## 5 Discussion  
This study explored the potential of AR technology for rehabilitation training in individuals with lower limb amputations by comparing the accuracy and subjective satisfaction \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **No AR** & **AR** & **\% Difference** & **\(p\)-Value** & **Difference 95\%CI** & **Cohen’s d** \\ \hline Overall Satisfaction & \(3.5\pm 0.8\)\$ & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 20.5\% & 0.010 ** & \(-0.9\) (\(-1.5\), \(-0.3\)) & \(-1.15655\) \\ \hline Interest (Fun) & \(3.3\pm 1.0\) & \(4.5\pm 0.5\) & 27.8\% & 0.003 ** & \(-1.2\) (\(-1.9\), \(-0.5\)) & \(-1.42302\) \\ \hline Motivation & \(3.3\pm 1.2\) & \(4.6\pm 0.5\) & 29.7\% & 0.013 ** & \(-1.3\) (\(-2.3\), \(-0.3\)) & \(-1.44842\) \\ \hline Exercise Effectiveness & \(3.3\pm 1.0\) & \(4.5\pm 0.8\) & 27.8\% & 0.013 ** & \(-1.2\) (\(-2.1\), \(-0.3\)) & \(-1.42302\) \\ \hline Accuracy of Movement & \(3.5\pm 0.8\) & \(4.8\pm 0.5\) & 26.3\% & 0.001 *** & \(-1.3\) (\(-1.9\) \(-0.7\)) & \(-2.23313\) \\ \hline Total Score & \(16.6\pm 4.3\) & \(22.6\pm 1.9\) & 26.5\% & 0.001 *** & \(-6.0\) (\(-8.9\), \(-2.9\)) & \(-1.70574\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\$}\) mean \(\pm\) standard deviation; **\(p<0.01\), *** \(p<0.001\).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Subjective satisfaction results with and without AR system application. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Difficulty** & **Exercise Movement** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Standard Deviation of Joint Angle**} & \\ \cline{3-6}  & **(Analyzed Motion)** & **No AR** (\({}^{\circ}\)) & **AR** (\({}^{\circ}\)) & **\(p\)-Value** & **Difference 95\%CI** & **Cohen’s d** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Low} & Standing arm abduction & \(3.4\pm 1.2\)\$ & \(2.4\pm 0.8\) & 0.07 & \(1.0\) (\(-0.1\), \(2.1\)) & \(1.0211\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Standing arm flexion & \(4.7\pm 2.5\) & \(2.3\pm 0.9\) & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & \(2.4\) (\(0.5\), \(4.3\)) & \(1.286774\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Medium} & Standing trunk lateral flexion & \(1.9\pm 0.6\) & \(1.4\pm 0.5\) & 0.02 \({}^{\star}\) & \(0.5\) (\(0.1\), \(0.9\)) & \(0.924151\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Standing diagonal medicine ball lift & \(3.9\pm 1.8\) & \(1.7\pm 0.7\) & 0.00 *** & \(2.2\) (\(1.0\), \(3.4\)) & \(1.624847\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{High} & Standing forward dumbbell lunge & \(3.5\pm 1.7\) & \(2.4\pm 1.0\) & 0.04 \({}^{\star}\) & \(1.1\) (\(0.1\), \(2.1\)) & \(0.793792\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Standing single-leg lateral raise & \(3.0\pm 1.6\) & \(1.7\pm 1.0\) & 0.01 ** & \(1.3\) (\(0.4\), \(2.1\)) & \(0.965714\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Standing maximal knee raise & \(4.9\pm 2.1\) & \(2.1\pm 0.7\) & 0.00 *** & \(2.8\) (\(1.4\), \(4.1\)) & \(1.73714\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Standing lateral step with arm & \(3.7\pm 1.0\) & \(2.6\pm 1.4\) & 0.07 & \(1.2\) (\(-0.1\), \(2.5\)) & \(0.995916\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\$}\) mean \(\pm\) standard deviation; **\(p<0.05\), *** \(p<0.01\), *** \(p<0.001\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison results of standard deviations of mean joint angles with and without AR system application. of exercise movements with and without AR system application. Our findings indicate that while AR feedback did not substantially increase the range of motion in all tested movements, it proved effective in significantly reducing the variability (standard deviation) across repetitions for most exercises. This enhanced consistency in performance implies that AR-based visual feedback can guide individuals to execute target movements with greater precision and stability, which is particularly relevant for the challenges with balance often encountered by lower limb amputees, especially in the early stages of prosthetic use. Therefore, the improved movement consistency facilitated by AR feedback holds promise for positively influencing the overall effectiveness of rehabilitation exercises. Further examination based on movement difficulty revealed interesting patterns.