Zhi Long1, Renwei Wang2, Jia Han3, Gordon Waddington4, Roger Adams4, Judith Anson4. 1. School of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, China. 2. School of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, China. Electronic address: renwwang@163.com. 3. School of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, China; Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Australia. Electronic address: Jia.Han@canberra.edu.au. 4. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the effects of kinesiology taping (KT) and athletic taping (AT) on ankle proprioception when tested in functional, full weight-bearing stance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy university students participated. Proprioception was measured using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA). The three testing conditions: no-taping, KT, AT, and foot tested were randomly assigned. Perceived comfort, support and proprioceptive performance under two taping conditions were recorded. RESULTS: Proprioceptive discrimination scores with 95% CIs for no-taping, KT and AT were 0.81 (0.79-0.84), 0.81 (0.79-0.83), and 0.79 (0.77-0.81). Repeated measures ANOVA showed neither any significant difference associated with taping compared with no-taping (p=0.30), nor any difference between KT and AT (p=0.19). The group was then divided, according to their no-taping scores, into two sub-groups: with scores below the no-taping mean (n=13), and above the mean (n=11). ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (p=0.008) indicating that above-average no-taping performers proprioception scores were worse when taped, whereas below-average performers improved. For both KT and AT, only ratings of perceived comfort when taped were significantly associated with actual proprioceptive performance (both r>0.44, p≤0.03). Other perception ratings (support and performance) were significantly inter-correlated (both r>0.42, p<0.04), but neither was significantly correlated with actual performance (both p>0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Taping of the foot and ankle may amplify sensory input in a way that enhances proprioception of poor performers but produces an input overload that impairs proprioception in those who originally performed well when no-taping. Screening of ankle proprioception may identify those who would benefit most from taping.
OBJECTIVES: To explore the effects of kinesiology taping (KT) and athletic taping (AT) on ankle proprioception when tested in functional, full weight-bearing stance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy university students participated. Proprioception was measured using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA). The three testing conditions: no-taping, KT, AT, and foot tested were randomly assigned. Perceived comfort, support and proprioceptive performance under two taping conditions were recorded. RESULTS: Proprioceptive discrimination scores with 95% CIs for no-taping, KT and AT were 0.81 (0.79-0.84), 0.81 (0.79-0.83), and 0.79 (0.77-0.81). Repeated measures ANOVA showed neither any significant difference associated with taping compared with no-taping (p=0.30), nor any difference between KT and AT (p=0.19). The group was then divided, according to their no-taping scores, into two sub-groups: with scores below the no-taping mean (n=13), and above the mean (n=11). ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (p=0.008) indicating that above-average no-taping performers proprioception scores were worse when taped, whereas below-average performers improved. For both KT and AT, only ratings of perceived comfort when taped were significantly associated with actual proprioceptive performance (both r>0.44, p≤0.03). Other perception ratings (support and performance) were significantly inter-correlated (both r>0.42, p<0.04), but neither was significantly correlated with actual performance (both p>0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Taping of the foot and ankle may amplify sensory input in a way that enhances proprioception of poor performers but produces an input overload that impairs proprioception in those who originally performed well when no-taping. Screening of ankle proprioception may identify those who would benefit most from taping.
Authors: Lei Zhang; Yi-Kai Li; Ji Qi; Shao-Qun Zhang; Rui-Yue Ping; Xin Zhou; Lin Yu; Rui-Feng Liu; Shi-Jie Fu Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2017-09-20
Authors: Ashleigh Marchant; Nick Ball; Jeremy Witchalls; Gordon Waddington; Ajitkumar P Mulavara; Jacob J Bloomberg Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Kyoung-Sim Jung; Jin-Hwa Jung; Hyung-Soo Shin; Jae-Young Park; Tae-Sung In; Hwi-Young Cho Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390