## 3 Results  
### Symmetrical Comparison Using Measured EAs  
Figures 4 and 5 display the changes in shank EA \(\theta_{S}\) and thigh EA \(\theta_{T}\) during the STS motion. Figure 4 shows the results for each participant in the healthy group, and Figure 5 shows the results for each participant in the rehabilitation patient group. Figure 4: Measured angular changes in thigh and shank EAs in the healthy group. The horizontal axis is the STS time (in seconds) of each participant. H-1 through H-4 in the figure refer to each healthy participant in Table 1.  
Figure 5: Cont. On the basis of the measured EA changes in the healthy group, the following four phases were commonly observed in the healthy participants:  
* Phase 1: The STS start angle;
* Phase 2: A decrease in the thigh EA and an increase in the shank EA;
* Phase 3: A decrease in the thigh EA and a decrease in the shank EA;
* Phase 4: The STS end angle. A common characteristic of the healthy group was a small L-R error in the decrease in the thigh EA corresponding to Phases 2 and 3 but a trend toward larger L-R errors in thigh and shank EAs for Phases 1 and 4. The EA changes in the rehabilitation patient group were characterized by two features. The first was that irregular EA changes occurred with shifting STS phases, making it impossible to identify the Phases 1-4 observed in the healthy group. The second was that the R-L thigh EAs were not as close as in the healthy group during Phases 2 and 3, even though the EA changes were similar in appearance to those in the healthy group (e.g., Patients 1 and 3). Table 2 summarizes the R-L EA errors in the healthy group and the rehabilitation patient group. In this experiment, the mean and the standard deviation of each EA error \(SE_{ave}\), \(TE_{ave}\), and the error sum \(E_{sum}\) of the rehabilitation patient group were larger than those of the healthy group. A two-tailed Student's t-test (R--4.0.2) at the 5% level of significance for the above three errors showed no significant difference between the two groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & **Sample** & **SE\({}_{\text{ave}}\)** & **TE\({}_{\text{ave}}\)** & **E\({}_{\text{sum}}\)** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **(n 2)** & **(deg/n)** & **(deg/n)** & **(deg/n)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Health (N 1=4)} & H-1 & 81 & 2.1 & 3.1 & 5.2 \\  & H-2 & 101 & 3.2 & 8.7 & 11.9 \\ \cline{1-1}  & H-3 & 81 & 1.7 & 4.6 & 6.3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & H-4 & 101 & 4.1 & 3.3 & 7.4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Mean \(\pm\) SD & 91.0 \(\pm\) 11.5 & 2.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 7.7 \(\pm\) 3.0 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Patient (N = 4)} & P-1 & 136 & 1.7 & 4.6 & 6.4 \\  & P-2 & 246 & 3.6 & 10.2 & 13.9 \\ \cline{1-1}  & P-3 & 111 & 7.5 & 5.5 & 13.0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & P-4 & 195 & 12.6 & 8.5 & 21.2 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Mean \(\pm\) SD 3 & 172.0 \(\pm\) 60.6 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 7.2 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 13.6 \(\pm\) 6.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Number of participants. 2 Number of samples. 3 Standard deviation. A significance test for the above three errors showed no significant difference between the two groups.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: EA error in both groups. Figure 5: Measured angular changes in thigh and shank EAs in the rehabilitation patient group. The horizontal axis is the STS time (in seconds) of each participant. P-1 through P-4 in the figure refer to each rehabilitated patient in Table 1.  
If \(ME>0\), then the point \(f_{i}\) (\(a_{Ri}\), \(a_{Li}\)) is distributed more on the y-axis side of the symmetry reference line, and if \(ME<0\), then the point f_i is distributed more on the x-axis side of the symmetry reference line. In the healthy participants, four \(ME\) values were negative, while in the rehabilitation patient group, two were positive and the remaining two were negative. Next, the \(MSE\) is a parameter that quantifies the asymmetry of movement patterns. The \(MSE\) of the healthy participants was \(4.2\pm 2.0\), while the \(MSE\) of the rehabilitation patient group was \(6.8\pm 2.5\).