Clinical data
Results comparing the clinical data (vitals, cognitive measurements, and functional measurements) of both days by the group are depicted in Fig. When comparing the vitals of Day 2 to those of Day 1, we observed that all individuals showed significantly elevated systolic blood pressure (F(1,1) = 9.93, p = 0.002), diastolic blood pressure (F(1,1) = 5.81, p = 0.018), and heart rate (F(1,1) = 7.64, p = 0.007) on Day 2. However, no significant interaction effects for the group-x-session were found for any of the vitals: systolic blood pressure (p = 0.411), diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.987), and heart rate (p = 0.802). This indicates that group placement did not significantly alter the vitals.When comparing Day 2 cognitive measurements to those of Day 1, all test participants showed significantly shorter times for the TMT-B (F(1,1) = 15.15, p < 0.001), SDMT-C (F(1,1) = 18.19, p < 0.001), SDMT-90 (F(1,1) = 78.76, p < 0.001), and SDMT-60 (F(1,1) = 115.46, p < 0.001) on Day 2. No significant interaction effects for the group-x-session were found for the SDMT-90 (p = 0.726) and SDMT-60 (p = 0.148), indicating that group placement did not alter the test improvements. However, a significant interaction of group-x-session was seen for the TMT-B (p < 0.001) and SDMT-C (p = 0.021), highlighting that group placement did alter the rate of improvement between Day 1 to Day 2 and that the EG outperformed the CG in those cognitive tests. TMT-A had no significant main or interaction effect of the group-x-session, indicating that neither group placement nor session significantly impacted performance.Regarding functional measurements, and when comparing Day 2 to those of Day 1, all individual participants showed significantly lower scores for the FES-I (F(1,1) = 27.81, p < 0.001) on Day 2. At the same time, both groups had significantly higher BBS (F(1,1) = 64.64, p < 0.001) and 4-Stage Balance: one-foot stand (F(1,1) = 20.21, p < 0.001) on Day 2. Further analysis revealed a significant interaction of group-x-session for the FES-I (p = 0.010), BBS (p < 0.001), and 4-Stage Balance: one-foot stand (p = 0.014), highlighting that group placement did alter the rate of improvement between Day 1 to Day 2 and that the EG outperformed the CG on those functional measurements. There were no significant main or interaction effects of group-x-session for SPPB (p = 0.698), 4-Stage Balance: feet side-by-side (p = 1.000), 4-Stage Balance: semi-tandem (p = 0.634), 4-Stage Balance: tandem (p = 0.609), and thus indicates that neither group placement nor session significantly affected performance.