## 3 Results  
Two participants were excluded due to technical issues, as we were unable to measure force data from the force plates embedded in the treadmill. Data from the remaining thirteen participants (age: 71 \(\pm\) 5.82 years, height: 172.61 \(\pm\) 8.14 cm, weight: 76.63 \(\pm\) 17.49 kg, body mass index (BMI): 25.50 \(\pm\) 4.67 kg/m\({}^{2}\)) were analyzed. All variables were normally distributed. No significant differences in step length across time points were found (F3,36 = 0.43, \(p\) = 0.73; Table 1). A significant main effect of time point on cadence was detected (F3,36 = 4.50, \(p\) = 0.02; Table 1), with higher cadence during acquisition, recall 1, and recall 2 compared to baseline (\(p\) < 0.05 for all comparisons) (Table 1). Figure 4 presents VGRF, knee and hip joints angles, and torque trajectories during the stance phase of walking from a representative participant across different time points. A significant main effect of time point on the peak VGRF was detected (F3,36 = 24.68, \(p\) < 0.001; Table 1, Figure 5). The first peak of VGRF was greater during acquisition and recall trials compared to baseline (\(p\) < 0.05 for all comparisons), with no significant differences between acquisition and recall trials. These data suggest that older adults were able to increase the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Variables** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Walking Conditions**} \\ \hline  & Baseline & Acquisition & Recall 1 & Recall 2 & \(p\)-Value \\ \hline Step length (m) & 0.50 (0.08) & 0.49 (0.08) & 0.48 (0.07) & 0.48 (0.07) & 0.73 \\ \hline Cadence (steps/min) & 121.53 (8.41) & 130.46 (13.22) & 130.76 (12.26) & 128.00 (10.70) & 0.02 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \% Knee extension torque & \multirow{2}{*}{30.16 (20.66)} & \multirow{2}{*}{45.89 (21.11)} & \multirow{2}{*}{42.28 (16.37)} & \multirow{2}{*}{45.27 (19.21)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\)} \\ contribution & & & & & \\ \hline Knee flexion excursion (deg) & 11.01 (5.16) & 7.47 (6.60) & 8.48 (6.88) & 6.95 (6.68) & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline Peak knee flexion during & \multirow{2}{*}{54.40 (6.01)} & \multirow{2}{*}{63.21 (7.62)} & \multirow{2}{*}{60.95 (6.18)} & \multirow{2}{*}{63.43 (11.42)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\)} \\ swing (deg) & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Gait kinematics and percentage of knee extension torque contribution at a controlled speed of 1.2 m/s across walking conditions (N = 13). first peak of VGRF by an average of 20.95% with visual biofeedback during acquisition and recall trials compared to baseline walking. Figure 4: The biomechanical outcome trajectories for a representative participant for **(A)** vertical ground reaction force; **(B)** knee joint angle; **(C)** hip joint angle; **(D)** knee joint torque; and **(E)** hip joint torque during the stance phase of walking across time points. For joint angles and torques, the positive sign is extension, and the negative sign is flexion. There was a significant main effect of time point on the peak knee flexion angle during the first half of the stance phase (F3,36 = 24.66, \(p<0.001\)). The peak knee flexion angle was greater during the acquisition and recall trials than baseline (\(p<0.001\) for all comparisons; Figure 6A), with no difference between acquisition and recall trials. Additionally, knee flexion excursion showed a significant main effect of time point (F3,36 = 4.44, \(p<0.05\); Table 1). Knee flexion excursion was smaller during acquisition and recall 2 trials compared to baseline (\(p<0.05\)). In addition, the peak knee flexion angle during the swing phase showed a significant main effect of time point (F3,36 = 7.97, \(p<0.001\); Table 1). The peak knee flexion angle during the swing phase was greater during acquisition and recall 2 compared to baseline (\(p<0.05\)), but not during recall 1. No significant main effect was observed for the peak hip flexion angle (\(p=0.11\); Figure 6B).