Test trials (test pre vs. test post)
INTERACTION
To determine if the perturbation training altered the response to the testing perturbations between the EG and CG groups, the means and standard deviations of the Test Pre and Test Posts were compared for each group (Fig. Plot of test pre vs. test post for the control and experimental groups for gait characteristics. Means and 95% confidence intervals are plotted per group per trial. Statistically significant values were defined with stars as *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Main effects of trials are illustrated by black bars and stars underneath each graph’s title, while interaction effect significance is denoted by “IE:” with stars in the lower left-hand corner of graphs where p < 0.05. Interaction effects indicate statistically significant effects of the session (Pre, Post) × group (EG, CG) interaction term.For the variability, each participant’s standard deviations were evaluated. Significant main effect of trials were found for the time in single support variability (F(1,36) = 7.2, p = 0.011) and transformed CISP AP % variability (F(1,36) = 4.2, p = 0.49) with no interaction effect. Significant interaction effect was seen in the transformed CISP ML % variability (F(1,36) = 4.3, p = 0.045) with no significant main effect of trial. No significant main effects of trials were found for the stride length variability, SS COP path efficiency variability, CISP ML % variability, integrated pressure variability, or stride velocity variability (p > 0.05). Therefore, all participants had less variable single support times and CISP AP % during the Test Post trial regardless of group placement. However, the group placement did significantly affect how the CISP ML % variability changed between the Test Pre and Test Post trials.