No significant links between somatognosia, stereognosia, and hypermobility: sensory processing unlikely to drive common complaints in hypermobile population

Table 3 Comparison of the variables between non-hypermobile, asymptomatic hypermobile, and symptomatic hypermobile groups

Variables (cm)	Non-hypermobile (n = 20)	Asymptomatic hypermobile^a (n = 13)	Symptomatic hypermoible^b (n = 13)	F-value^*	p-value^*	η² [95% CI]
Shoulder width	1.28 ± 10.89	2.83 ± 4.97	2.31 ± 8.64	0.129	0.880	0.00 [0.00 to 1.00]
Pelvis width in HP	-3.69 ± 7.64	-6.28 ± 8.01	-4.40 ± 7.55	0.453	0.639	0.02 [0.00 to 1.00]
Pelvis width in VP	-7.55 ± 6.78	-8.65 ± 8.32	-8.17 ± 7.72	0.088	0.916	0.00 [0.00 to 1.00]
Petrie test	0.68 ± 0.62	0.49 ± 0.66	0.28 ± 0.49	1.801	0.177	0.08 [0.00 to 1.00]

Notes. HP: horizontal plane; VP: vertical plane; CI: confidence interval
^aParticipants with the Beighton score exceeding the generalized hypermobility thresholds reported by Singh et al. (2017) without symptoms associated with hypermobility
^bParticipants with the Beighton score exceeding the generalized hypermobility thresholds reported by Singh et al. (2017) with symptoms associated with hypermobility
^*F-value_{(2, 43)} and p-value according to the one-way analysis of variance

ISSN: 1471-2474