Acute effects of kinesiology tape tension on soleus muscle h-reflex modulations during lying and standing postures.

Kinesiology tape (KT) has been widely used in the areas of sports and rehabilitation. However, there is no gold standard for the tape tension used during a KT application. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of KT application with different tension intensities on soleus muscle Hoffmann-reflex (H-reflex) modulation during lying and standing postures. Fifteen healthy university students were tested with 3 tape tension intensities during separate visits with a randomized sequence: tape-on no tension (0KT), moderate (about 50% of the maximal tape tension: (ModKT), and maximal tape tension (MaxKT). During each experimental visit, the H-reflex measurements on the soleus muscle were taken before, during, and after the KT application for both lying and standing postures. The H-wave and M-wave recruitment curves were generated using surface electromyography (EMG). There was a main effect for posture (p = 0.001) for the maximal peak-to-peak amplitude of the H-wave and M-wave (Hmax/Mmax) ratio, showing the depressed Hmax/Mmax ratio during standing, when compared to the lying posture. Even though the tension factor had a large effect (ηp2 = 0.165), different tape tensions showed no significant differential effects for the Hmax/Mmax ratio. The spinal motoneuron excitability was not altered, even during the maximal tension KT application on the soleus muscle. Thus, the tension used during a KT application should not be a concern in terms of modulating the sensorimotor activity ascribed to elastic taping during lying and standing postures.

Introduction

Kinesiology taping (KT) has been widely used in the areas of sports and physical therapy. This technique can potentially alter proprioception and functional performance of the taped muscle groups [1-3]. However, the taping effect on the motor functions is controversial in the literature, leading to reconsideration of current recommendations in KT technique. For example, facilitation of spinal motor excitability was reported when KT was applied to the calf muscles [4, 5]. Conversely, absence of taping effect on the motor functions was observed when the motor excitability at the supraspinal [6] and spinal levels was examined [7]. The discrepancy of research findings may be due to various methods of KT application, such as the tape tension and the tape direction among different studies.

In general, therapeutic practitioners adhere a tip of the tape strip onto the base (e.g., origin or insertion) of the target muscle, and remove the paper backing. Afterwards, the tape strip is stretched to a specific length that might represent a desired tape tension, and then simultaneously taped to the end of the muscle. The tape direction allegedly influences the motoneuron excitability (e.g., facilitation: tape applied from muscle origin to insertion; inhibition: tape applied from muscle insertion to origin). However, this still remains controversial [7]. In addition, practitioners tend to use their own preferences to stretch the tape. This individual-based variation can impose different tensions to the KT, which may potentially cause changes in the neuronal excitability due to a tactile stimulus. Currently, there is a lack of standardization for the optimal intensity of the tape tension applicable to the KT technique among practitioners. Notably, the optimal KT tension to improve physiological and functional performance varied among studies, and the best technique for applying KT remains to be controversial. For example, Velasco-Roldán et al. [8] reported no differential effects on pressure pain threshold and lumbar mobility in chronic low back pain patients when KT tape was applied with different tensions [e.g., no tension vs. light tension (15%-25% of the maximal tension) vs. moderate tension (40% of the maximal tension)]. In contrast, the optimal benefits were observed during a sensorimotor synchronization test when light and moderate KT tape tensions were applied to the wrist muscles, compared to non-tension KT [1, 2]. In addition, the application of 30%-40% and 50%-75% of the maximal KT tape tension both improved walking ability in amateur soccer players with lateral ankle sprain [9].

Postural control is an important sensorimotor function involved in daily life. It refers to the fine sensorimotor performance in spatial adjustment to the body positions [10, 11]. Somatosensory inputs detect changes in body positions via peripheral sensory receptors such as the muscle spindles, Golgi tendon organs, and joint receptors [12]. Overall, the motoneuron excitability [indicated by Hoffmann-reflex (H-reflex)] plays an essential role stabilizing body sway [13, 14]. For example, it has been reported that the peak-to-peak amplitude of H-reflex is depressed during standing, when compared to those during lying and sitting postures [15]. The depression of the H-reflex response during standing is considered as a protective mechanism to avoid oversaturation of the motor drive for postural maintenance [16, 17]. It is however, unclear, whether applying KT on different postures could alter the motoneuron excitability due to the potential changed sensory feedback, especially during a high tension KT session.

Firth et al. [5] first reported that the augmentation of motoneuron excitability (increase in the amplitude of the soleus H-reflex) was only observed in healthy participants but not in patients with Achilles tendinopathy, when applying the KT with inhibitory taping direction to the calf muscle. However, the taping technique used in this study had three different tape tensions in a single strip (50%-75% of the maximal KT tension over the Achilles tendon, 15%-25% of the maximal KT tension over the musculotendionous junction, and no tension over the top end of the tape). Thus, this method could potentially limit the reproducibility of the study. Tremblay and Karam [6] reported that KT application with the 50% maximal tape tension and facilitatory taping direction did not change the corticospinal excitability of the ankle muscles when one single KT strip was applied to the ankle dorsiflexors and plantar flexors. At the spinal level, Magalhães et al. [7] recently reported that facilitatory or inhibitory techniques of KT applications to the calf muscles has no significant impact on the motor excitability in physically active adults. Both groups [6, 7] suggested that KT applications have little influence on the neuromuscular system and the elastic tensions are not enough to alter the sensory feedback, despite taping directions. Interestingly, the effects of high tension intensity (more than 75% of the maximal tape tension) KT applications on the neuromuscular system have rarely been examined [18], and it is possible that the varied results from the previous studies [19-22] were due to the inconsistent tape tensions among different experiments. With the greater tension of the elastic tape applied along the muscle belly, the pulling force generated by the tape might create more passive compression potentially shortening the muscle and its intrafusal fibres (e.g., muscle spindles), which could inhibit the taped muscle’s H-reflex excitability [20].

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of KT application with different tension intensities [applying the tape with no tension (0KT), moderate (about 50% of the maximal tape tension: ModKT), and maximal tape tension (MaxKT)] on the soleus H-reflex modulation at lying and standing postures. It was hypothesized that MaxKT would show depressed soleus H-reflex modulation responses than the 0KT and ModKT conditions. In addition, the tension factor may be a moderator potentially altering the H-reflex modulation at different postures.

Materials and methods

Experimental approach to the problem

This investigation used a within-subjects crossover design to examine the potential effects of different KT tensions on the H-reflex responses in the soleus muscle at the lying and standing postures. All assessments and procedures were conducted in an exercise performance laboratory. The participants first visited the laboratory for a familiarization. Specifically, this visit started with measuring the subjects’ physical characteristics (e.g., standing height, body weight). Following these measurements, the subjects were them familiarized with the H-reflex test, which mainly included surface EMG electrodes placements as well as locating the optimal sites of the stimulation electrodes. Lastly, the subjects were asked to practise two postures (lying and standing), during which the experimental procedures were explained. The second, third and fourth visits were experimental visits where different taping conditions (0KT, ModKT, and MaxKT) were randomly sequenced with at least 48 hours between consecutive visits. The experimental condition sequence order was conducted via Research Randomizer (https://www.randomizer.org/). Before (Pre), during (Mid), and after (Post) each condition, dependent variables were measured and recorded for further data analyses. In this study, the dominate leg was used to assess the reflex responses. Based on a previous study conducted by Firth et al. [9], moderate KT application had a moderate effect in facilitating motoneuronal excitability in healthy people. Thus, we conducted the a priori power analysis using the G*Power software (G*Power version 3.1.9.4, Düsseldorf, Germany) [23], on the basis of the possible large effect size (f = 0.40) for the difference in three tape tensions, an α level of 0.05, and a power (1-β) of 0.80. It was shown that at least 12 participants were necessary (F-test ANOVA, repeated measures, within factors).

Subjects

Twenty-one healthy male students from the University of Taipei were initially recruited to participate in this study. Three participants were excluded due to their age and physical conditions. Eighteen participants (mean ± standard deviation: age = 21.3 ± 1.0 years; standing height = 1.75 ± 0.06 m; body weight = 70 ± 7.1 kg) completed the experiments but three of them were excluded for data analysis due to the absence or irregularity of the H-reflex responses during the experiment. The inclusion criteria of participations included: 1) regular exercise participation (aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, or recreational sports activities) at least 3 times a week with accumulation of 150-min per week, and 2) age between 20–30 years old. Exclusion criteria included any history of severe neuromuscular injury, current lower extremity injury, and neurological diseases. All participants signed an informed consent form and undertook a familiarization session prior to the experiment. Participants were required to refrain from any strenuous activity 24 hours before participation. Based on which foot the participants would kick a soccer ball, 12 participants were right foot-dominant, and 3 were left foot-dominant. This study was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of the university (UT-IRB-2017-049) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Experimental Procedures

Surface electromyography electrodes placements

After a minimum of 72 hours following the familiarization, the subjects returned to the laboratory for one of the experimental testing sessions. Each experimental visit lasted about 90 minutes. The locations of surface electromyography (EMG) electrodes on the soleus muscle were the exact locations determined during the familiarization visit. With both knees extended and relaxed, the participants first lay comfortably on a massage table with a prone position and with their feet hanging over the edge of the bed. The location of EMG placement was determined in accordance to the SENIAM project [24], at 2/3 of the distance from the medial condyles of the femur to the medial malleolus of the tibia and central to medial-lateral direction of the soleus muscle border. To replicate electrode placement across visits, the location of the electrode was outlined with indelible ink. Lastly, a reference electrode was placed above the medial malleolus of the non-dominant leg. Adhesive tapes were also used to secure the EMG electrodes on the skin. Surface EMG of the soleus was recorded through a data acquisition system (MP160, Biopac Systems, CA, USA) by using surface electrodes (TSD150B, Biopac Systems, CA, USA). The EMG sensors are active electrodes contained two stainless steel disks of 11.4 mm diameter with a 20-mm interdisk distance. The EMG signal acquisition was processed with common mode rejection ratio of 95 dB, signal to noise ratio > 89 dB, and input impedance of 100 MΩ. The EMG signals were amplified (gain = 1000) and filtered with high and low pass filters set at 15 Hz and 500 Hz, respectively. The filtered signals were then digitized at a sampling rate of 2500 Hz, and stored in a laboratory computer for subsequent analyses.

Stimulating electrodes placements

After the EMG electrodes placements, the locations of the stimulation electrodes were then determined, with the same lying position on the massage table during the EMG electrodes placements process. Specifically, a reusable rubber-based self-adhesive electrode (10 x 10 mm, FA 25, Gem-Stick, Australia) was placed on the popliteal fossa as the cathode, and another square-shaped reusable rubber-based self-adhesive electrode (50 x 50 mm, Life Care, Taiwan) was fixed over the patella as the anode. Using an electrical stimulator with 1000 μs square pulse duration (DS7A, Digitimer Ltd, Herfordshire, UK), a single electrical impulse was delivered to the posterior tibial nerve to elicit the soleus H-reflex and M-wave responses. The location of the cathode electrode to elicit optimal H-reflex response was carefully checked several times by the principle investigator. After localizing the optimal site, it was marked with a permanent marker and the cathode electrode was attached to the participant’s leg.

Following the placements of EMG and stimulating electrodes, the Pre-taping H-reflex assessment was conducted by a research staff. During the lysing posture, the participants remained prone during data collection. During the standing posture, the participants were informed to maintain a bilateral stance with both arms resting by their sides in a comfortable position. A black dot, placed 2 meters in front of the participant at eye level was used as a visual target. The postures were randomly sequenced at the beginning of each experimental visit, and the sequence was maintained during that specific visit. After a specific posture, the transition to the next posture took approximately 30 seconds, and the participants were asked to maintain the next posture for at least one minute before the H-reflex assessment.

Kinesiology taping

With the completion of the pre-taping H-reflex assessment, the kinesiology tape was applied by a qualified physical therapist who held kinesiology taping certificate level 1, following the recommendations from the Kenzo Kase’s Kinesiology taping manual. Specifically, a Y-shape kinesiology tape (Nitto Kinesiology Tape, NKH-X, Japan) with inhibitory direction was attached to the target locations. The baseline of the KT strips length was determined from calcaneal tubercle to the lateral condyle of femur and the medial condyle of femur. With the participants lying prone, the first strip of KT was applied alongside the border of lateral side of the gastrocnemius and the peroneus longus muscles. Another strip of KT was then placed alongside the border of the medial gastrocnemius and the soleus muscles. When the tape tensions increased to the ModKT and MaxKT, the insertion of the KT strips were attached along the boards of the hamstring muscles. While applying the KT, the participants fully extended their dominant knee joint with the ankle joint in a full dorsiflexion position. Each taping procedure took about 3 minutes, followed by 1 minute of rest at the predetermined posture, and then the assessments of the mid-taping H-reflex. Lastly, after the mid-taping H-reflex assessments, the physical therapist carefully removed the tape from the muscle in a tender manner to minimize the possible stimuli of cutaneous sensory inputs, and then the post-taping H-reflex assessments were conducted in the same manner as the previous assessments.

The intensity of the tape was determined by the length-tension relationship of the kinesiology tape, and adjusted by a physical therapist who conducted all KT applications in all experimental trials. Additionally, the individual calf length was also taken into consideration when applying the KT onto the muscles. A pre-experiment was conducted to test the tension force of KT from zero stretch tension to the maximal stretch. Specifically, the stretch tension of the kinesiology tape was assessed by using a custom-made push-pull gage box (Success Push-Pull Gage, AEF-2, Japan). The baseline of tape length was set at 16 cm as a zero-stretch tension (0KT), and the tape stretch tension was measured with increment of stretch length every 0.5 cm until the maximal stretch intensity (the point where a strong resistance could be felt, thus passing this point could lead to the fracture of the tape). Each length was assessed 5 times and average tension value was reported (Fig 1). The physical therapist applied the 0KT, ModKT, and MaxKT conditions based on the percentage of length-tension ratio of the kinesiology tape and the length of the calf muscles. A research assistant was supported removal of the paper backing in order to carefully control the tape tension by the physical therapist.

Fig 1

Tape length and tension relationship of the kinesiology tape used in the current experiment.

Measurements and data analyses

H-reflex assessment

During the H-reflex assessment, firstly the stimulation intensity was increased with 10 mA increments from the H-reflex threshold (Hthreshold) until the plateau of the maximal peak-to-peak amplitude of the M-wave (Mmax) was identified, to establish the H/M recruitment curve. Specifically, when the first plateau intensity of stimulation for Mmax was identified, we used 150% of this intensity to record the Mmax. Secondly, the maximal peak-to-peak amplitude of H-reflex response (Hmax) was then determined by using 2 mA increment from the stimulation intensity of the Hthreshold in the subsequent determination. Each stimulation intensity was applied four times with at least 10 seconds inter-stimulation interval [12]. The number of stimuli for determination of H/M recruitment curve varied from individual to individual, with a range of 40–60 stimuli in each experimental condition. A data acquisition and analysis system (AcqKnowledge 5.0, Biopac, CA, USA) was used to synchronize the electrical stimulations and the EMG recording. The peak-to-peak amplitude of raw EMG was used to assess the size of reflex responses and then normalized as a percentage of the amplitude value corresponding to the muscle’s Mmax.

Data analyses

TheHmax and Mmax were measured off-line for each experimental condition. The average value of H-reflex and M-wave variables in all successful trials of each posture and tension were processed by one researcher. The Hmax/Mmax ratio was then calculated, which indicates the proportion of the entire spinal motoneuron pool activated by the Ia afferent inputs during the reflex response [12].

Statistical analyses

Descriptive data of the measured variables were presented as mean ± SD. After the examination and confirmation of normal distribution of each variable with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, separate three-way repeated-measures analysis of variance tests (ANOVAs) (Tension [3] x Time [3] x Posture [2] were used to examine the dependent variables. When appropriate, the follow-up tests included Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons. The η statistic is provided for all repeated measure comparisons, with values of 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 corresponding to small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively [25]. An alpha value of p ≤ 0.05 was set for significant differences between the means. All statistical analyses were performed by SPSS® Statistics version 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Mauchly’s test of Sphericity was used to check the violation of the assumption of sphericity for all the repeated measures ANOVA tests. If violated, Greenhouse-Geisser corrected statistics were then used. Fig 2 shows examples of H-reflex and M-wave recording traces. Fig 3 shows an example of a participant’s H-wave and M-wave recruitment curve before, during, and after different KT intensities with different postures. For both the Hthreshold and Hmax, the three-way ANOVAs showed no significant 3-way or 2-way interactions, but there was a main effect for posture (Hthreshold: p = 0.005; Hmax: p = 0.001), indicating significantly greater Hthreshold and Hmax values during lying than those during the standing posture (Table 1). For the Mmax, the three-way ANOVA showed no significant 3-way or 2-way interactions, but there were main effects for posture (p = 0.038), and tension (p = 0.033). The follow-up pairwise comparisons indicated significantly greater Mmax value during lying than those during the standing posture (Table 1). In addition, the Mmax value was significantly lower (posture and time merged mean: 2.602 vs. 2.831 mV, p = 0.046; Table 1) during 0KT than that during ModKT. The three-way ANOVA for Hmax/Mmax ratio indicated no significant 3-way or 2-way interactions, but there was a main effect for posture (p = 0.001), indicating significantly greater Hmax/Mmax ratio during lying than those during the standing posture. Table 1 summarizes the mean difference and 95% confidence interval of the pairwise comparisons among the three different tensions (posture and time merged) for all H-reflex and M-wave variables.

Fig 2

The example of a participant’s H-reflex and M-wave recoding tracings before (Pre), during (Mid), and after (Post) different KT intensities at the lying (A) and standing (B) postures.

Fig 3

The example of a participant’s H-wave and M-wave recruitment curve before (Pre), during (Mid), and after (Post) different KT intensities at the lying (A) and standing (B) postures.

Table 1

Mean (SD) of all H-reflex and M-wave variables (merged across time) on each tension (0KT, ModKT, and MaxKT) for lying and standing postures.

Mean difference (MD) along with the 95% confidence interval (95CI) of the pairwise comparisons for tensions (posture and time merged) were also presented.

		0KT	MD (95CI) 0KT vs. ModKT	ModKT	MD (95CI) ModKT vs. MaxKT	MaxKT	MD (95CI) 0KT vs. MaxKT
HThreshold (mV)	Lying	0.91 (0.63)	-0.061 (-0.334, 0.212)	0.99 (0.69)	0.057 (-0.139, 0.254)	0.84 (0.59)	-0.003 (-0.297, 0.291)
	Standing	0.56 (0.23)		0.55 (0.31)		0.61 (0.36)
HMax (mV)	Lying	1.74 (0.77)	-0.040 (-0.248, 0.167)	1.78 (0.82)	0.079 (-0.107, 0.265)	1.65 (0.79)	0.038 (-0.132, 0.209)
	Standing	1.09 (0.43)		1.13 (0.49)		1.10 (0.45)
MMax (mV)	Lying	2.81 (0.58)	-0.229 (-0.487, 0.030)	2.94 (0.46)	0.049 (-0.180, 0.279)	2.98 (0.58)	-0.179 (-0.396, 0.037)
	Standing	2.39 (0.61)		2.72 (0.55)		2.58 (0.52)
HMax/Mmax Ratio	Lying	0.61 (0.21)	0.033 (-0.029, 0.094)	0.59 (0.24)	0.014 (-0.050, 0.078)	0.55 (0.24)	0.047 (0.008, 0.086)
	Standing	0.46 (0.16)		0.42 (0.16)		0.43 (0.17)

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of KT application with the different tension intensities on soleus muscle spinal motoneuron pool excitability (H-reflex parameters) at lying and standing postures. The main findings of this study include: 1) the H-reflex parameters (raw H-reflex amplitude and Hmax/Mmax ratio) were significantly lower during the standing posture, when compared to the lying posture, regardless the different tension intensities or measurement time points, and 2) the tape tension factor did not influence the H-reflex modulation.

Regarding the H-reflex modulation during lying and standing postures, our results were within the expectation: the raw H-reflex amplitude and Hmax/Mmax ratio were both significantly lower during the standing posture, when compared to the lying posture, regardless the different tension intensities or measurement time points. It has been well-established that the spinal motoneuron pool excitability is depressed during the standing posture, when compared to other postures (e.g., lying and sitting) [15, 26]. Specifically, this phenomenon is likely influenced by presynaptic inhibitory mechanisms at the cortical [27] and/or the spinal levels [28]. Decrease in the H-reflex responses is thought as a major factor to avoid oversaturation of the descending efferent inputs to the target motoneurons for fine control of sensorimotor activities during upright standing. Furthermore, we also expected to see different KT tensions would alter the sensory feedback of the testing muscles, consequently change the neural behavior during different postural tasks. However, the intensity of KT stretch tension showed no effect on the soleus H-reflex modulation between lying and standing in the present study.

Previously, research studies have been conducted to examine the effects of KT tape tension on functional variables (e.g., strength, sensorimotor coordination, pressure pain threshold, mobility) in healthy adults and special populations [1, 8, 18]. The majority of these parameters were not altered by the tightness or tension of the KT application. Similarly, our results show no effect of KT tape tensions on the soleus H-reflex modulation. It was our intention to create different tape tension intensities on the participants’ soleus muscle during the KT application. And we hypothesized that the highest tape tension intensity would decrease the H-reflex, due to the passive compression of the skin and connective tissue under the tape, generated by the elastic pulling force. However, the Hmax/Mmax ratios were not statistically significantly different among different tensions. Acute changes in the H-reflex can be due to alterations of the spinal motoneurons under different conditions [29]. Thus, the current finding suggests that the KT application even with the highest tape tension did not alter the motoneuron excitability of the soleus muscle. A previous experiment [6] reported that a 50% maximal tape tension KT application did not change the corticospinal excitability of the ankle muscles. In addition, at the spinal level, Magalhães et al. [7] found KT applications to the calf muscles has no significant impact on the motor excitability in physically active adults, regardless of the tape direction. Both groups [6, 7] suggested that KT applications have little influence on the neuromuscular system and the elastic tensions are not enough to alter the sensory feedback. Our measurement test on tension of the kinesiology tape used in the current study indicated a maximum tension of 1kg, which might still be too low to induce any significant changes to the muscle, leading to the unchanged H-reflex modulation. It is, however, important to point out the large effect size (η = 0.165) of the tension effect on the Hmax/Mmax ratio (Table 1). Thus, theoretically, if the tape tension kept increasing (e.g., passing the KT tape’s maximal stretch limitation) when conducting the KT application, the spinal motoneuron excitability could have been manipulated. However, with the current KT tape, the tension doesn’t seem to provide meaningful benefits in terms of manipulating spinal motoneuron excitability.

Even though the current study had some interesting findings, this experiment did have some limitations. First, the participants recruited in the present study were physically-active college students. They were weekly involved recreational basketball training, amateur takedown training, running, cycling or resistance training. The background of their physical activity levels, along with their healthy statuses, make the current results not necessarily be readily applicable to other populations (e.g., injured athletes who are going through rehabilitation). Second, KT application applied at the prone position may not provide the same tape tension as that at the standing position. As mentioned, the potentially altered ankle position (due to tape tension) of the relaxed leg during the prone position could possibly induce changes in the H-reflex parameters, which may limit our interpretation of the results at this posture. Third, we only focused on examining the H-reflex parameters, rather than incorporating some functional tests (e.g., balance test) in the current study. A lack of functional outcome measures means that the findings are limited to the exploration of reflex excitability rather than any functional impact of tape.

In conclusion, the current experiment used different tape tensions during KT application on the soleus muscle at both standing and lying postures. The spinal motoneuron excitability was depressed at the standing, when compared to that during the lying posture. However, the changes in tape tension were not accompanied by the changes in spinal motoneuron excitability, even during the maximal tape tension KT application. Our findings provide important information for practitioners such as physical therapists and athletic trainers regarding the potential influence of KT tension intensity on the soleus muscle spinal motoneuron excitability: the tape tension does not seem to alter the spinal excitability.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-05949

Acute Effects of Kinesiology Tape Tension on Soleus Muscle H-reflex Modulations during Lying and Standing Postures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by an expert in the field . I have also examined the paper myself since the second reviewer could not provide a report in due time, given the current crisis with COVID. As you will see below, the Reviewer has expressed several significant concerns. First, the Reviewer is right in pointing that both the introduction and discussion need to be revised to provide a more balanced account of the current literature regarding reported neurophysiological effects of KT applications. Second, the Reviewer points to several issues with the methodological approach (e.g., sample size justification, participants' characteristics, tape tension). Finally, the Reviewer has questions regarding the statistical approach (e.g., justification for using t-tests, reporting of effect size). I fully concur with the Reviewer's report. The paper needs substantial revisions, and you need to make sure that all concerns and issues are adequately addressed if you opt to submit a revised version.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 16 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

François Tremblay, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the recruitment of participants to this study. For example, where were they recruited from and what sampling method was used. In addition, please further describe the "a priori power analysis" performed as little detail is provided.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: INTRODUCTION

• Lines 54-55: I disagree with this information, as there are several studies demonstrating that, in fact, kinesiotaping does not alter the proprioceptive responses or has a minimally effect. I suggest that you present the current evidence and present the gaps that justify your study. For instance, there are at least two studies using H-reflex measurements within the KT context, showing that the tape does not influence the motoneuron excitability:

https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/aop/article-10.1123-jsr.2018-0435/article-10.1123-jsr.2018-0435.xml

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079436/

• Lines 58-59: You should further discuss the issue of KT tension and how it is applied, because there are several studies showing wide variability. This raises the issue of a poor reliability regarding the tape tension. In addition, I recommend that you discuss the issue of tape direction, which supposedly influences the motoneuron excitability (by facilitation or inhibition). This is an important aspect that is still controversial.

METHOD

• Please explain in detail the familiarization procedure

• The sample size calculation has missing information. For instance, what was the statistical model adopted for the calculation? Also, what was the effect size considered? And what was the outcome used for the analysis?

• If the participants were physically active and adopted a regular physical exercise routine, how did you manage to discriminate between the effects of their daily routine and the effects of the elastic tape? What kind of exercise they performed? You should include this information as a characterization.

• The post taping h-reflex assessment was performed after the removal of the tape? In this case, how did you manage to control the taping effects in the skin (a possible cutaneous stimulation), from the assessment of the h-reflex?

• Regarding the tape tension: the procedure is not clear. For instance, how did you manage to control the tension-length ratio, in order to avoid the fracture point? Also, if you reached the maximum stretch intensity, how did you guarantee that this intensity did not compromised the elastic properties of the tape? Several studies adopted equations to control this aspect, by using a percentage of tape tension, in order to reproduce the original instructions of the method… please clarify.

• It is not clear what was the purpose of the VAS scale. I fail to see any justification to investigate the participant’s perception. Please clarify.

• Statistical analysis:

o Lines 243-245: this information is confusing. Why did you adopt t tests?

o Cohen’s d should be used in this case, but only the eta partial squared. Cohen’s d is used for bivariate comparisons, which is not the case. Please correct accordingly.

RESULTS

• Overall, the results section does not read well. I would recommend to be more objective within the textual presentation of the results, keeping the numbers to a minimum. Details of effect size, mean differences, and so on, should be presented in tables. This would improve the reading.

• Please include mean differences and confidence interval of 95% of comparisons.

• Table 1 is confusing because it presents the comparisons, but not the data.

DISCUSSION

• Lines 301-305: the main findings present a causal relationship, for instance, that posture plays a significant role influencing h-reflex parameters. However, in order to reach this conclusion a parallel design would have been more adequate, and not a repeated measure design with the same participants.

• Again, what was the purpose of the VAS? This result does not add to the study, as the authors might have included in order to show that “something happened” and the participants perceived the tension. However, this might bias the readers, as your focus was the motoneuron excitability, and not subject’s perception.

• Lines 351-352: this information is biased, as several studies investigated tape tension and tape direction.

• Lines 368-371: there are several studies that already investigated the KT effects within functional performance. This should be discussed in light of your findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 May 2020

Please see our "Responses to Reviewer" word document for detailed responses.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05949R1

Acute Effects of Kinesiology Tape Tension on Soleus Muscle H-reflex Modulations during Lying and Standing Postures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you will see below, the Reviewer was only partly satisfied with the revised version. The Reviewer points to significant remaining issues about the sample size calculations and EMG standardization procedures between sessions. The Reviewer also insists that the results and discussion should be focused on the physiological (H-reflex) rather than subjective measures. After examining the manuscript, I have to agree with the Reviewer on most points. I am particularly concerned by the statistical approach, which seems inappropriate. Why a 'repeated measures ANOVA' for post-test, where you should have used a Tukey's unless you used a multivariate approach. In the latter case, you need to describe it clearly in the text. Can you provide a clear description of which variables (Hmax, Mmax, H/M ratio, VAS) were entered in the ANOVA and whether assumptions were met (Levene's test)? Finally, I am concerned by the values of Mmax reported in your manuscript (about 2.5 mV, p.14v, line 314), which are much lower than those reported Mmax for the Soleus (> 10 mV). Providing examples of H and M recording traces between conditions could help resolve the issues. In the next round, please make sure that all concerns, problems and suggestions are fully addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

François Tremblay, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors, the current version of the manuscript was improved. However, I still have several comments that might help to improve the quality of you paper. Please consider my suggestions presented below.

Specific comments:

INTRODUCTION

• Line 68: instead of ‘preferred length’, perhaps ‘a specific length that might represent a desired tape tension’ would be more adequate here.

• Line 69: please change ‘may’ to ‘allegedly’, as the mechanisms of KT are not fully proved by research.

• Line 74: please erase ‘muscle fascia and somatic elements’ and change to ‘neuronal excitability due to a tactile stimulus’ (this is the premise of KT).

• Line 74-75: the use of a term such as ‘gold standard’ is mistaken. That would imply an established validity and reliability, which is not the case. At most, you should use something like a ‘lack of standardization’ regarding tape tension.

• Line 125: change ‘can’ to ‘might’.

• Lines 127-129: I suggest removing this last sentence.

• Line 136: erase the term ‘gold standard’, as this is not adequate nor applies to this context. Nevertheless, I suggest removing the last sentences (lines 135-138).

METHOD

• Thanks for the inclusion of the familiarization procedure. However, please be more specific on how and what was adopted as familiarization?

• The sample size calculation description improved; however, it is not clear why you used ‘gait velocity’ as your outcome of interest? This is not adequate, as you should include a suitable variable, for instance, measures of h-reflex based on previous studies. Also, your design would suggest a F test (ANOVA), and not a t test (two dependent means), as you have 3 repeated measures (0, 50 and 100KT).

• Please include more information regarding the EMG acquisition: common mode rejection ration, signal to noise ratio, input impedance, and electrode descriptions (if active or not, and distance between poles). Also, what were the procedures adopted before coupling the electrodes, to improve the signal acquisition and to reduce skin impedance? How did you guarantee the reliability of the EMG electrode placement, considering the different visits to the laboratory? Please clarify.

• Line 237: what do you mean by “facilitated KT application”? Do you mean that the application followed the facilitation technique proposed by the KT method? This is not clear. Also, what process can be used to avoid bias? This information is lost.

• It still not clear how did you determine the 100KT tension without “fracturing” the tape and compromising its elastic properties. This “pre-experiment” to determine the tension should be detailed, at least within a supplement of the paper. If you applied a length-tension curve and determined the maximum tension, the so-called 100% would be the fracturing point? Hence, the 100KT is not actually the maximum tension, whereas it would make more sense to use the greatest tension before reaching the fracture point (you could call that 100KT for the purpose of your experiment, but this information needs clarification). In addition, what was the reliability within this “pre-experiment”?

• I still do not agree with the inclusion of the VAS measurement. From my standpoint, this is a subjective measurement and the focus of your study is the h-reflex measurement. By including the VAS you are dealing with another topic that was not covered by your study rationale and does not add to your research question. My recommendation is to erase this data, as this information does not add to the clinical practice, instead, this might bias the reader as they might wrongly assume that a “feeling” of tension could represent an effect. This is not the case and you should refrain from subjective measurements at this point. The h-reflex might be of more value if you successfully “translate” the clinical and practical findings provided by your study.

RESULTS

• Overall, the results section improved.

• In table 1, perhaps my suggestion was not clear in the previous review: please include the “raw” data (mean and SD), for each variable on each condition (0KT, 50KT and 100KT) stratified by lying and standing. Besides the “raw” data, then include the mean difference together with the CI95% for each condition. This is an adequate presentation of your results, which my help the reader and other researchers to interpret your findings. Moreover, by including this detail on Table 1, I suggest removing Fig 4.

DISCUSSION

• Lines 364-378: As I have suggested, please remove the VAS findings and this discussion, which does not add to your research question and might bias the reader. I suggest focusing on neuronal excitability and posture variations.

• Line 393: The other studies included in the introduction should also be considered in the discussion. This might put your data into context by comparing the studies with your data. Interestingly, even though the tensions were different between studies, most of then have similar findings compared to your study (KT does not influence motoneuronal excitability). Could you discuss further?

• I would suggest a more deepened discussion on why the tape tension did not influence motoneuronal excitability. What might explain your findings? What are the clinical interpretations of your findings?

• Please remove the mention to subjective measurements. The discussion mentions quite frequently what the subjects felt, and this should be improved to a more deepened discussion on physiological aspects and underlying assumptions adopted by the KT method, which was not confirmed by your data.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Jun 2020

Please see our Responses to Reviewers file

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-05949R2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-05949R2

Acute Effects of Kinesiology Tape Tension on Soleus Muscle H-reflex Modulations during Lying and Standing Postures

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ye,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you will see, the Reviewer was mostly satisfied with the latest revisions. I concur with the Reviewer that the current version is much improved over the previous one. The Reviewer has only a few minor revisions that should be easily implemented. I advise you to proceed with diligence and re-submit a revised version so a final decision can be made regarding your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

François Tremblay, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments:

The current version of the manuscript was improved and it is suitable for publication. I have few minor suggestions at this time.

Specific comments:

DISCUSSION

• Lines 423-425: please remove the sentence “Therefore, for clinicians such as physical therapists…”. This sentence does not add, as the previous one is objective enough and shows that tape tension does not provide meaningful effects to motoneuron excitability.

• Lines 459-460: The sentence “KT application altered tension perception” should be removed, considering that the VAS data was removed from the manuscript. Please revise the text accordingly and remove any mention to the subjective measurements.

• Lines 466-468: please remove the sentence: “Thus, when applying the KT to individuals, the tension to be used should not be a concern in terms of modulating the sensorimotor activity ascribed to elastic taping”.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Jul 2020

The responses to comments file has been uploaded with the revised manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-20-05949R3.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Jul 2020

Acute Effects of Kinesiology Tape Tension on Soleus Muscle H-reflex Modulations during Lying and Standing Postures

PONE-D-20-05949R3

Dear Dr. Ye,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

François Tremblay, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

14 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-05949R3

Acute Effects of Kinesiology Tape Tension on Soleus Muscle H-reflex Modulations during Lying and Standing Postures

Dear Dr. Ye:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. François Tremblay

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE