## 3 Results
### Com-COP Anglie  
The COP-COM A/P and M/L variables can be used as a type of dynamic measure of balance that does not account for the velocity of the COM. These variables were not different \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **CON** & **PD** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Effect Size \({}^{*}\)** \\ \hline Velocity (m/s) & 1.02 (0.12) & 0.87 (0.15) & 0.011 & 0.15 \\ \hline Double limb support (s) & 0.37 (0.06) & 0.40 (0.06) & 0.136 & \(-\)0.04 \\ \hline Cycle time (s) & 1.26 (0.12) & 1.35 (0.15) & 0.137 & \(-\)0.09 \\ \hline Stance Time (s) & 0.82 (0.08) & 0.90 (0.12) & 0.067 & \(-\)0.03 \\ \hline Swing time (s) & 0.44 (0.05) & 0.45 (0.05) & 0.805 & 0.00 \\ \hline Step Length (m) & 0.66 (0.09) & 0.58 (0.14) & 0.138 & 0.07 \\ \hline Stride Length (m) & 1.28 (0.16) & 1.17 (0.20) & 0.158 & 0.11 \\ \hline Cadence (steps/min) & 96.6 (10.4) & 90.2 (8.26) & 0.075 & 6.23 \\ \hline Stride Width (m) & 0.04 (0.03) & 0.04 (0.03) & 0.914 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Negative effect sizes indicate that the CON group values were less than the PD group values.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean (standard deviation) spatiotemporal gait parameters for CON and PD groups while turning. Figure 7: COM–COP inclination angle throughout the stance phase of a right limb gait cycle from a representative PD (dashed line) and CON (solid line) participant. between the limbs, so right and left limb data were combined for both CON and PD groups. There were no significant differences between groups for COP-COM M/L at FDS, MS, and SDS. There were also no significant differences between groups for COP-COM A/P at FDS and SDS (Tables 4 and 5). At MS, there was a marginally significant differences (\(p\) = 0.020) between groups; however, there were no significant differences (\(p\) < 0.0028). Both groups demonstrated similarly shaped COP-COM A/P and M/L curves throughout the gait cycle (Figure 8). From FDS to SDS in the A/P direction, the COP moved from anterior to posterior in relation to the COM. At FDS and SDS, the distance between the COP and COM A/P increased as one limb was in initial contact and the opposite limb was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **CON** & **PD** & \(p\)**–Value** & **Effect Size \({}^{*}\)** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**FDS**} \\ \hline COP–COM & 247.0 (59.6) & 231.0 (61.5) & 0.497 & 16.1 \\ \hline COP–XCOM & 102.8 (26.9) & 91.75 (17.96) & 0.210 & 11.0 \\ \hline U\({}_{\text{MAX}}\)–XCOM & 58.07 (35.5) & 85.37 (35.2) & 0.046 & \(-\)27.3 \\ \hline
**MS** & & & & \\ \hline COP–COM & 201.5 (32.36) & 170.2 (30.49) & 0.020 & 31.3 \\ \hline COP–XCOM & 238.1 (84.6) & 212.8 (47.7) & 0.379 & 25.3 \\ \hline U\({}_{\text{MAX}}\)–XCOM & \(-\)137.6 (62.5) & \(-\)70.54 (78.6) & 0.024 & \(-\)67.1 \\ \hline
**SDS** & & & & \\ \hline COP–COM & 308.3 (101.1) & 299.5 (52.8) & 0.800 & 8.89 \\ \hline COP–XCOM & 504.2 (190.2) & 487.7 (103.7) & 0.800 & 16.5 \\ \hline U\({}_{\text{MAX}}\)–XCOM & \(-\)272.4 (142.7) & \(-\)199.9 (132.1) & 0.197 & \(-\)72.5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Negative effect sizes indicate that the CON group values were less than the PD group values. Note FDS = first double–support; MS = midstance; SDS = second double–support.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean (standard deviation), expressed in millimeters for A/P dynamic balance variables COP–COM A/P, COP–XCOM A/P, U\({}_{\text{MAX}}\)–XCOM A/P for CON and PD group during turning.