# Static Balance in Female Artistic Gymnasts and Non-Training Girls
## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Balance Indicator**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Percentile**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Z**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_p_} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & **25** & & **50** & **(Me)** & **75** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SP-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [mm]} & N & 558.00 & 725.50 & 999.25 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.04} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.297} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 677.75 & 799.00 & 876.25 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SPAP-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [mm]} & N & 425.25 & 490.50 & 611.75 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.01} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.311} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 457.25 & 556.00 & 671.75 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SPML-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [mm]} & N & 267.25 & 330.50 & 555.75 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.99} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.322} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 355.00 & 398.00 & 518.25 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MaxAP-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [mm]} & N & 7.08 & 13.35 & 18.05 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.64} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.520} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 9.00 & 13.65 & 16.90 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MaxML-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [mm]} & N & 6.38 & 10.35 & 17.98 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.83} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.068} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 9.08 & 14.95 & 21.10 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SA-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [mm\({}^{2}\)]} & N & 521.00 & 1062.50 & 1898.75 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.64} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.101} \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 821.50 & 1319.00 & 1853.50 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MF-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\) [Hz]} & N & 0.86 & 0.94 & 1.02 & & \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}  & G & 0.62 & 0.74 & 0.85 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
Z—value of the Mann–Whitney U test; _p_—probability value. *_p_ < 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of balance indicator values in tandem stance position with opened eyes and high (EO\({}_{\text{H}}\)) between gymnasts and non-training girls. promote the better use of information from the prediction and vestibular systems by athletes in the process of stability control in the tandem stance. Nonetheless, this does not translate into significantly lower values for the total length of the statokinesiogram path (SP-EC\({}_{\text{L}}\)) or the statokinesiogram path measured in both directions (SPAP-EC\({}_{\text{L}}\) and SPML-EC\({}_{\text{L}}\)). It should be borne in mind that in the balance measurements, not only the exclusion of visual control but also the type of stance determine differences between groups. [PERSON] et al. [21] showed that with the increasing difficulty of the task, the role of visual information for maintaining stability also experiences an increase. When examining adult gymnasts and athletes performing other disciplines, these researchers found that in the bipedal task, the performance of both groups was not altered by the suppression of vision. In the unipedal tasks, closing one's eyes increased postural displacement, but lower (more favourable) values were noted in gymnasts. The results of the measurements performed at a height of 1.25 m, during which the examined girls had open eyes (EO\({}_{\text{H}}\)), significantly differed between the groups, but only in terms of mean frequency regarding COP displacement (MF-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\)). A greater value of this variable was noted in the non-training girls. In this group, at the level of statistical tendency, a lower value of maximal COP displacement in the medial-lateral direction (MaxML-EO\({}_{\text{H}}\)) was observed. Despite the fact that in the case of other balance indices, no statistically significant differences were noted, it can be stated that their mean values (Me) were lower in girls not practicing sports. Similarly, in the balance measurements performed on a platform among adult participants, the frequency of corrective reactions also increased, while there was a simultaneous decrease in the amplitude of COP displacement [34; 35; 36; 37].