## 3 Results  
All subjects completed the training sessions and both measurement days. One subject's gait data could not be used for further analysis because the gait pattern was too abnormal. Therefore, this subject was excluded from the analysis of tasks 2--carrying a box--and 3--walking without load. For the other tasks, all the data collected were used. The results for each task are presented below. The blue plots represent the comparison of day 1 and day 2 with the exoskeleton, and the red plots the comparison without the exoskeleton. Regions of significant difference from the SPM results are indicated with background shading (Figures 5-9). In combination with the shaded regions indicating significant differences, the SPM {t} value plots directly below each plot can be used as an indicator of practical significance. If a significant difference can be detected in a region, Cohen's d is also shown in the plot next to the corresponding \(p\)-value, as representation of the effect size. For the kinematic data, we present the variables that are particularly relevant to the exoskeleton and have been used in previous studies [1]. These include ankle, hip, knee and spine flexion. The first task we analyzed was the lifting and lowering (task 1). In the kinematic data, there was no significant difference between the measured joint angles on day 1 and day 2 for lifting. However, for lowering the box, a significant difference in knee flexion was measured with the exoskeleton, as seen in Figure 5. The joint angle at the start of weaning is significantly greater on day 1 (\(p\) = 0.038, d = 0.384) than on day 2. The difference is also visible on the left side of the body at the same point, but is not significant. This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn. For the sEMG data, there is a significant difference in MA of the BF in the downward movement on day 1 and day 2 for both lifting and lowering in Figures 6 and 7 (lifting: \(p\) = 0.001, d = \(-\)0.243; lowering: \(p\) = 0.040, d = \(-\)0.268) without the exoskeleton. For the other muscles there were no measurable significant differences in MA from day 1 to day 2. For the task of carrying a box, we found a significant difference in knee flexion for the exoskeleton measurement in the kinematic data (Figure 8). There was significantly higher knee flexion in the terminal contact area for the right knee on day 2 (\(p\) = 0.037, d = \(-\)0.14). For the left body side, we could not confirm this effect. Figure 5: SPM \(t\)-test results and profile plots of kinematic data in lowering a box, comparing joint angles (\(\degr\)) of the right body side in knee flexion on day 1 (blue resp. red lines) and day 2 (black lines). The blue plot represents the comparison of the measurements with exoskeleton, and the red plot shows the measurements without exoskeleton (n = 20). Figure 6: SPM \(t\)-test results and profile plots of MA in lifting a box, comparing normalized sEMG (%) of leg muscles BF on day 1 (blue resp. red lines) and day 2 (black lines). The blue plot represents the comparison of the measurements with exoskeleton, and the red plot shows the measurements without exoskeleton (n = 20). Figure 8: SPM \(t\)-test results and profile plots of kinematic data in carrying a box, comparing joint angles (\({}^{\circ}\)) of the right body side in knee flexion on day 1 (blue resp. red lines) and day 2 (black lines). The blue plot represents the comparison of the measurements with exoskeleton, and the red plot shows the measurements without exoskeleton (n = 19). Figure 7: SPM \(t\)-test results and profile plots of MA in lowering a box, comparing normalized sEMG (%) of leg muscles BF on day 1 (blue resp. red lines) and day 2 (black lines). The blue plot represents the comparison of the measurements with exoskeleton, and the red plot shows the measurements without exoskeleton (n = 20).