## 3 Results
### Effect of Diabetes Type on Foot Joint ROM and Gait Kinematics  
According to a post hoc power analysis (G*Power 3.1, [36]), the sample size in each group was enough to reach a power greater than 0.8 for all ROM variables. ANCOVA analysis revealed several significant differences in ROM between diabetes type 1, type 2 and controls by accounting for the effect of normalized walking speed, age and BMI (Table 3). In the sagittal plane, the midtarsal and tarsometatarsal joints and the metatarsus to calcaneus rotation presented significantly lower ROM in type 1 and type 2 with respect to controls (\(p<0.05\)). Reduction in ROM in both type 1 and type 2 was also observed at ShFo in the sagittal and transverse planes. Regarding the SPM analysis, while some offsets were observed between groups, most foot joints had similar temporal patterns of rotations across the whole population for most of the normalized gait cycle (Figures 2 and 3). In the sagittal plane, at the ankle joint (ShCa), one supra-threshold cluster (60% of gait cycle) was lower than the critical threshold of \(-\)2.667 as feet of type 1 were more plantar flexed than those in type 2. The probability that a supra-threshold cluster of this size would be observed in repeated random samplings was significant (\(p=0.049\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Type 1** & **Type 2** & **DPN** & **Non-DPN** & **Control** & **Type 1 vs.** & **DPN** \\  & & & & & **Type 2 vs.** & **vs. Non-DPN** \\  & & & & & **Control** & **vs. Control** \\ \hline
**cadence** & 55 \(\pm\) 5 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 52 \(\pm\) 5 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 52 \(\pm\) 6 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 55 \(\pm\) 5 & 56 \(\pm\) 5 & \(p<0.01\) & \(p<0.05\) \\
**[step/min]** & & & & & & \\
**gait cycle** & & & & & & \\
**time** & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.10 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.15 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.16\(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.11 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.08 & \(p<0.01\) & \(p<0.05\) \\
**[s]** & & & & & & \\
**stance time** & 60.5 \(\pm\) 1.4 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 62.7 \(\pm\) 2.2 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 62.3 \(\pm\) 2.4 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 61.4 \(\pm\) 2.4 & 60.5 \(\pm\) 1.3 & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) \\
**[\% gait cycle]** & & 39.7 \(\pm\) 1.9 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 37.1 \(\pm\) 2.2 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 37.7 \(\pm\) 2.4 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 38.6 \(\pm\) 2.4 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 39.5 \(\pm\) 1.28 & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.01\) \\
**stride** & & & & & & \\
**nomalized** & 78.8 \(\pm\) 11.7 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 68.8 \(\pm\) 8.8 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 71.2 \(\pm\) 11.3 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 74.0 \(\pm\) 10.5 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 79.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) \\
**[\% height]** & & & & & & \\
**walking** & & & & & & \\
**speed** & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.23 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.02 \(\pm\) 0.21 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.25 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.21 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.18 & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) \\
**[m/s]** & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Spatio-temporal parameters in type 1, type 2, neuropathic (DPN), non-neuropathic (non-DPN) and control groups. Mean (\(\pm\)std) of each parameter are reported for each group. Kruskal–Wallis statistical differences are shown in the last two columns. \(\lx@math@degree\) denotes post hoc pairwise statistically significant difference between any diabetic group and control (\(p<0.05\)); \(\lx@math@degree\) denotes post hoc pairwise statistically significant difference between two diabetic groups (\(p<0.05\)). The midtarsal joints of type 1 and type 2 were more dorsiflexed across the whole gait cycle than those in control. Conversely, the tarsometatarsal joint was more plantar flexed than in controls across the whole gait cycle. As to the metatarsus to calcaneus (CaMe) sagittal plane rotation, one supra-threshold cluster (50-65% of gait cycle) exceeded the critical threshold of 2.599 as the CaMe pair in type 2 was significantly more dorsiflexed than that in control (\(p=0.044\)).