## 3 Results
### Tissue Oxygen
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Outcome** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Overall** \\ **(\(\mathbf{p}\)-Value (F-Value, \(\mathbf{\eta}^{2}\)))** \\ \end{tabular} & **Sample 1** & **Sample 2** & **Distance** & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** & **CI-95\%** \\ \hline Mean pressure [mmHg] & \textless{}0.001 (767.32, 0.991) * & ArtOcc. & Ven.Occ. & 147.550 & \textless{}0.001 * & [144.5–150.5] \\  & & & Lucy & 184.499 & \textless{}0.001 * & [179.7–179.7] \\  & & & Paexo & 160.019 & \textless{}0.001 * & [140.2–179.7] \\  & & & Skelex & 176.848 & \textless{}0.001 * & [160.1–193.5] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Ven.Occ. & Lucy & 36.949 & \textless{}0.001 * & [27.2–46.6] \\  & & & Paexo & 12.469 & 0.437 & [\(-\)7.9–32.9] \\  & & & Skelex & 29.298 & \textless{}0.001 * & [14.3–44.2] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Lucy & Paexo & 24.480 & 0.006 * & [\(-\)41.2—7.7] \\  & & & Skelex & \(-\)7.6 & 0.427 & [\(-\)20.1–4.8] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Paexo & Skelex & 16.829 & 0.204 & [\(-\)5.8–39.5] \\ \hline TSI\({}_{\text{Slope1}}\) & 0.124 (1.984, 0.221) & & & & & \\ \hline TSI\({}_{\text{Slope2}}\) & 0.002 (13.194, 0.653) * & ArtOcc. & Ven.Occ. & 27.985 & 0.022 * & [3.9–52.0] \\  & & & Lucy & 29.679 & 0.084 & [\(-\)3.9–62.6] \\  & & & Paexo & 28.838 & 0.042 * & [1.0–56.6] \\  & & & Skelex & 26.134 & 0.054 & [\(-\)0.3–52.6] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Ven.Occ. & Lucy & 1.694 & 1.000 & [\(-\)11.6–14.9] \\  & & & Paexo & 0.853 & 1.000 & [\(-\)9.7–11.4] \\  & & & Skelex & \(-\)1.851 & 1.000 & [\(-\)15.8–12.1] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Lucy & Paexo & \(-\)0.841 & 1.000 & [\(-\)10.5–8.8] \\  & & & Skelex & \(-\)3.545 & 1.000 & [\(-\)16.6–9.5] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Paexo & Skelex & \(-\)2.704 & 1.000 & [\(-\)10.4–4.6] \\ \hline TSI\({}_{\text{Overshoot}}\) & \textless{}0.001(17.710, 0.717) * & ArtOcc. & Ven.Occ. & 11.541 & 0.004 * & [4.1–18.8] \\  & & & Lucy & 9.328 & 0.011 * & [2.2–16.4] \\  & & & Paexo & 8.545 & 0.032 * & [0.7–16.3] \\  & & & Skelex & 8.9 & 0.014 * & [1.8–16.1] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & & \\ \hline Ven.Occ. & Lucy & \(-\)2.2 & 1.000 & [\(-\)8.4–4.5] \\  & & & Paexo & \(-\)2.9 & 0.114 & [\(-\)6.5–0.5] \\  & & & Skelex & \(-\)2.5 & 1.000 & [\(-\)8.3–3.0] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Lucy & \(-\)0.782 & 1.000 & [\(-\)5.8–4.3] \\  & & Skelex & \(-\)0.436 & 1.000 & [\(-\)4.4–3.7] \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & Paexo & Skelex & 0.436 & 1.000 & [\(-\)3.3–4.1] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
* Significant outcome, \(\mathbf{p}\) \(<\) 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Repeated-measure ANOVA outcomes and post-hoc comparison for comparison of all resting conditions. A hyperemic effect appeared as \(\text{TSI}_{\text{Overshoot}}\) in the arterial occlusion, Lucy, Paexo Shoulder, and Skelex condition with 9.8 (4.2) %, 1.6 (2.7) %, 1.4 (1.7) %, and 1.4 (2.4) %. There was no overshoot in venous occlusion, averaging at \(-\)1.2 (2.7) %; see Table 3. A significant difference in \(\text{TSI}_{\text{Overshoot}}\) was found for the resting conditions as well as venous occlusion with arterial occlusion; see Table 4. \(\text{TSI}_{\text{Overshoot}}\) in dynamic conditions averaged 11.8 (6.4) %, 9.6 (5.7) %, and 10.3 (5.8) % for Lucy, Paexo Shoulder, and Skelex 360. A significant change in \(\text{TSI}_{\text{Overshoot}}\) was revealed between resting and dynamic conditions (movement) but not between pHMI design conditions or the interaction between pHMI design and movement by the multifactorial ANOVA; see Table 5.