## 3 Results
### Kinematic Gait Parameters  
As depicted in Table 3, the outcomes related to the kinematic variables involved in mobility measurement are presented. For the majority of the ROM parameters, no noticeable distinctions among individual measurements were observed, except for shoulder abduction-adduction LT and RT, shoulder internal-external rotation LT and RT, wrist radial-ulnar LT and RT, and wrist supination-pronation LT and RT. These specific variables, as illustrated in Figure 2, only demonstrated visible dissimilarities between free walking and pole walking, irrespective of the left or right side of the measurement. Intriguingly, the type of poles utilised did not induce any changes. During the act of walking with poles, a reduction in the angles of arm abduction and rotation, as well as wrist supination, was observed. This reduction was estimated to be approximately 20-30%, with no significant variations between the left and right limbs or between the types of poles. In addition, a significant (more than double) increase in the wrist radial-ulnar value was noted. However, the interactions between the side of measurement (left versus right) and the type of pole (standard versus mechatronic), as depicted in the individual graphs of Figure 2, were not statistically significant (\(p>0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & **Gait without a** & **Gait with a** & **Gait with a** & **\multirow{2}{*}{**
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(p\)-Value** \\ **\end{tabular} } & **Sign. Difference** \\  & **Pole** & **Standard Pole** & **Mechatronic Pole** & **for the ANOVA** & **(1)-(2)-(3)** \\  & **(1)** & **(2)** & **(3)** & **Test** & **(by Posthoc Test)** \\ \hline Step Cadence, step/min & 117.44 \(\pm\) 9.52 & 114.3 \(\pm\) 10.23 & 114.8 \(\pm\) 8.07 & 0.051 & \\ Stride time duration, ms & 1031.8 \(\pm\) 86.9 & 1060.3 \(\pm\) 100.8 & 1051.9 \(\pm\) 79.5 & 0.039 & (1)-(2) \\ Step time, ms & LT & 529.06 \(\pm\) 39.79 & 533.08 \(\pm\) 47.99 & 523.96 \(\pm\) 41.01 & 0.109 & \\  & RT & 502.78 \(\pm\) 56.19 & 527.2 \(\pm\) 53.67 & 527.98 \(\pm\) 40.5 & \\ Stance phase, \% & LT & 62.16 \(\pm\) 2.56 & 61.81 \(\pm\) 2.04 & 62.74 \(\pm\) 2.05 & 0.688 & \\  & RT & 62.25 \(\pm\) 1.55 & 61.61 \(\pm\) 2.07 & 61.92 \(\pm\) 2.91 & \\ Swing phase, \% & LT & 37.84 \(\pm\) 2.56 & 38.23 \(\pm\) 2.11 & 37.69 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 0.558 & \\  & RT & 37.75 \(\pm\) 1.55 & 38.39 \(\pm\) 2.07 & 38.08 \(\pm\) 2.91 & \\ Single support, \% & LT & 36.71 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 37.89 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 37.78 \(\pm\) 2.47 & 0.086 & \\  & RT & 37.27 \(\pm\) 2.77 & 38.16 \(\pm\) 2.12 & 37.41 \(\pm\) 1.93 & \\ Double support, \% & 25.22 \(\pm\) 3.97 & 23.67 \(\pm\) 4.25 & 24.52 \(\pm\) 4.63 & 0.343 & \\ Loading response, \% & LT & 11.62 \(\pm\) 2.48 & 11.66 \(\pm\) 2.08 & 12.18 \(\pm\) 2.31 & 0.329 & \\  & RT & 13.13 \(\pm\) 1.78 & 11.73 \(\pm\) 2.11 & 12.13 \(\pm\) 2.68 & \\ Pre-swing, \% & LT & 13.83 \(\pm\) 2.46 & 12.22 \(\pm\) 2.45 & 12.34 \(\pm\) 2.40 & 0.129 & \\  & RT & 11.85 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 11.71 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 12.38 \(\pm\) 2.09 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Differences between the measurements of the spatio-temporal parameters of gait: “without a pole” (1) vs. “with a standard pole” (2) vs. “with a mechatronic pole” (3) in the group of older adults (\(n=7\)).