## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & **FAI Group** & **Control Group** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Main Effect**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Interaction Effect**} \\  & **Affected Side** & **Matched Side** & **Group** & **Cognition** & **Group \(\times\) Cognition** \\ \hline Peak vGRF (BW) & & & & & \\ Baseline & \(2.91\pm 1.01\) & \(2.66\pm 0.63\) & \(p=0.042\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p=0.189\) & \(p=0.397\) \\ Cognitive Influence & \(2.83\pm 0.62\) & \(2.26\pm 0.51\) & \(E\)\(\bar{n}^{2}=0.139\) & \(E\)\(\bar{n}^{2}=0.061\) & \(E\)\(\bar{n}^{2}=0.026\) \\ T-vGRF (ms) & & & & & \\ Baseline & \(63.33\pm 14.47\) & \(84.67\pm 27.22\) & \(p=0.002\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p=0.884\) & \(p=0.633\) \\ Cognitive Influence & \(64.67\pm 13.02\) & \(82.00\pm 21.45\) & \(E\)\(\bar{n}^{2}=0.294\) & \(E\)\(\bar{n}^{2}=0.001\) & \(E\)\(\bar{n}^{2}=0.007\) \\ LR (BW/ms) & & & & & \\ Baseline & \(0.05\pm 0.02\) & \(0.04\pm 0.02\) & \(p=0.004\)\({}^{*}\) & \(p=0.247\) & \(p=0.646\) \\ Cognitive Influence & \(0.05\pm 0.01\) & \(0.03\pm 0.01\) & \(F=10.060\) & \(F=1.400\) & \(F=0.215\) \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \({}^{*}\): \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Peak vGRF, T-vGRF, and LR during drop landing. movement pattern to alleviate stress on the compromised ankle joint [33]. However, when performing cognitive tasks, the need to preserve balance and stability might necessitate an even greater increase in the plantarflexion angle to more effectively distribute the ground reaction forces, mitigate the impact on the ankle joint, and enhance the overall landing stability. Specifically, under the baseline conditions, the affected side in individuals with FAI showed a smaller ankle joint plantar flexion angle at the moment of drop landing compared to the matched side in the control group, which may reflect a more conservative movement strategy adopted without the cognitive task influence. However, under the influence of the cognitive task, the affected side in individuals with FAI demonstrated a larger ankle joint plantarflexion angle compared to the baseline, indicating significant adjustments in motor control, consistent with Hypothesis 1 of this study. Notably, despite these adjustments under the cognitive task influence, there was no significant difference in the plantar flexion angle at the moment of drop landing compared to the healthy control group. In fact, this adjustment may be a compensatory strategy adopted by individuals with FAI to cope with the challenges of resource allocation under the influence of cognitive tasks [6]. While this strategy might offer temporary stability, it could also lead to increased mechanical stress on the musculoskeletal system. Although our findings do not directly link this to an increased risk of sports injuries, it is plausible that such stress could contribute to a higher injury risk in the long term, as suggested by previous research [34]. Moreover, while there is a significant increase in the plantarflexion angle of the ankle joint in individuals with FAI during landing movements under cognitive tasks, the biomechanical parameters of the hip joint do not show significant differences. This discrepancy could be due to the robust muscular support and inherent stability mechanisms of these joints that are higher in the lower-limb kinetic chain, which may effectively distribute the additional loads caused by compensatory adjustments at the ankle [35; 36]. However, this study observed differences in the knee joint flexion angle at the IC and the knee valgus angle at the peak vGRF moment between the FAI group and the control group. At the baseline, the FAI group showed a smaller plantarflexion angle of the ankle joint compared to the control group, suggesting that differences in the ankle and knee joint biomechanics during landing already exist, without the influence of cognitive tasks.