# Comparison of Gait Smoothness Metrics in Healthy Elderly and Young People
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**SPARC** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Young**} & **Older** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Acc-V} & Normal & \(-2.64\) (0.49) & \(-2.84\) (0.16) & \(p=0.2351\) \\  & Fast & \(-4.36\) (0.96) & \(-2.81\) (0.20) & \(p<0.0001\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(p=0.3520\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Acc-ML} & Normal & \(-12.23\) (2.00) & \(-13.29\) (5.31) & \(p=0.4397\) \\  & Fast & \(-14.87\) (2.88) & \(-12.52\) (4.20) & \(p=0.1178\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p=0.0131}\) & \(p=0.3259\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Acc-AP} & Normal & \(-9.21\) (1.62) & \(-7.93\) (2.59) & \(p=0.1011\) \\  & Fast & \(-12.77\) (2.15) & \(-8.44\) (2.86) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(p=0.0787\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Acc RMS} & Normal & \(-2.57\) (0.44) & \(-2.83\) (0.15) & \(\mathbf{p=0.0438}\) \\  & Fast & \(-4.14\) (0.65) & \(-2.79\) (0.17) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(p=0.1788\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr-V} & Normal & \(-11.16\) (3.97) & \(-9.03\) (2.38) & \(p=0.1366\) \\  & Fast & \(-12.85\) (3.46) & \(-7.60\) (1.48) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p=0.1208}\) & \(p=0.0610\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr-ML} & Normal & \(-12.63\) (2.85) & \(-16.32\) (4.22) & \(\mathbf{p=0.0070}\) \\  & Fast & \(-16.53\) (3.66) & \(-14.41\) (3.50) & \(p=0.1809\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p=0.0520}\) & \(\mathbf{p=0.0045}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr-AP} & Normal & \(-8.24\) (1.78) & \(-12.48\) (2.77) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & Fast & \(-12.48\) (3.08) & \(-10.93\) (1.5) & \(p=0.1178\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p=0.0032}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr RMS} & Normal & \(-3.5\) (0.56) & \(-3.85\) (0.44) & \(\mathbf{p=0.0302}\) \\  & Fast & \(-4.60\) (0.56) & \(-3.47\) (0.46) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(p\)-values below the 0.05 significant threshold were marked in bold.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Smoothness of gait calculated through SPARC for the two age groups at two different speeds with the respective statistical difference \(p\)-values. \(p\)-values reported below the group column refer to intra-group comparison, while \(p\)-values reported on the right column refer to inter-group comparison. Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**LDJ** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Young**} & **Older** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Acc RMS} & Normal & \(-7.23\) (0.90) & \(-9.09\) (0.25) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & Fast & \(-9.93\) (0.12) & \(-8.69\) (0.26) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr-V} & Normal & \(-15.20\) (1.85) & \(-17.78\) (0.83) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & Fast & \(-19.85\) (0.62) & \(-16.47\) (0.88) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr-ML} & Normal & \(-15.35\) (1.96) & \(-19.91\) (0.51) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & Fast & \(-20.21\) (0.68) & \(-18.76\) (0.45) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr-AP} & Normal & \(-14.82\) (1.70) & \(-19.03\) (0.49) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & Fast & \(-19.59\) (0.65) & \(-17.68\) (0.53) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gyr RMS} & Normal & \(-8.23\) (0.95) & \(-9.30\) (0.42) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & Fast & \(-10.64\) (0.12) & \(-8.47\) (0.50) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) \\  & & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \(\mathbf{p<0.0001}\) & \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(p\)-values below the 0.05 significant threshold were marked in bold.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._Figures 2 and 3 present bar diagrams illustrating the comparison of smoothness values derived from the application of the LDLJ, SPARC and HR metrics on the acceleration and angular velocity signals, respectively.