Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

appropriate timing of its two peaks. Results support a negative answer. As previously noted, this is particularly evident for TFC, who presented a consistent “ alternative ” pattern: after a steep rise (initial contact/loading response), GRF shows a further (almost) monotonical increase (midstance), after which it drops (terminal stance/pre-swing). TFM falling out of Two-Peaks did not present this pattern, and were typically not included in Two-Peaks due to a delayed P1 after 40% of the stance phase. Since no kinematic and Fig. 4 a Box plot for the stance symmetry index (SNS) over the groups; b Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test; c Pairwise comparisons: non-overlapping lines indicate a statistically significant difference. TFM: transfemoral mechanical knee users, TFC: transfemoral C-leg users, TT: transtibial amputees Fig. 5 a Box plot for the impulse symmetry index (IMS) over the groups; b Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test; c Pairwise comparisons: non-overlapping lines indicate a statistically significant difference. TFM: transfemoral mechanical knee users, TFC: transfemoral C-leg users, TT: transtibial amputees Cutti et al. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2018, 15 (Suppl 1):61 Page 35 of 72