## 3 Experimental Results
### Evaluation of Reflex Control Model
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** \\ \hline \(p_{a}\) of SOL & 6.20 & 6.12 & 5.34 & 6.90 & 6.85 & 6.82 \\ \(d_{a}\) of SOL & 0.91 & 0.50 & 1.02 & 0.19 & 0.24 & 0.29 \\ VAF 1   of SOL & 0.94/0.96 & 0.92/0.93 & 0.78/0.95 & 0.91/0.95 & 0.83/0.95 & 0.88/0.92 \\ RMSE 2   of SOL & 0.03/0.02 & 0.11/0.06 & 0.13/0.04 & 0.08/0.01 & 0.10/0.05 & 0.09/0.05 \\ \(p_{a}\) of GAS & 0.84 & 1.06 & 0.85 & 1.31 & 1.08 & 1.31 \\ \(d_{a}\) of GAS & 0.28 & 0.03 & 0.14 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.07 \\ VAF of GAS & 0.77/0.94 & 0.94/0.96 & 0.88/0.93 & 0.97/0.97 & 0.96/0.97 & 0.90/0.95 \\ RMSE of GAS & 0.02/0.005 & 0.04/0.01 & 0.03/0.01 & 0.01/0.002 & 0.02/0.01 & 0.02/0.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: SOL and GAS reflex gains of subject A of six trials. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** & **E** \\ \hline \(p_{a}\) of SOL & 6.37 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.37 & 3.59 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 2.44 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 14.51 \(\pm\) 3.70 \\ \(d_{a}\) of SOL & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 1.92 \(\pm\) 0.52 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.63 \\ VAF 1  & 88.2/94.8 & 89.0/91.6 & 88.2/90.4 & 89.4/94.2 & 90.4/92.2 \\ \(p_{a}\) of GAS & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 1.90 \(\pm\) 0.70 & 4.06 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 4.65 \(\pm\) 1.30 & 8.36 \(\pm\) 2.78 \\ \(d_{a}\) of GAS & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.49 & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.34 \\ VAF & 90.4/95.7 & 90.3/92.3 & 87.2/91.3 & 88.3/92.1 & 87.3/91.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The forepart mean reflex gains for all five subjects. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **B** & **C** & **D** & **E** \\ \hline A & 0.001, 0.002 1 & 0.018, 0.865 & 0.001, 0.561 & 0.038, 0.265 \\ \(B\) & & 0.094, 0.002 & 0.955, 0.005 & 0.008, 0.131 \\ C & & & 0.109, 0.630 & 0.014, 0.279 \\ \(D\) & & & 0.009, 0.360.0021 for SOL and 0.009 for GAS. For RMSE, they are 0.0035 and 0.0017, respectively. Compared with the forepart, the fitting results with individual gains and mean gains are significantly different at a significance level of 0.01 with respect to VAF and RMSE. Mean \(p_{a}\) and \(d_{a}\) values of the rest part for the five subjects are listed in Table 4. Mean \(p_{a}\) values for the rest part significantly differ from those of the forepart for subject A, B, D and E at a significance level of 0.05 with respect to SOL. With the exception of Subject D, the other four subjects likely adopt different \(d_{a}\) values to control SOL. Mean \(p_{a}\) values of GAS are different for subjects B and D, and mean \(d_{a}\) values of GAS are different for subjects A and C (significance level 0.05). Compared to the results of fitting muscle activation from the forepart start point, VAF values increased (\(p<0.01\)) when only fitting the rest part. Fitting results by mean gains are significantly decreased compared with individual gains, apart from subjects C (SOL) and E.  
The results noted above show the feasibility of the model described by Equation (1) for the rest of the muscle activation level with different gains. Mean gains are not acceptable for fitting the muscle activation of the rest part for most of the subjects.