## 3 Results  
The results for the BESS errors across stance conditions are shown in Figure 4.  
Notable changes were observed in the control group's balance performance, particularly evident in the reduction in errors across the various stances and surfaces. For SL/foam, there was a decrease in errors with a significant change (\(p\) = 9.20 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\)), and also for T/foam, with a significant change of \(p\) = 0.003. SL/firm also showed a decrease in errors, with a significant change of \(p\) = 0.0001. The VR group only had a significant decrease in BESS errors for SL/foam, with a significant value of \(p\) = 0.001. For the changes observed in both groups for the different  
Figure 4: Total BESS errors for the (**a**) VR group and (**b**) control group pre-training (open icons) and post-training (filled icons) for double-leg/firm (DL/firm), double-leg/foam (DL/foam), tandem/firm (T/firm), tandem/foam (T/foam), single-leg/firm (SL/firm), and single-leg/foam (SL/foam) stance conditions; pooled data with standard error bars shown. stances previously mentioned, a decrease in the BESS errors indicates an improvement in balance and stability. According to the TUG assessment results (shown in Figure 5), for both the VR and control groups, there were no significant changes for the different groups of participants pre- and post-training. Prior expectations might have leaned towards the VR group showing more significant improvements given the immersive and engaging nature of VR training; however, based on the data, that was not observed. Below are the results for the ABC (Figure 6), FES (Figure 7), and ABC as a function of the BESS (Figure 8). Figure 5: Timed Up and Go (TUG) results for VR group and control group pooled data, pre-training (open icons) and post-training (filled icons), with standard error bars shown. The results from the ABC Scale assessments reflected that the perceived balance confidence of the participants in both the VR and control groups before and after the training intervention did not change significantly. In the VR group, the average balance confidence was 86.73% \(\pm\) 4.887 and 89.15% \(\pm\) 6.201, while in the control group, it was 84.88% \(\pm\) 3.075 and 84.76% \(\pm\) 2.849 pre- and post-training, respectively. The FES scores reflected the participants' perceived ability to avoid falling during daily activities. For the control group, the mean pre-assessment FES score was 17.5 \(\pm\) 4.4801, while the mean post-assessment was 15.63 \(\pm\) 3.459. For the VR group, the mean pre-assessment was 14.67 \(\pm\) 3.697, while the post-assessment was 13.78 \(\pm\) 5.302. The changes seen were insignificant for both groups. Figure 8 shows the ABC results as a function of the BESS. For the VR group (Figure 8a), prior to training, there was no correlation between balance confidence (i.e., ABC results) and balance ability (i.e., BESS results). However, post-VR training, decreases in ABC (i.e., worsening of balance confidence) with increases in BESS errors (i.e., worsening of balance ability) were observed; this indicates a negative correlation between the balance confidence and BESS scores. Conversely, increases in ABC (i.e., enhanced balance confidence) were  
Figure 8: Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) results as a function of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) for (**a**) VR group and (**b**) control group, pre-training (open icons) and post-training (filled icons). Figure 7: Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) results for VR group and control group data, pre-training (open icons) and post-training (filled icons), with standard error bars shown. associated with decreases in BESS errors (i.e., enhanced balance ability). In simpler terms, this means that when individuals have lower confidence in their balance abilities, they tend to make more errors, according to the BESS assessment.