. 2020 Nov 10;15(11):e0242000. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242000

Table 2. Experimental results of all the participants.

			1 DOF				2 DOF								Unit
			UNP	A	B	C	UNP	A1	A2	B1	B2	C1	C2	C3	Unit
δ_RMS		Avg.	8.055	8.306	8.583	8.754	7.339	7.057	6.672	7.510	7.037	6.957	6.892	6.754	$\ddot{θ}$
δ_RMS		Std.	1.051	1.372	1.177	1.234	1.166	1.049	0.752	1.089	0.908	0.765	0.779	0.879	$\ddot{θ}$
*COP*_Avg		Avg.	51.433	50.688	49.172	48.731	52.913	52.827	53.267	52.882	53.533	53.151	53.066	53.623	mm
*COP*_Avg		Std.	1.571	1.843	2.643	2.756	1.928	2.078	1.717	1.719	1.309	1.766	2.017	1.810	mm
θ_Avg		Avg.					0.160	0.356	1.339	-0.070	1.577	0.549	1.756	2.640	θ
θ_Avg		Std.					1.321	1.830	1.956	1.959	1.651	1.523	1.201	1.052	θ
P_Avg	(1)	Avg.		0.027	0.041	0.055		0.022	0.009	0.026	0.012	0.029	0.020	0.014	W/kg
	(1)	Std.		0.015	0.015	0.022		0.007	0.005	0.010	0.008	0.015	0.015	0.014
	(2)	Avg.							0.019		0.015		0.013	0.023
	(2)	Std.							0.009		0.007		0.005	0.008

The bigger the magnitude of δ_RMS, the much worse the stability is. And the direction of COP_Avg is that when its magnitude increase, it goes toward medial direction. Likewise, for θ_Avg, the bigger value means that eversion was enhanced.