## 3 Results  
For the time of landing phase, there were no differences (\(p\) = 0.31) between SL (193.6 \(\pm\) 29.8 ms) and DL (197.1 \(\pm\) 33.4 ms) landing task. For the jump height, there were no differences (\(p\) = 0.22) between SL (0.59 \(\pm\) 0.08 m) and DL (0.62 \(\pm\) 0.10 m) landing task. For the flight-time in the air, there were no differences (\(p\) = 0.09) between SL (0.66 \(\pm\) 0.09 s) and DL (0.71 \(\pm\) 0.12 s) landing task. For the results of ankle joint. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly greater plantar flexion angle than DL during the 0-41.07% (SL: \(-\)19.8-24.6\({}^{\circ}\), DL: \(-\)8.6-29.7\({}^{\circ}\), \(p\)\(<\) 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater plantar flexion moment than DL during the 2.76-79.45% (SL: \(-\)1.01\(\sim\)\(-\)1.41 Nm/kg, DL: \(-\)0.45\(\sim\)\(-\)0.52 Nm/kg, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint power than DL during the 2.48-9.66% (SL: \(-\)5.20\(\sim\)\(-\)31.37 W/kg, DL: \(-\)2.12\(\sim\)\(-\)10.25 W/kg, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001) and 12.92-26.95% (SL: \(-\)19.71\(\sim\)\(-\)2.89 W/kg, DL: \(-\)6.14\(\sim\)\(-\)0.65 W/kg, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater dorsiflexion angular velocity than DL during the 0-23.54% (SL: 756.3-102.4\({}^{\circ}\)/s, DL: 509.9-18.2\({}^{\circ}\)/s, \(p\)\(<\) 0.001) and 44.73-47.63% (SL: 16.2-12.0\({}^{\circ}\)/s, DL: 17.4-21.1\({}^{\circ}\)/s, \(p\)\(=\) 0.016) landing phase (Figure 4). SL (Table 1) depicted greater peak plantarflexion angle (\(p\) = 0.001), ROM (\(p\) = 0.023), peak moment (\(p\) = 0.001), peak power (\(p\) = 0.001), and peak angular velocity (\(p\) = 0.001). For the results of the knee joint. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly smaller flexion angle than DL during the 0-100% (SL: \(-\)7.0\(--\)72.2\({}^{\circ}\), DL: \(-\)20.7\(--\)97.6\({}^{\circ}\), \(p\)! 0.001) landing phase, a significantly smaller flexion angular velocity than DL during the 0-32.69% (SL: \(-\)293.9\(--\)157.9\({}^{\circ}\)/s, DL: \(-\)407.3\(--\)275.9\({}^{\circ}\)/s, \(p\)! 0.001) and 44.36-55.40% (SL: \(-\)107.1\(--\)43.9\({}^{\circ}\)/s, DL: \(-\)195.8\(--\)133.6\({}^{\circ}\)/s, \(p\) = 0.014) landing phase, a significantly greater extension moment than DL during the 3.86-4.27% (\(p\) = 0.048) and 11.73-12.32% (\(p\) = 0.045) and 17.74-21.82% (3.03\(\sim\)4.16 Nm/kg, DL: 2.73\(\sim\)2.49 Nm/kg, \(p\)! 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint power than DL during the 16.83-20.45% (SL: \(-\)25.9\(--\)29.3 W/kg, DL: \(-\)16.4\(--\)23.8 W/kg, \(p\) = 0.006) landing phase (Figure 4). SL (Table 1) depicted a smaller peak flexion angle (\(p\) = 0.001) and peak angular velocity (\(p\) = 0.001), greater peak moment (\(p\) = 0.005), and peak power (\(p\) = 0.002). Figure 4: The Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) results between single-leg landing (SL) and double-leg landings (DL) tasks following a spike, depicting the mean angle moment power and angular velocity and standard deviation of ankle knee and hip sagittal plane. Two dashed lines are the 30 and 50 ms time frame of initial contact. Grey shaded areas indicate that there are significant differences (\(p\)! 0.05) between SL and DL during the spike landing phase. For the results of the hip joint, SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly smaller flexion angle than DL during the 0-100% (SL: \(-9.2\)--\(41.8\)deg, DL: \(-20.0\)--\(71.7\)deg, \(p\) < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly smaller flexion angular velocity than DL during the 0-26.34% (SL: \(-69.2\)--\(150.1\)deg, DL: \(-157.2\)--\(267.7\)deg/s, \(p\) < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint moment than DL during the 3.80-4.60% (\(p\) = 0.043) and 12.45-14.49% (3.14-7.98 Nm/kg, DL: 4.17-2.37 Nm/kg, \(p\) = 0.019) landing phase, a significantly greater joint power than DL during the 13.01-16.26% (SL: \(-29.2\)--\(30.1\) W/kg, DL: \(-21.9\)--\(4.2\) W/kg, \(p\) = 0.008) landing phase (Figure 4).