**3. Results**

The characteristics of the 18 participants who completed the experiment are shown in Table 2. No differences in gender, age, height, weight, GMFCS level were detected between the two groups at baseline.


**Table 2.** General characteristics of subjects (*N* = 18).

a Mean ± SD; AOT: Action observation training; GMFCS: Gross motor function classification system.

### *3.1. Spasticity of Ankle Joint*

Changes in the spasticity of the study subjects in the two groups were as follows (Table 3). In the right ankle stiffness test, the AOT increased by 6.58◦ (*p* < 0.05), from 4.00◦ before training to 10.58◦ after training, the control group increased significantly by 4.39◦ and there was no significant difference between the two groups. In the left ankle joint examination of MTS, the AOT showed a significant increase of 6.10◦ (*p* < 0.05), and the control group showed a significant increase of 4.38◦ (*p* < 0.05) and there was no significant difference between the two groups. In the evaluation of spasticity right knee joint of MTS, the AOT showed a significant decrease of 2.91◦ (*p* < 0.05), and the control group showed a significant decrease of 1.09◦ (*p* < 0.05) and there was no significant difference between the two groups. In the left knee joint MTS evaluation, the AOT showed a significant decrease of 1.86◦ (*p* < 0.05), while the control group showed no significant difference and there was significant difference between the two groups (*p* < 0.05).



aMean ± SD; AOT: Action observation training; MTS: Modified Tardieu Scale.

### *3.2. Gross Motor Function*

Table 4 shows the changes in the GMFM before and after the intervention. The mean of the GMFM-B items of AOT showed a significantly increased by 5.12%, from 93.33% before training to 98.45% after training (*p* < 0.05), and the control group was significantly increased by 1.85% (*p* < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups. The mean of the GMFM-C items significantly increased by 6.56% (*p* < 0.05) in the AOT, and the control group also significantly increased by 2.89% (*p* < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Finally, the mean of the GMFM-E items of the AOT showed a significantly increased by 6.51% (*p* < 0.05), and there was significant difference between the two groups (*p* < 0.05).

### *3.3. Balance Function Measurement*

The change in dynamic balance between the two groups is shown in Table 5. The right side stretching average of the children's arm stretch test of AOT was significantly increased by 3.28 cm (*p* < 0.05), and the control group also significantly increased by 1.40 cm, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (*p* < 0.05). The left side stretching average of the AOT significantly increased by 4.08 cm (*p* < 0.05), and that of the control group significantly increased by 1.42 cm (*p* < 0.05) and there was a significant difference between the two groups (*p* < 0.05). The average of the right forward extension of the pediatric extension test significantly increased by 4.60 cm, and the control group significantly increased by 2.02 cm (*p* < 0.05) and there was a significant difference between the

two groups (*p* < 0.05). The average of the left forward stretching of the AOT significantly increased by 4.25 cm (*p* < 0.05), while the average of the control group significantly increased by 2.04 cm (*p* < 0.05) and there was a significant difference between the two groups (*p* < 0.05).


**Table 4.** Differences in gross motor function (*N* = 18).

a Mean ± SD; AOT: Action observation training; GMFM: Gross motor function measure.



a Mean ± SD; AOT: Action observation training; PRT: Pediatric reaching test.
