## 3 Results
As such, the overall spatial zone contribution was significantly different for each foot strike (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 10.27, \(p\) = 0.0009, Figure 5C) where post hoc analysis identified significance (\(p\) < 0.05) in every pairing except between the central and anterior zones in the heel and midfoot strikes. The two-way ANOVA for average loading rate identified a strike-pattern*Spatial-zone interaction (F\({}_{(4,40)}\) = 74.7, \(p\) < 0.0001, Figure 5B, Table 2) with a main effect for strike pattern (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 11.24, \(p\) = 0.0007) and spatial zone (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 22.9, \(p\) < 0.0001). Within each strike pattern multiple post hoc comparisons (Figure 5B, Table 2) presented increased contribution of the posterior \(>\) central or anterior zone (\(p\) < 0.0001) during heel striking; the posterior \(>\) central (\(p\) = 0.002) or anterior zones (\(p\) < 0.0001) during midfoot strikes; and the anterior \(>\) central (\(p\) < 0.0001) \(>\) posterior (\(p\) < 0.0001) zone in the forefoot strikes. Two-way ANOVA (strike-pattern*spatial-zone) for active peak force resulted in an interaction (F\({}_{(4,40)}\) = 59.17, \(p\) < 0.0001) with a significant effect for spatial zone (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 35.84, \(p\) < 0.0001) but not strike pattern (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 0.94, \(p\) = 0.406). Multiple post hoc comparisons for spatial zone across strike patterns highlighted significance (\(p\) < 0.001) for the posterior and anterior zones but not the central zone (\(p\) > 0.8), as shown in Table 2. Impulse had an interaction (F\({}_{(4,40)}\) = 104.4, \(p\) < 0.0001) with main effect differences for both strike pattern (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 20.88, \(p\) < 0.0001) and spatial zone (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 76.8, \(p\) < 0.0001) with \(p\) < 0.0001 post hoc differences for both posterior and anterior zones but not the central zone (\(p\) > 0.8), as shown in Table 2.  
PSD analysis (Figure 6) showed a frequency*strike-pattern interaction (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 11.74, \(p\) = 0.0005) with a main effect for frequency (F\({}_{(1,10)}\) = 136.4, \(p\) < 0.0001) and strike pattern (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 12.37, \(p\) = 0.0004). Post hoc comparisons between strike patterns were not signifi  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Strike Pattern**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Heel**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mid-Foot**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Fore-Foot**} \\ \hline Spatial Zone & Posterior & Central & Anterior & Posterior & Central & Anterior & Posterior & Central & Anterior \\ \hline Peak Impact Force (N-BW\({}^{-1}\)) & \(1.29\pm 0.25\) & \(0.28\pm 0.21\) & \(0.17\pm 0.33\) & \(0.84\pm 0.31\) & \(0.52\pm 0.21\) & \(0.17\pm 0.33\) & \(0.17\pm 0.33\) & \(0.39\pm 0.17\) & \(0.81\pm 0.15\) \\ \hline Average Loading & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Average Loading}  
cantly different in the low-frequency band but there were different in the high-frequency band for all pairings (Figure 6A). Specifically, total high frequency was lower in the heel strike compared to midfoot strike (255,351 \(\pm\) 79,702, 302,406 \(\pm\) 100,656 N\({}^{2}\)\(\cdot\)Hz\({}^{-1}\), \(p\) = 0.011), heel strike was greater than the forefoot strike (255,351 \(\pm\) 79,702, 185,948 \(\pm\) 51,238 N\({}^{2}\)\(\cdot\)Hz\({}^{-1}\), \(p\) = 0.0004) and the midfoot was greater than the forefoot strike (302,406 \(\pm\) 100,656, 185,948 \(\pm\) 51,238 N\({}^{2}\)\(\cdot\)Hz\({}^{-1}\), \(p\) < 0.0001). Further analysis of the high-frequency component with regards to strike-pattern*spatial-zone (Figure 6B) showed an interaction (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 65.6, \(p\) < 0.0001), and main effects for both strike pattern (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 16.91, \(p\) < 0.0001) and spatial zone (F\({}_{(1,10)}\) = 28.47, \(p\) < 0.0001).