## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the spatiotemporal data according to the walking, PGT, and UGT conditions. There were no significant differences in the gait velocity, stride length, and normalized stride length between the conditions (\(p>0.05\)). The GT time and GT step length were significantly different between PGT and UGT (\(p<0.05\)). Figure 2: Phase of planned and unplanned gait terminations. In Phase 1, there were no significant differences in the hip and knee ROM between the conditions (\(p>0.05\)), but there was a significant difference in the ankle ROM (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 2). The results of the post hoc analysis showed that the ankle ROM of the PGT was slightly lower than that of the UGT (\(p<0.017\)). As shown in Table 2, there were significant differences in the hip, knee, and ankle ROM between the conditions in Phase 2 (\(p<0.05\)). The hip ROM was slightly greater during walking than during PGT. The knee ROM in the UGT was slightly greater than that in PGT. The ankle ROM in walking was slightly lower than in PGT and UGT (\(p<0.017\)). Table 2 shows the kinematic and kinetic parameters in Phase 3 during the PGT and UGT. Compared to PGT, hip ROM was significantly lower, but knee ROM was significantly greater in UGT (\(p<0.05\)) (Figure 3). In addition, all kinetic parameters in UGT were significantly greater than those in PGT (\(p<0.05\)). However, there was no significant difference in the ankle angle between PGT and UGT (\(p>0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & & **Walking** & **PGT** & **UGT** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} ROM \\ (\({}^{\circ}\)) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{Phase 1} & Hip joint & 36.23 \(\pm\) 4.22 & 36.64 \(\pm\) 2.57 & 36.21 \(\pm\) 4.01 & 0.638 & \\  & & Knee joint & 48.86 \(\pm\) 4.99 & 48.62 \(\pm\) 5.61 & 49.90 \(\pm\) 4.59 & 0.387 & \\  & & Ankle joint & 29.41 \(\pm\) 5.41 & 27.35 \(\pm\) 4.96 & 29.71 \(\pm\) 4.12 & 0.032 \({}^{*}\) & b \(<\) c \\ \cline{2-6}  & & Hip joint & 5.48 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 4.15 \(\pm\) 1.36 & 4.73 \(\pm\) 1.37 & 0.006 \({}^{*}\) & a \(>\) b \\  & & Knee joint & 52.77 \(\pm\) 5.51 & 48.57 \(\pm\) 7.62 & 54.50 \(\pm\) 4.63 & 0.004 \({}^{*}\) & b \(<\) c \\  & & Ankle joint & 7.05 \(\pm\) 4.82 & 8.44 \(\pm\) 5.40 & 8.80 \(\pm\) 4.38 & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & a \(<\) b, c \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} ROM \\ (\({}^{\circ}\)) \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{Phase 3} & Hip joint & - & 23.30 \(\pm\) 3.33 & 10.07 \(\pm\) 3.97 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Knee joint & - & 10.66 \(\pm\) 6.55 & 14.28 \(\pm\) 6.78 & 0.010 \({}^{*}\) \\  & & Ankle joint & - & 14.09 \(\pm\) 4.62 & 14.38 \(\pm\) 2.80 & 0.217 & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & & Peak GRF & - & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.08 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{*}\) & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & & GRF impulse & - & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.02 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{*}\) & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of kinematic and kinetic parameters across different gait conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **Walking** & **PGT** & **UGT** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Stride length (m) \\ Normalized stride length (ratio) \\ Gait velocity (m/s) \\ GT time (s) \\ GT step length (m) \\ \end{tabular} } & 1.27 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.350 \\  & 1.47 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 1.48 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.350 \\  & 1.16 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 1.11 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.14 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.076 \\  & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.14 & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\  & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.002 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} GRT, gait termination;iking, walking trial; PGT, planned gait termination trial; UGT, unplanned gait termination trial; GRF, ground reaction force; \({}^{*}p<0.05\). \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}