## 3 Results
### Gait Phase Analysis  
Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between individuals with hyper-pronated and neutral foot types for the duration of the stance, load response, mid-stance, pre-swing, and swing phases. Similarly, the interaction between foot type and floor inclination was non-significant for the duration of these gait phases. However, significant differences were observed between walking conditions for the stance phase (F = 638.945, \(p<0.001\), partial \(\eta^{2}=0.941\)), load response (F = 638.216, \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.941\)), mid-stance (F = 638.130, \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.941\)), pre-swing (F = 638.216, \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.941\)), and swing phase (F = 638.945, \(p<0.001\), partial \(\eta^{2}=0.941\)), irrespective of foot type (please refer to Table 2 for pairwise comparisons). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Gait Phases**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Walking Conditions (Slope/Speed)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** & **E** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & \(-\)**20\%** & \(-\)**10\%** & **0\%** & **+10\%** & **+20\%** \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **3.5 km**\(\cdot\)**h\({}^{-1}\)** & **5.0 km**\(\cdot\)**h\({}^{-1}\)** & **5.0 km**\(\cdot\)**h\({}^{-1}\)** & **3.5 km**\(\cdot\)**h\({}^{-1}\)** & **2.5 km**\(\cdot\)**h\({}^{-1}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Stance phase (\%LL)} & HFT & \(62.4\pm 0.9\) & \(60.8\pm 0.6\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(61.8\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm b}\) & \(64.6\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(66.6\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\  & NFT & \(62.9\pm 1.1\) & \(60.9\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(61.7\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm c}\) & \(64.7\pm 1.3\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(67.5\pm 1.6\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Load response (\%LL)} & HFT & \(12.4\pm 0.9\) & \(10.8\pm 0.6\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(11.8\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm b}\) & \(14.6\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(16.6\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\  & NFT & \(12.9\pm 1.1\) & \(10.9\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(11.7\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm c}\) & \(14.7\pm 1.3\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(17.5\pm 1.6\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Mid-stance (\%LL)} & HFT & \(37.6\pm 0.9\) & \(39.2\pm 0.6\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(38.2\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm b}\) & \(35.4\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(33.4\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\  & NFT & \(37.1\pm 1.1\) & \(39.1\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(38.3\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm c}\) & \(35.3\pm 1.3\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(32.5\pm 1.6\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Pre-swing (\%LL)} & HFT & \(12.4\pm 0.9\) & \(10.8\pm 0.6\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(11.8\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm b}\) & \(14.6\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(16.6\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\  & NFT & \(12.9\pm 1.1\) & \(10.9\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(11.7\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm c}\) & \(14.7\pm 1.3\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(17.5\pm 1.6\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Swing phase (\%LL)} & HFT & \(37.6\pm 0.9\) & \(39.2\pm 0.6\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(38.2\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm b}\) & \(35.4\pm 0.9\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(33.4\pm 1.0\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\  & NFT & \(39.1\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm a}\) & \(38.3\pm 1.1\) \({}^{\rm c}\) & \(35.3\pm 1.3\) \({}^{\rm d}\) & \(32.5\pm 1.6\) \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: HFT = Hyperporated foot type; NFT = Neutral foot type; LL = Leg length. Significantly different compared to \({}^{\rm a}\) A (\(p<0.001\)), \({}^{\rm b}\) A (\(p<0.001\)) and B (\(p<0.001\)), \({}^{\rm a}\) A B, and C (\(p<0.001\)); \({}^{\rm a}\) A, B, C, and D (\(p<0.001\)) walking conditions.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Means \(\pm\) standard deviations of the duration of stance phase, swing phase, and double-standing phase in individuals with hyperpronated and neutral foot type during downhill (A and B), level (C) and uphill (D and E) walking. Figure 4: Means and standard deviations (error bars) for normalized (**a**) stride time and (**b**) cadence in individuals with hyperpronated and neutral foot type during downhill (A and B), level (C), and uphill (D and E) walking.