	90,6488	20,1573	0,0541	91,3607	20,3043	0,0615	90,6317	24,2132	0,0419	91,8049	28,0020	0,0402
14	91,0576	21,4156	0,0498	91,5654	21,2777	0,0590	91,2262	26,1526	0,0378	92,1917	30,0990	0,0363
15	91,4169	22,6921	0,0458	91,7458	22,2479	0,0567	91,7204	28,0966	0,0341	92,4103	32,2050	0,0325
16	91,7468	23,9802	0,0419	91,9857	23,2219	0,0544	92,1283	30,0419	0,0306	92,5214	34,3206	0,0289
17	92,0820	25,2736	0,0384	92,2632	24,1990	0,0523	92,4841	31,9881	0,0275	92,5748	36,4416	0,0257

Table S4d.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, One Leg Stance, Equilibrium Score ML [%].

	1L EO - Eqilibrium Score ML [%]
	Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	69,0002	2,6623	0,1199	75,2085	3,1123	0,0842
4	71,1974	2,9837	0,1067	76,8488	3,5904	0,0760
5	73,3856	3,3057	0,0949	78,4876	4,0668	0,0686
6	75,5260	3,6325	0,0846	80,1158	4,5394	0,0619
7	77,5854	3,9764	0,0758	81,6971	5,0289	0,0557
8	79,5388	4,3462	0,0683	83,1517	5,5611	0,0502
9	81,2592	4,7361	0,0620	84,4565	6,1294	0,0455
10	82,5846	5,1363	0,0568	85,5367	6,7017	0,0418
11	83,5454	5,5374	0,0524	86,3727	7,2461	0,0387
12	84,3375	5,9140	0,0485	87,0673	7,7337	0,0362
13	85,0400	6,2414	0,0449	87,6042	8,1559	0,0342
14	85,5940	6,5270	0,0418	87,9767	8,5184	0,0326
15	86,0082	6,7792	0,0393	88,1462	8,8474	0,0312
16	86,3182	7,0118	0,0373	88,0979	9,1637	0,0301
17	86,5967	7,2366	0,0356	87,9575	9,4758	0,0290

Table S5a.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Romberg Tests, Equilibrium Score AP [%].

	RomEO - Eqilibrium Score AP [%]						RomEC - Equilibirum Score AP [%]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	89,0331	15,1182	0,0836	89,0622	15,0342	0,0503	87,6851	11,0585	0,0664	87,7126	2,0198	0,0498
4	89,8798	16,7119	0,0764	90,1270	18,0579	0,0472	88,5599	11,0271	0,0587	88,9593	3,4568	0,0442
5	90,7211	18,3128	0,0697	91,1430	21,0835	0,0444	89,4883	11,0001	0,0520	90,1986	4,8937	0,0392
6	91,5470	19,9442	0,0636	92,0872	24,1057	0,0415	90,4462	10,9965	0,0459	91,3902	6,3329	0,0347
7	92,3314	21,5810	0,0578	92,9362	27,0582	0,0387	91,3974	11,0267	0,0406	92,4681	7,8057	0,0308
8	93,0104	23,1704	0,0522	93,6615	29,8635	0,0358	92,2715	11,0865	0,0360	93,3620	9,4112	0,0275
9	93,5276	24,6706	0,0468	94,2646	32,4913	0,0330	92,9816	11,1762	0,0321	94,0620	11,2298	0,0249
10	93,8918	26,0582	0,0416	94,7532	34,9666	0,0302	93,5329	11,3258	0,0288	94,5826	13,2938	0,0227
11	94,2054	27,3220	0,0368	95,1317	37,3620	0,0274	94,0365	11,5645	0,0262	94,9767	15,5837	0,0208
12	94,5574	28,4901	0,0324	95,4336	39,7308	0,0247	94,5753	11,9039	0,0239	95,3181	18,0584	0,0190
13	94,9103	29,6078	0,0284	95,6671	42,1254	0,0220	95,0964	12,3354	0,0220	95,6166	20,6919	0,0173
14	95,1931	30,7115	0,0247	95,8557	44,5673	0,0195	95,5022	12,8570	0,0202	95,9075	23,4450	0,0157
15	95,4163	31,8226	0,0212	96,0369	47,0431	0,0171	95,7917	13,4444	0,0186	96,2357	26,2697	0,0142
16	95,6213	32,9468	0,0181	96,2175	49,5392	0,0150	96,0023	14,0715	0,0171	96,6216	29,1259	0,0128
17	95,8395	34,0773	0,0155	96,4176	52,0432	0,0132	96,1966	14,7147	0,0158	97,0379	31,9877	0,0116

Table S5b.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Semi-Tandem Tests, Equilibrium Score AP [%].

	SemTnEO - Eqilibrium Score AP [%]						SemTanEC - Equilibirum Score AP [%]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	83,4103	11,7389	0,0795	83,2378	10,5117	0,0600	80,1095	6,8562	0,0736	80,6399	2,8571	0,0531
4	84,2909	11,7110	0,0729	84,5742	11,0147	0,0568	81,5067	7,1972	0,0691	82,3276	3,2301	0,0505
5	85,2040	11,6830	0,0669	85,9052	11,5108	0,0538	82,9076	7,5363	0,0649	84,0044	3,6049	0,0481
6	86,1814	11,6515	0,0615	87,1969	11,9698	0,0510	84,3212	7,8633	0,0610	85,6062	3,9919	0,0457
7	87,2129	11,6015	0,0567	88,3726	12,3808	0,0481	85,7140	8,1634	0,0572	87,0353	4,4061	0,0435
8	88,2102	11,5085	0,0523	89,3879	12,7640	0,0453	86,9877	8,4213	0,0536	88,2372	4,8539	0,0412
9	89,0562	11,3465	0,0482	90,2370	13,1328	0,0423	88,0203	8,6273	0,0500	89,2024	5,3554	0,0389
10	89,6960	11,1074	0,0444	90,9278	13,4797	0,0392	88,8056	8,7745	0,0464	89,9492	5,9052	0,0366
11	90,2034	10,7904	0,0408	91,4967	13,7992	0,0359	89,5054	8,8557	0,0430	90,5551	6,4971	0,0342
12	90,6987	10,4069	0,0375	92,0107	14,0938	0,0326	90,2411	8,8678	0,0397	91,0895	7,1355	0,0319
13	91,1994	9,9852	0,0344	92,5025	14,3782	0,0294	90,9917	8,8205	0,0366	91,5749	7,8253	0,0298
14	91,6389	9,5473	0,0314	93,0053	14,6490	0,0262	91,6133	8,7348	0,0336	92,0390	8,5641	0,0278
15	92,0458	9,0937	0,0286	93,5194	14,8975	0,0232	92,1339	8,6281	0,0307	92,5143	9,3328	0,0260
16	92,4915	8,6209	0,0260	94,0261	15,1318	0,0204	92,6565	8,5122	0,0281	93,0481	10,1125	0,0242
17	92,9949	8,1353	0,0237	94,5324	15,3649	0,0180	93,2423	8,3886	0,0257	93,6339	10,8960	0,0224

Table S5c.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Tandem Tests, Equilibrium Score AP [%].

	TanEO - Eqilibrium Score AP [%]						TanEC - Equilibirum Score AP [%]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	79,6861	3,4937	0,0663	80,5680	10,4310	0,0607	74,7870	3,4128	0,0784	76,3443	4,1376	0,0655
4	81,0497	4,5082	0,0617	82,0347	10,3785	0,0569	76,4305	3,7779	0,0734	78,0167	3,9275	0,0606
5	82,4128	5,5171	0,0575	83,5026	10,3235	0,0534	78,0692	4,1435	0,0687	79,6861	3,7172	0,0561
6	83,7565	6,4978	0,0536	84,9059	10,2585	0,0500	79,6829	4,5145	0,0644	81,3195	3,5103	0,0522
7	85,0443	7,4467	0,0500	86,1589	10,1912	0,0467	81,2519	4,9012	0,0605	82,8154	3,3275	0,0487
8	86,2125	8,3695	0,0467	87,2025	10,1309	0,0434	82,7170	5,3063	0,0567	84,0664	3,1956	0,0457
9	87,1599	9,2755	0,0437	88,0182	10,0916	0,0403	83,9786	5,7346	0,0531	85,0795	3,1279	0,0431
10	87,8418	10,1600	0,0407	88,6042	10,0838	0,0375	84,9960	6,1885	0,0497	85,8954	3,1136	0,0410
11	88,3114	11,0118	0,0377	89,0536	10,0941	0,0350	85,8662	6,6648	0,0464	86,6075	3,1231	0,0391
12	88,6729	11,8363	0,0349	89,4668	10,1122	0,0327	86,7252	7,1649	0,0434	87,2846	3,1619	0,0375
13	89,0141	12,6314	0,0321	89,8631	10,1451	0,0306	87,5459	7,6976	0,0407	87,9058	3,2353	0,0361
14	89,3613	13,4025	0,0294	90,2599	10,2045	0,0287	88,2059	8,2706	0,0382	88,4621	3,3359	0,0348
15	89,7195	14,1574	0,0268	90,6804	10,2825	0,0269	88,7561	8,8822	0,0358	88,9474	3,4580	0,0335
16	90,1011	14,9053	0,0244	91,1659	10,3703	0,0251	89,3121	9,5220	0,0337	89,4316	3,5889	0,0322
17	90,5254	15,6537	0,0222	91,7015	10,4589	0,0235	89,9044	10,1746	0,0317	89,9432	3,7229	0,0308

Table S5d.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, One Leg Stance, Equilibrium Score AP [%].

	1L EO - Eqilibrium Score AP [%]
	Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	76,6441	2,4528	0,0642	79,2552	1,3270	0,0605
4	78,2453	2,7602	0,0590	80,6352	2,5994	0,0533
5	79,8430	3,0657	0,0541	82,0131	3,8788	0,0470
6	81,4125	3,3712	0,0496	83,3773	5,1901	0,0414
7	82,8958	3,7204	0,0454	84,6982	6,5394	0,0366
8	84,2183	4,1679	0,0416	85,9096	7,9838	0,0326
9	85,2925	4,7430	0,0382	86,9630	9,5566	0,0293
10	86,0718	5,4517	0,0353	87,7821	11,2395	0,0265
11	86,6298	6,2780	0,0330	88,3489	13,0095	0,0244
12	87,0918	7,1870	0,0311	88,7859	14,8245	0,0226
13	87,5159	8,1619	0,0297	89,1704	16,6511	0,0213
14	87,8862	9,1878	0,0285	89,5793	18,4840	0,0203
15	88,2207	10,2623	0,0275	89,9814	20,3146	0,0195
16	88,5943	11,3753	0,0268	90,3341	22,1439	0,0187
17	89,0187	12,5067	0,0263	90,6766	23,9739	0,0181

Table S6a.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Romberg Tests, Sway Angle SD ML [°].

	RomEO - Sway Angle SD ML [°]						RomEC - Sway Angle SD ML [°]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,3518	-0,3082	0,4789	0,3572	-0,0957	0,3628	0,3903	-0,1339	0,5214	0,3770	0,6685	0,3907
4	0,3237	-0,2512	0,4780	0,3213	-0,0908	0,3688	0,3567	-0,0778	0,5134	0,3375	0,6003	0,4044
5	0,2954	-0,1942	0,4768	0,2856	-0,0858	0,3747	0,3230	-0,0215	0,5054	0,2981	0,5320	0,4183
6	0,2667	-0,1374	0,4745	0,2512	-0,0811	0,3798	0,2893	0,0349	0,4965	0,2601	0,4637	0,4313
7	0,2390	-0,0805	0,4716	0,2201	-0,0764	0,3844	0,2565	0,0905	0,4880	0,2257	0,3959	0,4438
8	0,2150	-0,0212	0,4690	0,1948	-0,0733	0,3903	0,2273	0,1449	0,4808	0,1978	0,3272	0,4560
9	0,1976	0,0426	0,4661	0,1758	-0,0731	0,3980	0,2046	0,1977	0,4753	0,1763	0,2562	0,4663
10	0,1871	0,1102	0,4634	0,1624	-0,0741	0,4061	0,1885	0,2475	0,4725	0,1610	0,1807	0,4727
11	0,1804	0,1810	0,4617	0,1529	-0,0740	0,4113	0,1748	0,2926	0,4734	0,1497	0,0996	0,4729
12	0,1733	0,2536	0,4603	0,1451	-0,0731	0,4118	0,1599	0,3311	0,4769	0,1394	0,0116	0,4669
13	0,1650	0,3262	0,4561	0,1379	-0,0733	0,4064	0,1449	0,3611	0,4808	0,1297	-0,0846	0,4558
14	0,1566	0,3974	0,4463	0,1305	-0,0763	0,3957	0,1337	0,3817	0,4835	0,1195	-0,1882	0,4415
15	0,1464	0,4682	0,4316	0,1224	-0,0806	0,3817	0,1252	0,3955	0,4842	0,1076	-0,2967	0,4258
16	0,1332	0,5397	0,4143	0,1141	-0,0862	0,3665	0,1179	0,4058	0,4831	0,0936	-0,4075	0,4103
17	0,1179	0,6116	0,3965	0,1054	-0,0924	0,3514	0,1106	0,4149	0,4811	0,0785	-0,5187	0,3952

Table S6b.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Semi-Tandem Tests, Sway Angle SD ML [°].

	SemTnEO - Sway Angle SD ML [°]						SemTanEC - Sway Angle SD ML [°]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,5245	-0,1783	0,3205	0,5092	-0,7621	0,2716	0,5949	-0,1577	0,3113	0,5803	0,5266	0,2614
4	0,4955	-0,1340	0,3323	0,4716	-0,6316	0,2867	0,5553	-0,1255	0,3258	0,5302	0,4953	0,2713
5	0,4661	-0,0895	0,3446	0,4340	-0,5018	0,3027	0,5155	-0,0930	0,3410	0,4804	0,4637	0,2814
6	0,4347	-0,0442	0,3573	0,3973	-0,3758	0,3195	0,4744	-0,0596	0,3565	0,4334	0,4308	0,2920
7	0,4011	0,0008	0,3702	0,3634	-0,2571	0,3362	0,4329	-0,0250	0,3722	0,3922	0,3957	0,3033
8	0,3683	0,0441	0,3828	0,3332	-0,1509	0,3521	0,3942	0,0100	0,3868	0,3578	0,3590	0,3148
9	0,3409	0,0849	0,3937	0,3074	-0,0614	0,3663	0,3631	0,0443	0,3990	0,3292	0,3225	0,3257
10	0,3217	0,1234	0,4014	0,2868	0,0112	0,3773	0,3408	0,0783	0,4088	0,3057	0,2880	0,3353
11	0,3082	0,1615	0,4062	0,2700	0,0708	0,3838	0,3219	0,1145	0,4170	0,2856	0,2558	0,3440
12	0,2952	0,2009	0,4081	0,2544	0,1239	0,3854	0,3007	0,1557	0,4228	0,2677	0,2252	0,3523
13	0,2809	0,2401	0,4068	0,2379	0,1735	0,3825	0,2782	0,2009	0,4259	0,2515	0,1945	0,3607
14	0,2669	0,2780	0,4020	0,2199	0,2216	0,3757	0,2588	0,2481	0,4253	0,2363	0,1618	0,3698
15	0,2526	0,3163	0,3951	0,2004	0,2705	0,3661	0,2412	0,2964	0,4218	0,2200	0,1281	0,3791
16	0,2354	0,3572	0,3870	0,1798	0,3205	0,3547	0,2229	0,3453	0,4174	0,2007	0,0944	0,3877
17	0,2155	0,4002	0,3787	0,1583	0,3705	0,3428	0,2020	0,3949	0,4129	0,1796	0,0603	0,3957

Table S6c.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Tandem Tests, Sway Angle SD ML [°].

	TanEO - Sway Angle SD ML [°]						TanEC - Sway Angle SD ML [°]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,6150	0,1072	0,2911	0,5900	-0,3493	0,2864	0,7153	-0,2742	0,2608	0,6787	0,3134	0,2315
4	0,5736	0,0773	0,2978	0,5446	-0,2855	0,2945	0,6713	-0,2423	0,2667	0,6318	0,3477	0,2371
5	0,5323	0,0478	0,3046	0,4996	-0,2219	0,3028	0,6272	-0,2105	0,2729	0,5851	0,3823	0,2431
6	0,4914	0,0203	0,3115	0,4573	-0,1594	0,3108	0,5833	-0,1794	0,2795	0,5401	0,4176	0,2497
7	0,4520	-0,0047	0,3181	0,4195	-0,0985	0,3162	0,5398	-0,1506	0,2864	0,4993	0,4512	0,2570
8	0,4162	-0,0272	0,3239	0,3870	-0,0379	0,3172	0,4984	-0,1247	0,2930	0,4650	0,4799	0,2640
9	0,3880	-0,0481	0,3276	0,3617	0,0163	0,3152	0,4626	-0,1033	0,2992	0,4373	0,5005	0,2711
10	0,3690	-0,0666	0,3273	0,3447	0,0590	0,3114	0,4346	-0,0883	0,3043	0,4153	0,5132	0,2781
11	0,3569	-0,0804	0,3222	0,3327	0,0917	0,3069	0,4116	-0,0802	0,3079	0,3961	0,5212	0,2851
12	0,3483	-0,0902	0,3128	0,3223	0,1167	0,3025	0,3891	-0,0795	0,3108	0,3772	0,5248	0,2917
13	0,3402	-0,0967	0,3002	0,3126	0,1322	0,2986	0,3675	-0,0893	0,3133	0,3597	0,5225	0,2978
14	0,3313	-0,1015	0,2851	0,3021	0,1390	0,2946	0,3502	-0,1122	0,3148	0,3439	0,5148	0,3034
15	0,3202	-0,1049	0,2687	0,2893	0,1413	0,2899	0,3355	-0,1472	0,3158	0,3293	0,5029	0,3079
16	0,3062	-0,1074	0,2517	0,2731	0,1417	0,2848	0,3202	-0,1904	0,3171	0,3137	0,4899	0,3107
17	0,2904	-0,1102	0,2355	0,2545	0,1415	0,2794	0,3038	-0,2372	0,3185	0,2964	0,4764	0,3125

Table S6d.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, One Leg Stance, Sway Angle SD ML [°].

	1L EO - Sway Angle SD ML [°]
	Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,5202	-0,6183	0,2476	0,5204	0,7423	0,2614
4	0,4954	-0,5093	0,2458	0,4915	0,6107	0,2525
5	0,4705	-0,4003	0,2439	0,4627	0,4785	0,2441
6	0,4459	-0,2925	0,2418	0,4340	0,3445	0,2367
7	0,4222	-0,1912	0,2396	0,4053	0,2117	0,2306
8	0,4001	-0,1023	0,2372	0,3771	0,0813	0,2260
9	0,3814	-0,0307	0,2351	0,3514	-0,0507	0,2220
10	0,3679	0,0191	0,2335	0,3319	-0,1892	0,2178
11	0,3587	0,0465	0,2326	0,3200	-0,3354	0,2133
12	0,3510	0,0558	0,2330	0,3116	-0,4816	0,2090
13	0,3431	0,0475	0,2350	0,3044	-0,6219	0,2058
14	0,3346	0,0232	0,2386	0,2955	-0,7556	0,2041
15	0,3244	-0,0135	0,2445	0,2851	-0,8817	0,2040
16	0,3124	-0,0579	0,2535	0,2743	-1,0007	0,2053
17	0,2992	-0,1057	0,2650	0,2623	-1,1149	0,2071

Table S7a.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Romberg Tests, Sway Angle SD AP [°].

	RomEO - Sway Angle SD AP [°]						RomEC - Sway Angle SD AP [°]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,4145	-0,4027	0,3196	0,4065	-0,0503	0,3032	0,5015	0,1224	0,3684	0,4623	0,4101	0,2237
4	0,3802	-0,4026	0,3186	0,3720	-0,0477	0,2970	0,4606	0,0802	0,3619	0,4226	0,3598	0,2364
5	0,3460	-0,4021	0,3177	0,3378	-0,0443	0,2912	0,4196	0,0382	0,3556	0,3832	0,3093	0,2497
6	0,3125	-0,3996	0,3174	0,3050	-0,0376	0,2866	0,3792	-0,0033	0,3494	0,3451	0,2573	0,2637
7	0,2816	-0,3942	0,3179	0,2753	-0,0290	0,2842	0,3413	-0,0471	0,3438	0,3105	0,2017	0,2779
8	0,2564	-0,3879	0,3195	0,2506	-0,0207	0,2849	0,3085	-0,0944	0,3390	0,2828	0,1411	0,2919
9	0,2397	-0,3829	0,3217	0,2322	-0,0136	0,2886	0,2831	-0,1448	0,3352	0,2628	0,0784	0,3043
10	0,2306	-0,3771	0,3248	0,2192	-0,0076	0,2945	0,2647	-0,1956	0,3324	0,2476	0,0183	0,3136
11	0,2249	-0,3680	0,3280	0,2090	-0,0019	0,3003	0,2501	-0,2430	0,3304	0,2328	-0,0380	0,3180
12	0,2200	-0,3538	0,3301	0,1998	0,0041	0,3047	0,2368	-0,2815	0,3287	0,2176	-0,0940	0,3181
13	0,2161	-0,3361	0,3313	0,1917	0,0089	0,3067	0,2248	-0,3116	0,3266	0,2046	-0,1563	0,3152
14	0,2150	-0,3173	0,3306	0,1852	0,0110	0,3064	0,2162	-0,3361	0,3237	0,1960	-0,2262	0,3104
15	0,2163	-0,2983	0,3276	0,1796	0,0126	0,3045	0,2111	-0,3563	0,3200	0,1913	-0,3000	0,3050
16	0,2188	-0,2782	0,3232	0,1749	0,0146	0,3017	0,2087	-0,3728	0,3161	0,1887	-0,3744	0,2989
17	0,2214	-0,2567	0,3182	0,1712	0,0171	0,2986	0,2074	-0,3876	0,3126	0,1871	-0,4482	0,2926

Table S7b.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Semi-Tandem Tests, Sway Angle SD AP [°].

	SemTnEO - Sway Angle SD AP [°]						SemTanEC - Sway Angle SD AP [°]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,4666	-0,4855	0,3353	0,4616	-0,7714	0,3343	0,5226	-0,0974	0,3231	0,5105	-0,0778	0,2999
4	0,4334	-0,4736	0,3419	0,4209	-0,7165	0,3409	0,4860	-0,1460	0,3245	0,4627	-0,0644	0,3039
5	0,3999	-0,4614	0,3486	0,3804	-0,6622	0,3477	0,4492	-0,1938	0,3262	0,4152	-0,0511	0,3080
6	0,3657	-0,4473	0,3556	0,3414	-0,6111	0,3547	0,4118	-0,2375	0,3288	0,3697	-0,0390	0,3122
7	0,3318	-0,4300	0,3622	0,3064	-0,5665	0,3621	0,3754	-0,2731	0,3327	0,3293	-0,0316	0,3163
8	0,3025	-0,4096	0,3685	0,2778	-0,5301	0,3696	0,3424	-0,2978	0,3372	0,2973	-0,0331	0,3198
9	0,2827	-0,3854	0,3745	0,2573	-0,5017	0,3762	0,3148	-0,3112	0,3415	0,2747	-0,0463	0,3218
10	0,2726	-0,3564	0,3802	0,2439	-0,4777	0,3808	0,2924	-0,3151	0,3452	0,2588	-0,0732	0,3212
11	0,2669	-0,3200	0,3858	0,2334	-0,4537	0,3818	0,2734	-0,3125	0,3485	0,2461	-0,1111	0,3178
12	0,2603	-0,2733	0,3908	0,2231	-0,4294	0,3794	0,2556	-0,3068	0,3505	0,2350	-0,1558	0,3127
13	0,2522	-0,2172	0,3941	0,2129	-0,4060	0,3747	0,2397	-0,3028	0,3500	0,2249	-0,2035	0,3063
14	0,2448	-0,1553	0,3948	0,2024	-0,3846	0,3704	0,2300	-0,3022	0,3463	0,2152	-0,2526	0,2996
15	0,2382	-0,0900	0,3938	0,1925	-0,3654	0,3678	0,2256	-0,3033	0,3398	0,2074	-0,3018	0,2920
16	0,2310	-0,0227	0,3920	0,1845	-0,3476	0,3660	0,2239	-0,3041	0,3319	0,2011	-0,3493	0,2834
17	0,2229	0,0455	0,3896	0,1783	-0,3302	0,3646	0,2229	-0,3042	0,3235	0,1962	-0,3960	0,2744

Table S7c.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, Tandem Tests, Sway Angle SD AP [°].

	TanEO - Sway Angle SD AP [°]						TanEC - Sway Angle SD AP [°]
	Male			Female			Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,5387	-0,5904	0,4001	0,5591	-0,5392	0,4025	0,5996	-0,4694	0,3603	0,5573	0,0308	0,3475
4	0,4926	-0,5758	0,4029	0,5040	-0,5205	0,4112	0,5488	-0,4970	0,3613	0,5047	-0,0078	0,3517
5	0,4466	-0,5610	0,4058	0,4491	-0,5020	0,4201	0,4983	-0,5244	0,3622	0,4522	-0,0462	0,3558
6	0,4018	-0,5452	0,4089	0,3960	-0,4837	0,4287	0,4491	-0,5509	0,3626	0,4011	-0,0840	0,3593
7	0,3607	-0,5287	0,4118	0,3483	-0,4643	0,4359	0,4030	-0,5771	0,3615	0,3543	-0,1227	0,3606
8	0,3270	-0,5120	0,4148	0,3090	-0,4414	0,4411	0,3631	-0,6053	0,3581	0,3160	-0,1650	0,3592
9	0,3041	-0,4967	0,4183	0,2825	-0,4158	0,4463	0,3324	-0,6391	0,3525	0,2876	-0,2125	0,3559
10	0,2931	-0,4846	0,4224	0,2692	-0,3884	0,4522	0,3097	-0,6803	0,3458	0,2669	-0,2647	0,3512
11	0,2889	-0,4767	0,4269	0,2618	-0,3584	0,4591	0,2909	-0,7273	0,3390	0,2496	-0,3192	0,3458
12	0,2839	-0,4726	0,4326	0,2565	-0,3245	0,4664	0,2713	-0,7762	0,3328	0,2342	-0,3741	0,3400
13	0,2755	-0,4715	0,4394	0,2554	-0,2875	0,4732	0,2518	-0,8237	0,3264	0,2222	-0,4288	0,3333
14	0,2650	-0,4724	0,4463	0,2564	-0,2487	0,4789	0,2363	-0,8696	0,3192	0,2142	-0,4825	0,3249
15	0,2525	-0,4735	0,4519	0,2557	-0,2094	0,4831	0,2251	-0,9144	0,3105	0,2113	-0,5334	0,3142
16	0,2383	-0,4733	0,4558	0,2506	-0,1702	0,4861	0,2182	-0,9595	0,3006	0,2115	-0,5816	0,3016
17	0,2227	-0,4723	0,4587	0,2429	-0,1310	0,4885	0,2137	-1,0046	0,2904	0,2134	-0,6287	0,2884

Table S7d.

LMS parameters per age group and gender, One Leg Stance, Sway Angle SD AP [°].

	1L EO - Sway Angle SD AP [°]
	Male			Female
Age	C50	Lambda	Sigma	C50	Lambda	Sigma
3	0,8103	0,2492	0,2567	0,6459	-0,0025	0,2854
4	0,7578	0,2204	0,2585	0,6102	-0,0158	0,2825
5	0,7055	0,1912	0,2604	0,5746	-0,0293	0,2797
6	0,6549	0,1597	0,2628	0,5390	-0,0438	0,2767
7	0,6060	0,1247	0,2659	0,5032	-0,0603	0,2738
8	0,5593	0,0857	0,2696	0,4693	-0,0797	0,2712
9	0,5189	0,0449	0,2736	0,4390	-0,1025	0,2693
10	0,4895	0,0048	0,2767	0,4145	-0,1247	0,2680
11	0,4696	-0,0324	0,2783	0,3951	-0,1389	0,2671
12	0,4528	-0,0594	0,2777	0,3774	-0,1400	0,2659
13	0,4366	-0,0664	0,2758	0,3629	-0,1278	0,2648
14	0,4222	-0,0516	0,2748	0,3527	-0,1065	0,2640
15	0,4092	-0,0174	0,2762	0,3480	-0,0818	0,2634
16	0,3984	0,0296	0,2807	0,3495	-0,0568	0,2626
17	0,3888	0,0826	0,2876	0,3526	-0,0314	0,2614