Nan Yang1,2, Gordon Waddington2, Roger Adams2, Jia Han3. 1. International Education School, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China. 2. Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. 3. School of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
Purpose: Limited data in current literature can be found on the relation between the two commonly-used active proprioception assessment methods -active joint position reproduction (JPR) and active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA). The current study compared the two active methods, JPR and AMEDA, to investigate their interrelationship over two studies that differed in task difficulty, using active ankle inversion movements made in weight-bearing to maximise ecological validity. Methods: 50 participants volunteered in this research, 20 of whom on a harder protocol and the other 30 on an easier protocol, were tested by both methods, JPR and AMEDA. Proprioceptive acuity was represented by absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) for JPR and by AE and the area under the curve (AUC) for AMEDA. Results: Proprioceptive acuity scores are found to be significantly correlated within test methods but not between methods for either hard or easy tasks, where JPR AE and VE scores were not correlated with either AMEDA AE or AUC. Further, proprioceptive acuity scores were significantly higher on the easy task when tested with the AMEDA method, but not with JPR method. Conclusion: Scores obtained from the two active movement proprioception tests, movement extent discrimination and joint position reproduction, were not significantly correlated. Taken together with previous findings, these results show that for proprioception, scores from the three classical psychophysical methods for measuring sensitivity (adjustment, limits and constant stimuli) are not correlated with each other. This suggests that each proprioception measurement system assesses a different aspect of proprioception.
Purpose: Limited data in current literature can be found on the relation between the two commonly-used active proprioception assessment methods -active joint position reproduction (JPR) and active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA). The current study compared the two active methods, JPR and AMEDA, to investigate their interrelationship over two studies that differed in task difficulty, using active ankle inversion movements made in weight-bearing to maximise ecological validity. Methods: 50 participants volunteered in this research, 20 of whom on a harder protocol and the other 30 on an easier protocol, were tested by both methods, JPR and AMEDA. Proprioceptive acuity was represented by absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) for JPR and by AE and the area under the curve (AUC) for AMEDA. Results: Proprioceptive acuity scores are found to be significantly correlated within test methods but not between methods for either hard or easy tasks, where JPR AE and VE scores were not correlated with either AMEDA AE or AUC. Further, proprioceptive acuity scores were significantly higher on the easy task when tested with the AMEDA method, but not with JPR method. Conclusion: Scores obtained from the two active movement proprioception tests, movement extent discrimination and joint position reproduction, were not significantly correlated. Taken together with previous findings, these results show that for proprioception, scores from the three classical psychophysical methods for measuring sensitivity (adjustment, limits and constant stimuli) are not correlated with each other. This suggests that each proprioception measurement system assesses a different aspect of proprioception.
Entities:
Keywords:
Joint position reproduction; ankle proprioception; movement extent discrimination