PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Sensors· 2026Q1

An Exploratory Analysis of Postural Stability in Acrobatic Shoulder-Stand Pyramids Using Inertial Sensors: The Interplay of Top-Athlete’s Variations and Base-Athlete’s Stance Configurations

Analina Emmanouil, Argyro Achilia, Elissavet Rousanoglou

Short summary

Acrobatic shoulder-stand pyramids are 37-48% less stable when supporting a heavier top-athlete (T2) compared to a lighter one (T1), with stability further decreasing as base-athletes widen their stance by 148.3% (tandem vs. parallel).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Supporting a heavier top-athlete (Pyramid T2) increased base-athlete acceleration RMS by 37-48% compared to a lighter top-athlete (Pyramid T1).
  • The tandem base-athlete stance expanded stance-envelope area by 148.3% and width by 24.7% compared to a parallel stance.
  • Base-athletes experienced substantial acceleration RMS increases (24.3% to 166.2%) when transitioning from free standing to pyramids.
  • Top athletes showed decoupled stability adjustments from base athletes, with the heavier top (Top 2) experiencing a greater acceleration surge (+238.4% to +266.2%) despite lower overall acceleration RMS.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

In static acrobatic gymnastics pyramids, maintaining stability in a multi-person system is critical, yet unconstrained floor baselines and base-to-top pairing mechanics remain poorly quantified. This study evaluated postural stability in shoulder-stand pyramids, examining the interplay of two specific top-athlete variations (lighter Pyramid T1 vs. heavier Pyramid T2) and base-athlete stances (parallel vs. tandem). Five elite base-athletes were monitored while supporting two top-athlete variations, a lighter (Pyramid T1) and a heavier (Pyramid T2) during a standard static shoulder-stand pyramid across parallel and tandem foot placement configurations (three trials in each Pyramid variation). Unconstrained free floor-standing baselines were also recorded for base-athletes and for tops prior to and following pyramid trials. The root mean square (RMS) of the resultant 3D free acceleration (Xsens MTw Awinda inertial sensors sampling at 100 Hz, Xsens MT Manager version 4.6.5 software) positioned at the bases’ and the tops’ shanks (right and left) was used to assess postural stability. A five-point median filter followed by a zero-phase, 2nd-order forward and reverse Butterworth low-pass filter (yielding an effective 4th-order response at 5 Hz and 10 Hz cutoffs) was applied to all signals (MATLAB R2025b). Stance-envelope dimensions were calculated from rectangular boundaries fitted to the base’s foot outlines. Non-parametric Spearman rank correlations (ρ) and parametric correlations (r,R2) were used to test the interbase-consistency and base-to-top coupling. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs (pyramid x stance configurations) were applied with primary analytical emphasis placed on descriptive effect sizes alongside exact p-values (SPSS v30, p < 0.05). The acrobatic tandem stance expanded the parallel stance-envelope area by 148.3% and its width by 24.7%. When base-athletes transitioned from free standing to pyramids there was a substantial acceleration RMS increase (Pyramid T1: +24.3% to 83.6%, Pyramid T2: 47.2% to 166.2%). Supporting the heavier top-athlete (Pyramid T2) significantly increased the bases’ resultant acceleration RMS by +37% to +48% across both filter cutoff thresholds (p<0.05). Furthermore, top athletes exhibited differential behaviors: while Top 2 displayed lower acceleration RMS than Top 1, she experienced a greater acceleration surge when in Pyramid (+238.4% to +266.2%). The bases’ and the tops’ acceleration profiles did not exhibit parallel responses, indicating decoupled rather than mirrored stability adjustments. Furthermore, when the acceleration RMS was normalized to stance-envelope dimensions, significant pyramid x stance interaction (p<0.05) was observed in the anteroposterior but not the mediolateral acceleration. Base-athlete stability varies significantly across top-athlete variations and stance geometries. Evaluating unconstrained floor baselines alongside spatial stance boundaries is essential for capturing structural loading dynamics in multi-person athletic tasks.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Sensors, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and RehabilitationHealth Professions