## 3 Results
### Arm Swing and Trunk Sway  
The ROM per joint angle is reported in Table 2 and shows that the ROM in shoulder abduction of children with HIVE was significantly larger than TD children. In addition, the ROM in trunk sway was significantly larger in children with HIVE than TD children. The ROM for shoulder flexion/extension and for elbow flexion/extension in the sagittal plane did not show significant differences between children with HIVE and TD children.  
The trajectories of the shoulder and elbow angles obtained in the sagittal plane, as well as the trajectories of the shoulder and trunk angles obtained in the frontal plane, are presented in Figure 3. Significant differences between the children with HIVE and the TD children were observed in the shoulder angle in the sagittal plane between 20% and 59% of the gait cycle (\(p\) = 0.004), showing that the shoulder angle of the children with HIVE  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & **Age** & **BMI** & **BMI** & **Videos** **Included (n)** \\  & **(Years)** & **(kg/m2)** & **Category** & **Sagittal** & **Frontal** \\ \hline HIVE & & & & \\ \hline
1 & 8.3 & 17.9 & normal & 3 & 3 \\
2 & 10.8 & 21.7 & overweight & 3 & 3 \\
3 & 10.5 & 15.9 & normal & 3 & 3 \\
4 & 9.4 & 18.0 & normal & 3 & 2 \\
5 & 12.8 & 22.5 & overweight & 3 & 3 \\ \hline TD & & & & \\ \hline
1 & 6.8 & 13.9 & normal & 3 & 3 \\
2 & 7.9 & 13.6 & normal & 3 & 3 \\
3 & 10.8 & 17.8 & normal & 3 & 2 \\
4 & 10.8 & 15.0 & normal & 3 & 3 \\
5 & 8.2 & 19.5 & overweight & 3 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: HIVE, human immunodeficiency virus encephalopathy; TD, typically developing; and BMI, body mass index.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the participants with HIVE and TD participants.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **HIVE** & & **TD** & \\  & **Median** & **IQR** & **Median** & **IQR** & \(p\)**Value** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sagittal plane} & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Shoulder} & & & & \\ flexion/extension (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 31.0 & [24.4–51.5] & 37.2 & [25.2–61.8] & 0.602 \\ Elbow flexion/extension (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 25.4 & [20.1–38.7] & 30.7 & [24.8–36.1] & 0.602 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Frontal plane} & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Shoulder abduction/adduction (\({}^{\circ}\))} & 41.5 & [11.1–49.2] & 6.5 & [4.5–10.4] & 0.028 \({}^{\star}\) \\ Trunk sway (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 14.7 & [8.5–24.7] & 1.9 & [1.6–2.9] & 0.009 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\) Significantly different: \(p\) < 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Range of motion of upper limb movements in sagittal and frontal planes for HIVE and TD children.  
remained in extension, while the shoulder angle of the TD children moved to flexion during the late stance phase. In the frontal plane, significant differences were observed between the children with HIVE and the TD children in the shoulder angle (80-93% gait cycle; \(p\) = 0.040) and the trunk angle (44-65% gait cycle; \(p\) = 0.004). Children with HIVE showed significantly more shoulder abduction during the mid-swing phase and lateral trunk sway during late stance and early swing, while TD children showed overall minimal shoulder abduction and trunk sway.