## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows the average value of the CCC and \(\tau_{lag}\) obtained by comparing the PP with the CMP in one of the two participants analysed. This table also includes the comparison between the PP and PiG. Finally, this table also shows the value of the CCC and \(\tau_{lag}\) calculated by comparing the PiG and the CMP. Figures 3 and 4 reflect the average temporal evolution (TE) of all pedalling cycles analysed for the 19 participants of the pelvis 3D angles and movement and the 3D joint angle of the hip, knee and ankle. The pelvis movements were referenced against its centre of mass (CoM) obtained from the correlations developed by [PERSON] [40]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Joint**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Joint Angle**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PP vs. CMP**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PP vs. PiG**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PiG vs. CMP**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **CCC** & \(\tau_{lag}\)**(\%)** & **CCC** & \(\tau_{lag}\)**(\%)** & **CCC** & \(\tau_{lag}\)**(\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Hip \\ \end{tabular} } & FL & 0.979 \(\pm\) 0.006 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.991 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.991 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 1.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\  & AD & 0.805 \(\pm\) 0.014 & \(-\)1.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.914 \(\pm\) 0.014 & 0 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.950 \(\pm\) 0.010 & 0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & INT & 0.437 \(\pm\) 0.120 & \(-\)28.6 \(\pm\) 17.3 & 0.533 \(\pm\) 0.084 & \(-\)19.6 \(\pm\) 18.5 & 0.828 \(\pm\) 0.022 & \(-\)0.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\  & FL & 0.996 \(\pm\) 0.001 & \(-\)1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.998 \(\pm\) 0.000 & 0 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.994 \(\pm\) 0.001 & \(-\)1 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Knee \\ \end{tabular} } & AD & 0.898 \(\pm\) 0.016 & \(-\)2.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.760 \(\pm\) 0.063 & \(-\)4 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.837 \(\pm\) 0.023 & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\  & INT & 0.741 \(\pm\) 0.035 & 13.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.745 \(\pm\) 0.014 & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.660 \(\pm\) 0.032 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Ankle \\ \end{tabular} } & DEL & 0.883 \(\pm\) 0.006 & \(-\)2 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.991 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.840 \(\pm\) 0.013 & \(-\)2 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & INV & 0.750 \(\pm\) 0.043 & \(-\)39.6 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 0.942 \(\pm\) 0.015 & \(-\)6.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.779 \(\pm\) 0.043 & \(-\)33 \(\pm\) 1.4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & INT & 0.583 \(\pm\) 0.095 & 9.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 0.967 \(\pm\) 0.010 & \(-\)0.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.588 \(\pm\) 0.094 & 9.6 \(\pm\) 2.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Average values of the cross-correlation coefficient and \(\tau_{lag}\) for a representative participant. The results are shown as the average \(\pm\) standard deviation. Figure 5 shows the intra- and inter-subject coefficient of variation (CV) [41] of the ROM for the pelvic CoM displacements and rotations and the hip, knee and ankle joint angles during pedalling. To obtain the inter-subject CV, all ranges of each movement analysed  
Figure 4: Temporal evolution of the angles of the hip, knee and ankle joint angles for the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes during pedalling cycle. Values are shown as the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. Abbreviations: FL = Flexion. AD = Adduction. INT = Internal Rotation. DFL = Dorsiflexion. INV = Inversion. Figure 3: Temporal evolution of the angles and displacements of the pelvis centre of mass for the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes and for the antero–posterior, lateral–medial and cranio–caudal directions during pedalling cycle. Values are shown as the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. Abbreviations: TI = Pelvic Tilt. OB = Pelvic Obliquity. ROT = Pelvic Rotation. AP = Antero–Posterior direction. LM = Lateral–Medial direction. CC = Cranio–Caudal direction. for the 19 participants were analysed globally. The intra-subject CV for each ROM was obtained as the average value of the CV of the 19 participants analysed. Figure 6 reflects the average TE of all the pedal cycles analysed for the 19 participants of the CoM pelvis 3D angular and linear velocity.