## 3 Results  
Subject's characteristics are represented in Table 1.  
The repeated measures mixed model analysis showed a significant main effect for the VBF condition (\(p\) = 0.010; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) = 0.74--5.45) (Figure 1). No significant differences were found between sexes (\(p\) = 0.088; 95% CI = \(-\)5.62-0.39). As there were no sex differences between conditions, the trend over trials for each condition was checked by aggregating both sexes. The orthogonal polynomial contrasts analysis showed a significant linear trend (\(p\)\(\leq\) 0.0001; 95% CI = 1.16-3.13) only for the VBF condition with an estimated linear slope 2.15 s (Figure 2). When investigating the effect of selected anthropometrics, sex, and their interactions on both conditions, the mixed linear regression analysis showed a significant main effect of the lower limb/height ratio (HTR), sex, and their interaction on the NVBF performance (\(p\) = 0.0008; R\({}^{2}\) = 0.57) (Table 2). For VBF, two models were developed, and significant effects were found for sex and body mass (Table 3; \(p\) = 0.0012; R\({}^{2}\) = 0.43) and sex and MI (Table 4; \(p\) = 0.0030; R\({}^{2}\) = 0.39). Interactions and main effects are graphically represented in Figures 3-5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Characteristics** & **Female (\(n\) = 14)** & **Male (\(n\) = 13)** & **Total (\(n\) = 27)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 24.0 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 26.5 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 25.3 \(\pm\) 1.0 \\ Lower limb length (cm) & 74.5 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 85.7 \(\pm\) 3.8 & 80.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ Body mass (kg) & 53.3 \(\pm\) 4.4 & 76.0 \(\pm\) 6.9 & 64.7 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ Height (cm) & 158.9 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 176.5 \(\pm\) 5.3 & 167.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 21.2 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 24.4 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 22.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline BMI = body mass index. & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Means and standard deviations of the subjects’ characteristics. Figure 1: Means and standard deviations of wobble board balance performances (WB) for visual biofeedback (VBF) and no visual biofeedback (NVBF) in both sexes. * significantly different from the no visual biofeedback (NVBF) in male and female. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**WB** & **Coef.** & **Std. Err.** & **Z** & \(\mathbf{p>1z1}\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} **95\%** \\ **Conf.** \\ \end{tabular} & **Interval** \\ \hline Sex (F = 0; M = 1) & 8.915472 & 3.681939 & 2.42 & 0.015 & 1.699004 & 16.13194 \\ MI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & \(-\)2.024108 & 0.6322252 & \(-\)3.20 & 0.001 & \(-\)3.263246 & \(-\)0.7849689 \\ Cons & 26.29451 & 5.375726 & 4.89 & 0.000 & 15.75828 & 36.83074 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Coef. = coefficient; Std. Err. = standard errors; Conf. = confidence; F = female; M = male; MI = whole-body moment of inertia; Cons. = intercept.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mixed regression model between wobble board test performance (WB), sex, the lower limb/height ratio (HTR) and their interaction in the no visual biofeedback (NVBF) condition. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**WB** & **Coef.** & **Std. Err.** & **Z** & \(\mathbf{p>1z1}\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} **95\%** \\ **Conf.** \\ \end{tabular} & **Interval** \\ \hline Sex (F = 0; M = 1) & 8.899321 & 3.434602 & 2.59 & 0.010 & 2.167625 & 15.63102 \\ Body mass (kg) & \(-\)0.472319 & 0.136382 & \(-\)3.46 & 0.001 & \(-\)0.7396228 & \(-\)0.2050153 \\ Cons & 34.62342 & 7.349873 & 4.71 & 0.000 & 20.21793 & 49.02891 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Coef. = coefficient; Std. Err. = standard errors; Conf. = confidence; F = female; M = male; Coms. = intercept.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mixed regression model between wobble board test performance (WB), sex and body mass during the visual biofeedback (VBF) condition.