# Analysis of Different Stop-Jumping Strategies on the Biomechanical Changes in the Lower Limbs
## 3 Results
### Traditional SPSS Analysis (Peak Variable)  
Table 2 displays that dorsiflexion of the angle of the ankle (\(p\) = 0.001), flexion of the knee (\(p\) = 0.021), and angle of the hip (\(p\) < 0.001) had significant differences between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase. Additionally, dorsiflexion (\(p\) < 0.001) and plantarflexion (\(p\) = 0.014) of ankle velocity had significant differences between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase.  
Table 3 displays that the dorsiflexion of ankle moment (\(p\) < 0.001), extension (\(p\) = 0.001) and flexion (0.015) of knee and extension (\(p\) < 0.001), and flexion (\(p\) < 0.001) of the hip moment had significant differences between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase. Additionally, dorsiflexion (\(p\) < 0.001) and plantarflexion (\(p\) < 0.001) of ankle power  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Joint Kinematics** & **Peak** & **SJR Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **SJF Mean \(\pm\) SD** & \(p\)**Value** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Ankle Angle (\(\circ\))} & Dorsiflexion & 16.99 (3.11) & 12.86 (3.29) & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\  & plantarflexion & \(-\)33.5 (6.43) & \(-\)33.81 (6.3) & 0.872 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Extension & \(-\)18.99 (7.19) & \(-\)23.03 (10.31) & 0.141 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Flexion & \(-\)88.63 (3.18) & \(-\)91.16 (5.67) & 0.021 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Extension & \(-\)19.68 (6.08) & \(-\)21.98 (6.01) & 0.125 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Flexion & \(-\)80.51 (3.91) & \(-\)6.56 (3.47) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Dorsiflexion & 220.95 (36.07) & 475.64 (112.44) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Plantarflexion & \(-\)968.31 (92.94) & \(-\)88.318 (105.34) & 0.014 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Extension & 842.85 (95.43) & 827.93 (76.74) & 0.510 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Flexion & \(-\)409.96 (52.52) & \(-\)400.76 (61.73) & 0.495 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Extension & 377.83 (121.64) & 392.68 (116.63) & 0.637 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Flexion & \(-\)208.17 (76.6) & \(-\)165.25 (59.47) & 0.054 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. \({}^{\circ}\): degrees; \({}^{\circ}\)/s: degrees per second; SD: standard deviation. \({}^{***}\) means significance with \(p\) < 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison of the peak joint kinematics changes on the sagittal plane between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase.  
Figure 10: Descriptive results between SJR and SJF lower limb statistical parametric mapping results for the change of PTASF during the stop-jumping phase, t-values of the SPM for all participants (post hoc results, dashed red lines represent \(p\) = 0.05 level). The scale on the left of each image shows the change of PTASF. The value of t\({}^{*}\). 0–100 below each image presents a stop-jumping phase. In each picture, the initial (0%) blue line is the horizontal landing phase, and the blue line toward the end (100%) is the vertical jumping phase.  
and extension (\(p<0.001\)) and flexion (\(p=0.019\)) of hip power had significant differences between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase.  
Table 4 displays that peak VGRF (\(p=0.009\)) and peak PGRF (\(p=0.003\)) had significant differences between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase.  
Table 5 shows peak ankle joint force (\(p<0.001\)) had a significant difference between SJR and SJF during the stop-jumping phase.