## 3 Results
### TMCf Indices  
The two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of the lifting type on \(Cl_{glob}\), \(Cl_{full\_leg}\), \(Cl_{ext}\), \(Cl_{L3}\), \(Cl_{L4}\), \(Cl_{L5}\), \(Cl_{S1}\), \(Cl_{S2}\) (Table 3), \(Max_{glob}\), \(Max_{full\_leg}\), \(Max_{ext}\), \(Max_{L3}\), \(Max_{L4}\), \(Max_{L5}\), \(Max_{S1}\), \(Max_{S2}\) (Table 4) and of the LI on \(Cl_{glob}\), \(Cl_{full\_leg}\), \(Cl_{ext}\), \(Cl_{L4}\), \(Cl_{L5}\), \(Cl_{S1}\), \(Cl_{S2}\) (Table 3), \(Max_{glob}\), \(Max_{full\_leg}\), \(Max_{ext}\), \(Max_{L3}\), \(Max_{L4}\), \(Max_{L5}\), \(Max_{S1}\), \(Max_{S2}\) (Table 4).  
Figures 4 and 5 show the results of pairwise comparisons of risk levels and lifting styles for \(Cl\) and \(Max\) of \(TMCf\). For brevity and conciseness, only the approaches that resulted in statistically significant differences are shown.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lifting Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Risk Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lifting Type Risk Level**} \\ \hline  & **F** & \(p\) & **F** & \(p\)** & **F** & \(p\)** \\ \hline \(Max_{glob}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=14.974\) & **0.002** & \(F_{(2,20)}=22.637\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=0.456\) & 0.639 \\ \(Max_{all\_leg}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=6.737\) & **0.023** & \(F_{(2,20)}=30.956\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=0.781\) & 0.469 \\ \(Max_{ext}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=17.749\) & **0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=63.992\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=2.906\) & 0.074 \\ \(Max_{L5}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=0.643\) & 0.438 & \(F_{(2,20)}=1.925\) & 0.168 & \(F_{(3,16)}=15.799\) & \(\sim\)1.344 & 0.276 \\ \(Max_{L3}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=9.122\) & **0.011** & \(F_{(2,20)}=4.840\) & **0.017** & \(F_{(3,13)}=1.719\) & 0.212 \\ \(Max_{L4}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=24.425\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=10.115\) & **0.001** & \(F_{(3,13)}=15.800\) & 0.523 \\ \(Max_{L5}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=8.044\) & **0.015** & \(F_{(2,20)}=30.870\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(1,23)}=14.700\) & 0.032 & 0.903 \\ \(Max_{S1}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=40.144\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=44.657\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(3,13)}=2.340\) & 0.140 \\ \(Max_{S2}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=39.398\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=54.751\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=1.621\) & 0.219 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: This table shows the results of the two-way repeated measures ANOVA (F, df, and \(p\) values) on the maximum value (Max) calculated for each \(TMCf\). Bold indicates significant differences.  
Figure 4: Violin plots of the mean of the \(TMCf\) function over the lifting cycle (CI) over all the subjects for each risk level (LI = 1 green, LI = 2 yellow, LI = 3 red) in one-person and two-person team lifting for each muscle co-activation investigated: global (Cl\({}_{glob}\)), full leg (Cl\({}_{full\_leg}\)), extensor (Cl\({}_{ext}\)), flexor (Cl\({}_{flex}\)), and rostro-caudal organization (from L3 to S2: Cl\({}_{L3}\), Cl\({}_{L4}\), Cl\({}_{L5}\), Cl\({}_{S1}\) and Cl\({}_{S2}\)). The dotted black lines correspond to the mean of each CI value over all the subjects. An asterisk (*) indicates significant differences.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lifting Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Risk Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lifting Type Risk Level**} \\ \hline  & **F** & \(p\) & **F** & \(p\)** & **F** & \(p\)** \\ \hline Cl\({}_{glob}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=60.402\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=71.477\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=0.752\) & 0.482 \\ Cl\({}_{full\_leg}\) & \(F_{(1,12)}=58.307\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F_{(2,20)}=72.454\) & **\(<\)0.001** & \(F