## 4 Discussion  
### Spatiotemporal Parameters and Gait Phase Analysis  
The results of the present study revealed that the spatial and temporal gait parameters, as well as the duration of gait phases during various uphill and downhill walking conditions, did not differ between individuals with hyperpromated and neutral foot types. Our findings were consistent with some of those reported in the literature. [PERSON] et al. [48] reported no significant differences in spatiotemporal gait parameters, including stride length, step length, and cadence, between asymptomatic individuals 18 and 77 years of age with planus and rectus foot types during overground walking across an instrumented mat. The differences between the two groups were also not significant for stance, swing, and double support times unless these variables were normalized by gait cycle time. In this case, stance and double support times were statistically, but not clinically, significantly different. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [49] reported no significant differences in average walking speed, stance phase, and step length between male individuals 26 years of age with hyperpromation and those with a neutral foot type, as measured using the motion analysis system during overground walking. In contrast, [PERSON] et al. [34] observed that individuals aged 18-65 with pronation greater than six on the FPI-6 scale demonstrated longer step lengths for both the right and left legs, slower ground contact times, and a reduced cadence compared to individuals with a neutral foot type. These measurements were taken during level treadmill walking at a speed of 4 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) using an optoelectronic sensor system. Other studies, such as the one by [PERSON] et al., [13] reported different gait characteristics in radiographically determined flatfoot female patients aged 52-80 years. These patients exhibited lower cadence and stride length but showed greater step width, longer step times, and a prolonged stance phase duration in the gait cycle compared to healthy controls with a neutral foot type. The measurements in this study were conducted during overground walking using a 12-camera motion analysis system. [PERSON] et al. [23] using an in-shoe plantar pressure measuring system and a wearable inertial sensor found marginally statistically significant greater cadence, lower gait cycle time, and similar stance and swing phase of gait expressed as a percentage of gait cycle time between adolescent athletes with rearfoot version and control groups according to a leg heel angle of 7\({}^{\circ}\). The differences between studies may be attributed to the multifactorial approach required to monitor gait in individuals with foot hyperpromation, as it is influenced by a combination of factors including the hyperpromation classification method (e.g., radiographic, scale-based, anthropometric [13; 34; 49]), the subjects' age (young vs. older individuals [13; 49]), and the gait analysis technique used (instrumented treadmill, sensor mats, optoelectronic systems, and motion analysis systems [13; 23; 34; 49]). This difficulty also may depend on whether foot hyperpromation was experimentally induced or acquired [33], and whether the subjects were symptomatic or asymptomatic [49; 50]. The spatiotemporal parameters assessed in this study during both level and sloped walking may not have been influenced in the hyperpromated foot type group, as potential musculoskeletal adaptations to this misalignment may not have had sufficient time to develop, possibly due to the young age of the participants, and were therefore limited or absent. Alternatively, any existing adaptations may have compensated for the adverse effects of foot hyperpromation, preventing noticeable changes in gait parameters.