# Kinematic Relations during Double Support Phase in Parkinsonian Gait
## 3 Results  
Neither substantial sex differences nor side asymmetries were captured in the record (for further results see [PERSON] et al. (2020) [27]); therefore, the strides were merged and analysed together. We were thus counting the statistics with 165 single strides for each group. Analysed data of both groups are presented in Table 1, raw data are available in [29]. All statistically significant differences of all parameters had a big effect size according to Cohen's d (except for IO shoulder). The step length index was significantly lower in PD than in CS (0.27 vs. 0.35, \(p<0.05\)). In contrast, the step width index was significantly higher in PD (0.12 vs. 0.09, \(p<0.05\)). During I, the forward CoG velocity (Figure 2) was significantly higher in PD patients compared to CS (0.908 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) vs. 0.785 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\), \(p<0.05\)); however, during T, the CoG forward velocity of PD was lower (0.935 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) vs. 1.253 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\), \(p<0.05\)). In mediolateral axis, the PD generated higher speed in both I (significant) and T (not significant) compared to CS (respectively, 0.082 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) vs. 0.049 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\), \(p<0.05\) and 0.095 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) vs. 0.084 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\), \(p>0.05\)). The SST was significantly shorter in PD compared to CS (0.38 s vs. 0.4 s, \(p<0.05\)), as well as the SST% (33.905 vs. 37.383, \(p<0.05\)). The DST was extended significantly in PD (0.165 s vs. 0.13 s, \(p<0.05\)), which was reflected significantly in DST% as well (15.311 vs. 12.5, \(p<0.05\)). During I, the PD angles in both IS (same-sided) and IO (opposite) hip were significantly more obtuse compared to CS (respectively, 155.087\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 152.981\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\) and 169.160\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 166.818\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)). Subsequently, during T, the difference in TS hip angle  
Figure 1: Limb labels in initiation (I) and termination (T) points of the gait cycle. The circles label the leg defining I (**left**) and T (**right**). IS marks a leg that defines initiation phase and the same-side arm. IO marks the limbs of opposite side during I. TS marks a leg that defines termination phase and the same-side arm. TO marks the limbs of opposite side during T.  
became insignificant, nevertheless, it remained significantly more obtuse in PD in TO hip (160.282\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 156.292\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)). In the knee joint, there was no significant difference between PD and CS during I phase. During the T phase, however, the PD TS knee adopted a significantly sharper angle compared to the CS knee (126.587\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 130.260\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)). The TO knee angle showed no difference between the groups. During I, the angle in IS ankle was very similar in PD and CS. However, in IO, the ankle of the PD patients posed significantly more obtuse angle compared to CS (95.763\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 89.039\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)). Subsequently, during T, the difference in TS ankle angle became insignificant; nevertheless, it was significantly more obtuse in PD in TO ankle (102.454\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 100.561\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)). During I, the PD patients had significantly decreased shoulder angle both on the IS side and on the IO side compared to CS (15.19\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 24.48\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\) and 16.18\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 21.18\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)). During T, the PD patients had significantly decreased shoulder angle in TO arm compared to CS (12.866\({}^{\circ}\) vs. 22.2\({}^{\circ}\), \(p<0.05\)); in the TS shoulder angle, the PD reach was still decreased, but not statistically significantly. Angle parameters are presented in Figure 3.  
Figure 3: Hip (**a**), knee (**b**), ankle (**c**), and shoulder (**d**) joint \(\alpha\) in PD and CS during double support phase (DSP). Leg during gait cycle turns from IS into TO and from IO into TS. Arms fluently change from IS into TO (rear arm) and from IO into TS (front arm).