After four weeks of balance training with different interventions, balance postures were assessed immediately after the training was completed. The position balance of VFT and NVFT was significantly improved (P < 0.05). In addition, COP value after intervention was significantly lower than that before intervention, except CG group. The effect from these interventions for the COP parameter varied from weak to moderate across the balance conditions.
Analysis of COP parameters in the OLS
For OLS, analysis of the COP parameters was a significant difference in the interaction effect between Groups*Times (p<0.05).
Effect of the time (pre- and post-test)
Analysis of the COPML max displacement or COPAP max displacement (Figure 1). For the OLS-NF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT,NVFT was ▽18.37%, ▽15.65% (p≤0.001). The COPAP max displacement of the VFT was and NVFT was ▽31.94% (p=0.0.018). For OLS-VF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT was ▽21.78% (p=0.005) and the COPAP max displacement of the VFT was ▽54.21% (p=0.008). Analysis of the COPML velocity or COPAP velocity (Figure 2). For OLS-NF, the COPML velocity of the VFT was ▽6.28% (p=0.003) and the COPAP velocity of the VFT was ▽7.26% (p=0.009). For OLS-VF, the COPML velocity of the VFT was ▽19.93% and NVFT ▽was 17.92% (p=0.001, p=0.003), the COPAP velocity of the VFT was▽17.09% and NVFT was ▽8.43% (p=0.001, p=0.031). Analysis of the COP radius and COP area (Figure 3). For OLS-NF, the COP radius of the VFT was ▽28.67% (p=0.001) and the COP area of the VFT was ▽42.84% (p<0.001). For OLS-VF, the COP radius of the VFT was ▽44.44% (p=0.003) and the COP area of the VFT was▽47.16% (p<0.001).
Comparison between groups (VFT, NVFT and CG)
Analysis of the COPML max displacement or COPAP max displacement (Figure 1). For the OLS-NF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT/CG, the NVFT/CG was ▽20.23%, ▽7.61% (p=0.001, p=0.031), the COPAP max displacement of the VFT/NVFT, the VFT/CG ▽9.41%, ▽7.24% (p=0.030, p=0.029). For the OLS-VF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT/CG, the NVFT/CG was ▽16.77%, △1.95%(p=0.009, p=0.007), the COPAP max displacement of the VFT/NVFT, the VFT/CG, the NVFT/CG was ▽23.76%, ▽33.92% and ▽8.21% (p<0.001). Analysis of the COPML velocity or COPAP velocity (Figure 2). For the OLS-NF, the COPML velocity of the VFT/CG, the NVFT/CG was ▽14.23%, ▽9.95%(p<0.001, p=0.006) ,the COPAP velocity of the VFT/CG, the NVFT/CG was ▽21.01%, ▽13.81% (p=0.001, p=0.031). For the OLS-VF, the COPML velocity of the VFT/CG , the NVFT/CG was ▽16.58%, ▽11.96% (p<0.001), the COPML velocity of the VFT/CG , the NVFT/CG was ▽9.10%, ▽6.88 (p<0.001, p=002). Analysis of the COP radius and COP area (Figure 3). For the OLS-NF, the COP radius of the VFT/NVFT, the VFT/CG was 15.72, ▽25.71% (p=0.031, p=0.001), the COP area of the VFT/NVFT, the VFT/CG was ▽31.26%, ▽41.21% (p=0.047, p=0.005). For the OLS-VF, the COP radius of the VFT/NVFT, the VFT/CG was ▽8.98%, ▽17.13% (p=0.014, p=0.001), the COP area of the VFT/NVFT▽30.38%, ▽37.67%(p=0.001, p<0.001).
Analysis of COP parameters in the TSNDL/TSDL
For TSNDL/TSDL, analysis of the COP parameters was no significant difference in the interaction effect between Groups*Times (p>0.05).
Effect of the time (pre- and post-test)
Analysis of the main effect of COP parameters was significantly difference in times (p<0.05). Analysis of the COPML max displacement or COPAP max displacement (Figure 1). For TSNDL-NF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT and NVFT was ▽20.46% and ▽21.74% (p=0.005, p=0.014), the COPAP max displacement of the VFT was ▽26.73% (p=0.002). For TSDL-NF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT was ▽29.97% (p=0.003), the COPAP max displacement of the VFT was ▽24.15% (p=0.031). For TSNDL-VF, the COPML max displacement of was the VFT was ▽12.75% (p=0.025), the COPAP max displacement of the VFT was ▽31.08% (p<0.01). For TSDL-VF, the COPML max displacement of the VFT was ▽21.84% (p=0.005), the COPAP max displacement of the VFT was▽18.27% (p=0.001). Analysis of the COPML velocity or COPAP velocity (Figure 2). For TSNDL-NF, the COPML velocity of the VFT and NVFT was ▽8.70% and 5.75% (p<0.001,p=0.006), the COPAP velocity of the VFT was▽13.61% (p=0.003). For TSDL-NF, the COPML velocity of the VFT was ▽3.48% (p=0.009), the COPAP velocity of the VFT was▽11.35% (p=0.004). For TSNDL-VF, the COPML velocity of the VFT was ▽3.19%, (p=0.037), the COPAP velocity of the VFT was▽7.53%, (p=0.047). For TSDL-VF, the COPML velocity of the VFT was ▽6.59% (p<0.001), the COPAP velocity of the VFT was▽6.57% (p=0.002). Analysis of the COP radius and COP area (Figure 3). For TSNDL-NF, the COP radius of the VFT was ▽25.82% (p=0.002), the COP area of the VFT was▽35.31% (p=0.022). For TSDL-NF, the COP radius of the VFT was ▽19.11% (p<0.001), the COP area of the VFT was▽33.35% (p<0.001). For TSNDL-VF, the COP radius of the VFT and NVFT was ▽16.65% and ▽29.11% (p<0.001), the COP area of the VFT, NVFT was▽44.75%, ▽31.62% (p<0.001). For TSDL-VF, the COP radius of the VFT was ▽21.32%, (p=0.005), the COP area of the VFT was▽39.48% (p<0.001).
Comparison between groups (VFT, NVFT and CG)
The main effect of the groups was significantly difference in the COPML velocity of TSNDL-NF and COPML max displacement of the TSDL-VF (p<0.05). For the TSNDL-VF, post hoc analysis showed a significant decrease in the VFT/NVFT and the VFT/CG (▽7.62%, p=0.009 and ▽9.18%, p=0.001). For TSDL-VF, post hoc analysis showed a significant decrease in the VFT/NVFT and the VFT/CG (▽30.56% and ▽29.58%, p<0.001). There no difference was found in favor of any posture of the COPAP max displacement, COPML/AP velocity, COP radius and COP area in the post-intervention effect.