## 3 Results  
Table 2 Shows the average values and standard deviations for RMS and MAXD (both AP and ML), TE and AE pre- and post-training for control and VR groups. Further, the results for the effect size calculations for both groups are shown in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**VR**} & \\ \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Pre**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Pre**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post**} \\ \hline  & & **Double** & **Tandem** & **Single** & **Double** & **Tandem** & **Single** & **Double** & **Tandem** & **Single** & **Double** & **Tandem** & **Single** \\ \hline RMS & ML & 0.46(0.11) & 2.22(0.27) & 4.09(0.37) & 0.56(0.11) & 2.48(0.52) & 4.09(0.42) & 0.49(0.32) & 1.97(0.84) & 4.68(1.1) & 0.42(0.09) & 1.62(0.44) & 4.55(1.0) \\ (cm) & AP & 0.81(0.17) & 2.22(0.37) & 3.56(1.4) & 1.02(0.21) & 2.53(0.69) & 3.21(0.57) & 0.74(0.11) & 1.97(1.3) & 3.67(1.5) & 0.82(0.11) & 1.43(0.63) & 3.06(0.85) \\ \hline MAXD & ML & 2.53(0.65) & 12.4(1.9) & 24.5(2.6) & 3.03(0.64) & 13.9(4.0) & 23.2(1.6) & 2.40(0.33) & 10.6(6.1) & 26.0(6.0) & 2.29(0.67) & 8.74(3.0) & 24.3(6.0) \\ (cm) & AP & 4.22(0.78) & 13.4(2.1) & 21.1(5.1) & 5.19(0.78) & 14.5(4.7) & 19.6(4.5) & 3.79(0.42) & 11.4(0.71) & 24.0(11) & 5.31(6.2) & 9.38(4.6) & 18.9(6.4) \\ \hline AE & & 6.30(2.3) & 125(51) & 296(170) & 12.6(6.4) & 172(102) & 265(84) & 5.51(1.2) & 97.2(107) & 311(165) & 5.62(1.4) & 51.4(35) & 238(93) \\ (cm) & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline TE (cm) & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Root mean square, peak-to-peak displacement, total excursion, and area ellipse for control (\(n=8\)) and VR (\(n=9\)) participants pre- and post-exercise training. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) are shown. The results in Table 3 show effect size calculations using [PERSON]'s d equation. [PERSON] classified effect sizes as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d \(\geq\) 0.8) [27]; the larger the effect size, the more powerful it is. In this case, the effect size is a quantification of the difference between two calculated means. A smaller effect size indicates that the means between the pre- and post-training values (e.g., 0.2) only differ by 0.2 standard deviations, so the differences are trivial. A medium effect size (e.g., 0.5) indicates that the two means differ by 0.5 standard deviations, which can be considered non-trivial, but significance may be a question. A larger effect size (e.g., >0.8) signifies a larger difference between the means and is confirmed by the results of the \(p\)-value. The smaller [PERSON]'s d values reported in this study indicated the potential need for a larger sample size required to make statistically significant differences; however, medium and large [PERSON]'s \(d\) values were observed in both control and VR groups for certain parameters. Graphical results are shown for the ML and AP RMS (Figure 4), ML and AP MAXD (Figure 5), TE (Figure 6a-c) and AE (Figure 6d-f), across all stance positions. Several changes in RMS ML and AP data were seen post-training compared to pre-training. Any differences seen in RMS ML and AP for the control group, pre-training compared to post-training in the double-leg, tandem, and single-leg stances, were found to be insignificant (\(p\) > 0.996). Furthermore, RMS ML and AP changes in the VR group in the double-leg, tandem, and single-leg stances were also found to be insignificant (\(p\) > 0.707). Differences in MAXD were observed post-training compared to pre-training in both the VR and control groups. Average ML and AP MAXD changes in the control group post-training compared to pre-training in the double-leg, tandem, and single-leg stances were statistically insignificant (\(p\) > 0.996). Additionally, no significant differences were found comparing pre-training to post-training for AP and ML MAXD values for the VR and control groups (\(p\) > 0.579).