## 3 Results
### Features of Stride, Swing, Stance, and Double-Support Interval  
Figure 3 shows the group mean for the four parameters (stride, swing, stance, and double-support intervals) for the three groups, regarding CON (n = 16), PD1 (n = 6), and PD2 (n = 9) subjects. The error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean gait interval calculated for each group. Figure 4 shows the variance of the four gait phases (stride, swing, stance, and double-support intervals) for CON (n = 16), PD1 (n = 6), and PD2 (n = 9) subjects, and the statistical significance results are shown in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Gait Intervals** & **Statistical Parameter** & **CON** & \(p\)**-Value** & **F01** & \(p\)**-Value** & **PD2** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Stride interval} & \(\mu_{\text{dr},l}\) & 1.095 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.462 & 1.215 \(\pm\) 0.271 & 0.872 & 1.153 \(\pm\) 0.123 & 0.894 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mu_{\text{dr},r}\) & 1.071 \(\pm\) 0.047 & 1.122 \(\pm\) 0.102 & 1.147 \(\pm\) 0.119 & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.119 & 0.825 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\alpha_{\text{dr},l}\) & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.821 & 0.732 \(\pm\) 0.0789 & 0.336 \(\pm\) 0.778 & 0.825 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mu_{\text{dr},r}\) & 0.689 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.753 \(\pm\) 0.089 & 0.753 \(\pm\) 0.089 & 0.778 \(\pm\) 0.104 & 0.825 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mu_{\text{dr},l}\) & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.747 & 0.753 \(\pm\) 0.089 & 0.778 \(\pm\) 0.104 & 0.825 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mu_{\text{dr},r}\) & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.747 & 0.002 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.872 & 0.005 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.658 \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\mu_{\text{dr},r}\) & 0.001 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.004 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.010 \(\pm\) 0.017 & 0.825 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison between left and right leg mean (\(\pm\)SD) and variance (\(\pm\)SD) of gait parameters for different groups. Figure 2: Histogram plot of subjects randomly selected from each group: (**a**) stride, (**b**) swing, (**c**) stance, and (**d**) double-support interval for CON, PD1, and PD2 subjects, respectively. Figure 4: Bar chart showing the variance in stride, swing, stance, and double-support intervals for CON, PD1, and PD2 subjects, respectively (* \(p\) (significance) \(<\) 0.05, ns (nonsignificant). Figure 3: Bar chart showing the mean stride, swing, stance, and double-support intervals for CON, PD1, and PD2 subjects (significance (_p_) = nonsignificant (ns)). From Figure 3, Figure 4, and Table 3, it may be observed that:  
* The mean of all the four gait parameters (stride interval, swing interval, stance interval, and double-support interval) was the lowest for CON, higher for PD1, and the maximum for PD2. However, the difference is not statistically significant when CON was compared with PD1, CON was compared with PD2, and PD1 was compared with PD2. * The variance of all the four gait parameters (stride interval, swing interval, stance interval, and double-support interval) was the lowest for CON, higher for PD1, and the maximum for PD2. The group differences of all four parameters were statistically significant when CON was compared with PD1, CON was compared with PD2, and PD1 was compared with PD2. Figure 5 shows the percentage of stance, swing, and double-support intervals for CON, PD1, and PD2 subjects, respectively. From Figure 5, it may be observed that the percentage of stance and swing phases was statistically significant between CON and PD1, and CON and PD2, but not between PD1 and PD2, while the double-support interval was statistically significant between CON and PD1, CON and PD2, and PD1 and PD2. The statistical significance of all the three groups compared is shown in Table 4.  
Figure 5: Bar chart showing the percentage of stance, swing, and double-support intervals for different groups (* \(p\) (significance) < 0.05, ns (nonsignificant).