# Postural Strategies Used While Donning a Simulated xEMU Spacesuit
## 3 Results
roll parameters, as none were significant, in the forward- and backward-walking conditions, and it is color-coded to indicate the level of significance. The AIs for the head, thorax, and lumbar (the pelvis AI was not calculated, since no data were analyzed from the anatomical body segment below the pelvis) segments in the forward- and backward-walking conditions showed a substantial number of significant findings. From the forward-walking condition alone, there were 16 significant findings. In the backward-walking condition, there were another 12 significant findings, for a total of 28 significant findings in the AIs. Table 2 shows all the AIs for each parameter. The table is color-coded for significance. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Config.** & **Head** & **Thorax** & **Lumbar** & **Pelvis** & **Head** & **Thorax** & **Lumbar** & **Head** & **Thorax** & **Lumbar** \\
**Comparison** & **Roll** & **Roll** & **Roll** & **Pitch** & **Pitch** & **Pitch** & **Yaw** & **Yaw** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Forward Walking} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Unsuited xEMU} & \(-0.147\) & \(-0.536\) & \(0.199\) & \(-0.306\) & \(0.840\) & \(0.292\) & \(-0.023\) & \(0.938\) & \(0.007\) \\  & \(-0.152\) & \(-0.747\) & \(0.0866\) & \(-0.535\) & \(0.399\) & \(0.572\) & \(-0.538\) & \(0.688\) & \(-0.005\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Unsuited HUT} & \(-0.147\) & \(-0.536\) & \(0.199\) & \(-0.306\) & \(0.840\) & \(0.292\) & \(-0.023\) & \(0.938\) & \(0.007\) \\  & \(-0.689\) & \(0.109\) & \(0.489\) & \(0.14\) & \(0.57\) & \(0.425\) & \(0.595\) & \(0.645\) & \(-0.115\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{xEMU} & \(-0.152\) & \(-0.747\) & \(0.087\) & \(-0.535\) & \(0.399\) & \(0.572\) & \(-0.538\) & \(0.688\) & \(-0.005\) \\  & \(-0.689\) & \(0.109\) & \(0.489\) & \(0.14\) & \(0.57\) & \(0.425\) & \(0.595\) & \(0.645\) & \(-0.115\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Backward Walking} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Unsuited xEMU} & \(-0.346\) & \(-0.649\) & \(0.346\) & \(-0.299\) & \(0.636\) & \(0.407\) & \(0.107\) & \(0.995\) & \(0.025\) \\  & \(-0.255\) & \(-0.783\) & \(0.197\) & \(-0.566\) & \(0.313\) & \(0.527\) & \(-0.464\) & \(0.900\) & \(-0.037\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Unsuited HUT} & \(-0.346\) & \(-0.649\) & \(0.346\) & \(-0.299\) & \(0.636\) & \(0.407\) & \(0.107\) & \(0.995\) & \(0.025\) \\  & \(-0.573\) & \(-0.303\) & \(0.462\) & \(-0.033\) & \(0.523\) & \(0.212\) & \(0.552\) & \(0.56\) & \(-0.156\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Config. ** & **Head** & **Thorax** & **Lumbar** & **Pelvis** & **Head** & **Thorax** & **Lumbar** & **Head** & **Thorax** & **Lumbar** \\
**Comparison** & **Roll** & **Roll** & **Roll** & **Pitch** & **Pitch** & **Pitch** & **Yaw** & **Yaw** & **Yaw** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Forward Walking} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Unsuited xEMU} & \(-0.147\) & \(-0.536\) & \(0.199\) & \(-0.306\) & \(0.840\) & \(0.292\) & \(-0.023\) & \(0.938\) & \(0.007\) \\  & \(-0.152\) & \(-0.747\) & \(0.0866\) & \(-0.535\) & \(0.399\) & \(0.572\) & \(-0.538\) & \(0.68 Interestingly, the significant parameters for forward walking were almost mirrored perfectly backward walking. The forward-walking pitch direction was the most affected, with almost all the pitch parameters experiencing significant differences, followed closely by the yaw. Figure 5 represents the AIs in plot form. The forward-walking AIs for the pitch and yaw directions almost mirrored their counterparts in the backward-walking condition. However, the xEMU Vest and HUT behaved differently. The xEMU Vest significantly decreased the AI of the head in both walking conditions for the pitch and yaw, while the HUT significantly increased the AI of the head with the same parameters. This was then reversed for the thorax in the roll direction.