. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Feb 23.

Published in final edited form as: Biol Cybern. 2004 Sep 10;91(3):148–158. doi: 10.1007/s00422-004-0505-3

Table 3.

Probability values from the ANOVA tests

Figure reference	Variable	Subject	Task	Load	Orientation
3 (Internal force)	(F_n)_INT/W	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
4 (F_n sharing)	I	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	M	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	R	<0.001	×	0.009	<0.001
	L	<0.001	×	0.018	<0.001
5 (F_t sharing)	I	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	<0.001
	M	<0.001	<0.001	0.032	<0.001
	R	<0.001	×	<0.001	<0.001
	L	<0.001	×	0.119	<0.001
6 (Safety margin)	(SM)_T	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	(SM)_I	<0.001	<0.001	0.024	<0.001
	(SM)_M	<0.001	<0.001	0.295	<0.001
	(SM)_R	<0.001	×	<0.001	<0.001
	(SM)_L	<0.001	×	0.024	<0.001
7 (Tissue deformation)	I	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	M	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	R	<0.001	×	<0.001	<0.001
	L	<0.001	×	0.811	<0.001

The four factors for the ANOVAs were SUBJECT, TASK, LOAD, and ORIENTATION. The variables are listed in the second column; these variables correspond to those plotted in the figures listed in the first column. The factor–variable pairs that failed to reach significance at α = 0.05 are highlighted in bold