Low-dye taping may enhance physical performance and muscle activation in basketball players with overpronated feet.

BACKGROUND: Low-dye taping (LTD) is widely used by athletes and medical practitioners but the research regarding its impacts on athletic performance is lacking. This study investigated the effects of using low-dye taping on plyometric performance and muscle activities in recreational basketball players with overpronated feet.
METHODS: Twelve collegiate males with at least three years basketball training experience and navicular drop (ND) value ≥10 mm performed the navicular drop, drop jump and countermovement jump tests. Surface electromyography of selected lower limb muscles were observed during bilateral free squat. All tests in non-taped (NT) and taped (TAP) conditions were counterbalanced using repeated crossover study design. Paired t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 and non-clinical magnitude-based decision (MBD) with standardized effects were used to analyze data.
RESULTS: Contact time and reactive strength index (RSI) in the TAP condition were significantly shorter (p = 0.041) and higher (p<0.01) than the NT condition respectively. No significant difference in CMJ performance between NT and TAP was observed. MBD demonstrated clear effects on both ND (standardized effect: -1.54±0.24), flight time (standardized effect: 0.24±0.30), contact time (standardized effect: -0.27±0.21), RSI (standardized effect: 0.69±0.35) and eccentric activities of inferior gluteus maximus (standardized effect: 0.23±0.35), gluteus medius (standardized effect: 0.26±0.29) and tibialis anterior (standardized effect: 0.22±0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: LDT is effective in correcting overpronated feet by increasing ND height. Meanwhile, it provides a small increase in RSI and gluteal muscle activity during the eccentric (down) phase of the bilateral squat, and without affecting CMJ performance. Conditioning coaches or therapists may use LDT to enhance gluteal activation for reducing injury occurrence and reactive strength performance in drop jump tasks.

Introduction

Overpronation of the feet (flat feet) is a common foot malalignment issue where the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) is decreased, leading to increased medial plantar pressure [1]. It is reported that approximately 16.06% of Asian children aged 6 to 10 years old [2], and 13.6% of Indian adults aged 18 to 21 years old have an overpronation condition (>9 mm in navicular drop test) [3]. Research investigating the foot morphology of 196 intercollegiate athletes found that 14.4% were overpronated [4], indicating the commonality of overpronation in competitive sports. But no significant relationships were observed for athletes with overpronation issues and increased lower extremity injury prevalence [4]. Contrastingly other researchers have found associations between altered biomechanics due to lowered MLA and increased risk of chronic lower extremity injuries such as plantar fasciitis and patellofemoral pain syndrome [1, 5].

When the MLA collapses and lengthens, it directly impacts the kinetic chain of the lower limbs during weight-bearing activities (e.g., jumping and landing) [1-4]. Such issues may include tibial and femoral internal rotation, which are critical components of dynamic valgus [6, 7], which has been associated with lowered muscle activity of hip and knee stabilizers including the gluteus maximus and medius [8, 9]. Recent studies indicate a strong association between poor landing postures (hip internal rotation and valgus knee), decreased activation of knee stabilization muscles, and several common knee injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, meniscus tear, and sprain on the medial collateral ligament in athletes [9, 10]. Therefore, overpronation may impact knee and hip kinematics during functional movements and increase the risk of knee injuries.

A common method and long-term solution to relieve undesirable stress produced by overpronation are using orthotic insoles to provide additional support to the MLA. However, tight-fitting specialized shoes (e.g., running spikes) and unfit orthotic insoles may cause additional discomfort and plantar pressure [11]. An alternative method to correct a dropped MLA is to apply low dye taping (LDT) on the plantar region, using several strips of rigid tape [12]. Research has shown that LDT significantly elevates the MLA in active asymptomatic people [13], reducing plantar pressure of the heel and medial forefoot in participants with >10 mm navicular drop (ND) [14]. Furthermore, evidence suggests that LDT can relieve pain in patients with plantar fasciitis [15]. Consequently, this evidence-informed method, in conjunction with anecdotal practice is widely accepted by practitioners in clinical settings [13, 15]. Although it is believed that knee and hip biomechanics may be improved through the correction of overpronation leading to a more efficient kinetic chain [7-10], the actual influence on proximal muscle activity, such as the gluteus maximus and gluteus medius, during functional activity is not fully understood or has been extensively studied.

Regarding the biomechanics of functional activities such as walking or running, the tightening of the plantar fascia may provide additional support to the MLA, as explained by the windlass mechanism [16]. However, the plantar fascia may be further lengthened during weight-bearing activity if the MLA collapses [17, 18]. A failed windlass mechanism in overpronated feet may affect the efficiency of absorbing ground reaction forces to produce forward propulsion during gait or accommodate uneven terrains [17]. Furthermore, it has been observed that overpronation may cause increased mobility or hypermobility of the first and midtarsal joints compared to those with normal foot alignment and stability, thus reducing the potential to transmit force [18]. Therefore, it is postulated that correcting a dysfunctional MLA may improve foot and ankle stiffness, and subsequently athletic performance. Vertical stiffness and utilization of the fast stretch-shortening cycle can be reliably assessed using a drop jump test and calculating the reactive strength index (RSI) by dividing flight time by ground contact time [19, 20]. Whereas, the slow stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) can be determined using a countermovement jump (CMJ). Although RSI and CMJ are widely used to monitor plyometric ability for various athletes [19, 20], no study has addressed the influence of correcting the MLA of athletes with overpronation using LDT, on jumping performance.

Although there are proposed benefits of applying LDT before physical activity, further scientific support is needed for the performance change in team sport athletes such as basketball players, as prior research has predominantly focused on foot stability, joint alignment, stance, and gait [21-24]. To the author’s knowledge, no previous studies measured the effects of correcting the MLA with LDT on athletic or plyometric performance. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the use of LDT to correct the MLA of recreational basketball athletes with overpronation, and investigate its effect on drop jump (including RSI) and CMJ performance, and lower extremity muscle activity during a bilateral squat.

Methods

Experimental approach to the problem

This study investigated how the application of LDT to correct overpronation effect on drop jump (including RSI) and CMJ performance, and lower extremity muscle activity during a bilateral squat. Participants performed all tests after non-taped (NT) and taped (TAP) conditions as a repeated crossover study design. All tests were completed in one day to maximize reliability [3]. Participants received treatment conditions (NT and TAP) in a counterbalanced order and completed tests as follows 1) drop jump, 2) CMJ and 3) bilateral squat with surface electromyography (sEMG). Muscles selected for surface EMG for the bilateral squat were superior gluteus maximus (SGMax), inferior gluteus maximus (IGMax), gluteus medius (GM), and tibialis anterior (TA). Participants were prescribed 5-minutes of rest after completing each test and another 30-minute rest was given between two conditions (NT and TAP).

Subjects

Twelve collegiate male recreational basketball players (age: 21.4±2.4 years [range: 19–28 years]; height: 174.5±8.2 cm; body fat: 12.4±3.6%) participated in this study. The inclusion criteria included: 1) a minimum of three years of basketball training experience (at least twice per week); 2) navicular drop (ND) ≥10 mm regarded as overpronation and; 3) body fat ≤17.5% for optimum sEMG signal. Participants with recent lower limb injury (within 12 months) or health conditions that could affect their performance or completion of this study, ND value ≤9 mm, and body fat >17.5% were not recruited. All participants completed a PAR-Q and informed consent form, and all experimental risks and benefits were disclosed. All participants passed an allergy test by putting adhesive rigid tape on the left ankle for at least 24 hours to ensure no adverse reactions. Participants were required to wear their competitive basketball shoes. This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee.

Procedures

Warm-up. Before each performance test, a standardized dynamic warm-up protocol was used to increase body temperature and readiness of participants [25]. This included 30-seconds jogging, 30-seconds butt kick, 15 lunges on each leg, and 30 jumping jacks.

Navicular drop test. ND test procedures were adapted from Vinicombe et al. [26], which showed good intra-rater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between 0.94 to 0.96 [27, 28]. Participants placed their feet flat on the ground in a standing position and the navicular tuberosity was marked. To locate the ND value, participants stood naturally with weight evenly distributed on both feet, a blank card was placed perpendicular to the supporting surface against the navicular tuberosity, and the height of navicular tuberosity of the natural standing position was marked on the card. The subtalar joint neutral position was determined by putting the index finger and thumb on the medial and lateral aspects of the talus bone to palpate the talar head congruency and adjust the talar alignment until the neutral stance position was confirmed. The height of the navicular tuberosity in a neutral standing position was marked so the distance between two marks was measured as the ND value (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Navicular drop test.

Low-dye taping. A standard LDT protocol was used to apply tape on participants’ feet [14, 29]. Participants washed and dried their feet before starting any taping procedure. Thereafter participants placed the foot over the edge of a plinth in a supine lying position, where a strip of 3.8-cm wide zinc oxide latex-free adhesive rigid tape (Strappal, BSN Medial, Hamburg, Germany) was applied from the lateral aspect of the head of the fifth metatarsal and ran around the posterior part of the calcaneus to the medial aspect of the head of the first metatarsal as the anchor. Three to five strips (depending on foot size) of rigid tape were applied from the lateral to the medial border of the foot, with the first strip starting from the plantar region of the forefoot proximal to the metatarsal heads. Each subsequent strip of tape overlapped the distal piece of tape by approximately half the width until the final strip was at the bottom of the ankle joint. High tension was applied when each strip was pulled to the medial border of the midfoot to support the longitudinal arch. An additional strip of tape was applied similar to the first strip to further secure all previous strips adhered (Fig 2). The administer verbally checked whether participants were comfortable after putting on shoes to confirm the completion of taping procedures.

Fig 2

The LD taping application.

Drop jump test. To assess the RSI, participants performed drop jumps (DJ) from a 40 cm platform, which is a reliable height demonstrating low typical error in RSI (coefficient of variation = 3%; ICC = 0.95) and jump height (coefficient of variation = 2.8%; ICC = 0.98) variables [30]. A stiff-legged technique was adopted due to yielding higher RSI values with decreased ground contact time [31]. A contact mat connected to Kinematic Measurement System (KMS) (Version 2014.1.2, Fitness Technology, Australia) software was used to measure RSI, which was calculated by dividing flight time by ground contact time. Participants held their pelvis with palms and index fingers touching the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) to minimize arm swinging (Fig 3). Two practice trials were given before testing. Participants performed three drop jump trials with maximum effort, followed by 120-second rest. To standardize drop jump performance, subjects were instructed as follows; to initiate the drop “step out” with one foot without any jumping motion, to maximize the RSI “jump as high and fast as possible while keeping knee as straight as possible” upon contact with the mat and “stay on the mat” upon second landing to avoid any errors collecting data [30]. The highest RSI value of the three trials was used for statistical analysis.

Fig 3

Drop jump test.

Countermovement jump. To measure vertical jump height, participants performed a CMJ without arm swing, which has shown ICCs between 0.87–0.99 [32]. Two retractable tape measures were taped on a smooth, flat, and vertical surface to form a 3 m measuring tape. Participants wore a headband with reflective markers placed on the bottom border to standardize all measurements. The baseline height of each participant was recorded in a natural standing position and at the point of the measuring tape adjacent to the bottom edge of the headband at the forehead region. To perform the CMJ participants were instructed to hold the pelvis with palms and index fingers touching their ASIS to minimize arm swinging, squat down to their preferred depth, then immediately jump as high as possible without any head tilt. Two practice trials were given, and participants performed 3 CMJ trials with maximum effort, followed by 120 seconds of rest [33]. A Casio Ex-100 camera (Casio Computer Co., Ltd, China) was set at the highest point achieved during practice jumps. Thereafter, slow motion video capture (240 frames per second) was used to determine the maximal jump height of each CMJ trial, which was calculated as the highest point adjacent to the reflective marker on the headband subtracted by the standing height of each subject (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Marking of non-arm swing countermovement jump.

Bilateral squat. Participants stood with feet shoulder-width apart and arms reaching forward with full elbow extension. Two practice trials were given, then participants performed three trials of squat with 2 seconds eccentric (down) and 2 seconds concentric (up) tempo, controlled by an electronic metronome. Thighs were required to reach parallel to the floor at the lowest squatting position, which accurate judgment was supported by applying a strip of adhesive rigid tape between the greater trochanter and lateral epicondyle of the femur (Fig 5). One minute rest was prescribed between trials.

Fig 5

Squat with electromyography testing.

Surface electromyography. During each bilateral squat muscle activity of the SGMax, IGMax, GM, and TA were measured by a 16-channel Noraxon Myosystem 1400 surface EMG unit (Noraxon Inc, Arizona, USA) at a sample rate of 1000Hz. sEMG was measured using disposable sEMG silver-silver chloride (Ag/AgCl) electrodes of 57 mm in length and 35 mm in width with conductive wet gel inside (Blue Sensor T-00-S, Ambu Inc., Denmark). For each muscle, a pair of electrodes were placed with a center-to-center inter-electrode distance of 35 mm and secured with 3M™ Transpore™ surgical tape. Participants were required to shave the hair of the skin and clean it with an alcohol-soaked pad until the appearance of light redness to reduce skin impedance and optimize signal quality before electrode attachment [5].

Electrodes of the SGMax were placed superior and lateral to the line between the posterior superior iliac spine and the posterior greater trochanter, while the other two electrodes for IGMax were attached inferior and medial to the same line [34]. TA electrodes were positioned at 1/3 of the distance on the line between the tip of the fibular head and medial malleolus while GM electrodes were fixed 1/3 of the distance between the greater trochanter and iliac crest [27, 35].

sEMG normalization. Before testing the bilateral squat, sEMG muscle activities of each muscle group being assessed were normalized using maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). The MVIC testing procedures were adopted from Kendall et al. The investigator applied manual resistance gradually until the maximum effort was attained by the participant and held for five seconds [36]. The MVIC tests of each muscle were repeated for three repetitions with one-minute rest between trials. The highest value of three repetitions was selected for further analysis. Consistent verbal encouragement was given to facilitate maximum effort throughout [35].

Data processing for sEMG. All raw data were processed with MyoResearch 3.8 software (Noraxon USA, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ) with full-wave rectified, band-pass filtered from 50 to 500 Hz, and smoothed via the root-mean-square (RMS) algorithm and 20-millisecond moving window. In the entire four seconds squat movement, the averaged peak activation of the initial two seconds of sEMG signals were regarded as the signals of eccentric (down) phase while the latter two seconds of sEMG signals were used to analyze the concentric (up) part of the squat.

Statistical analysis

All sEMG data were normalized as the percentage of MVIC (%MVIC) while mean values and SDs were calculated for all variables. Shapiro-Wilk test and visual inspection were applied to assess the normality of variables. The test-retest reliability was conducted with the ICC. Paired-sample t-tests with a significance level of <0.05 were calculated for variables between NT and TAP conditions. Non-clinical magnitude-based decision (MBD) and precision of estimation were used to assess differences between taped and non-taped conditions, via respective 90% confidence intervals and the standardized effect (mean difference divided by standardized unit as Cohen’s d). The smallest worthwhile difference was set at 0.2 and according to Hopkins et al. [37], thresholds for the magnitudes of effects were: 0.2, small; 0.6, moderate; 1.2, large; 2.0, very large; and 4.0, extremely large. The effects were unclear if the respective 90% confidence intervals crossed the thresholds of the effect being substantially positive and negative by >5%. Otherwise, the effect was deemed clear with the percentage likelihood of effects being substantially negative, trivial, and substantially positive observed, and the associated qualitative inference was concluded. The probabilistic terms for classifying likelihood values were as follows: <0.5%, almost certainly not; 0.5%–5% very unlikely; 5%–25% unlikely; 25%–75% possibly; 75%–95% likely; 95%–99.5% very likely; >99.5% almost certainly [37]. All statistical analyses were conducted with RStudio software (version 1.2.5001; open-source program).

Results

All data were normally distributed (p>0.05). All tests showed good to excellent test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.75 to 0.97) except RSI in the NT condition (ICC = 0.61), eccentric sEMG value of IGMax in NT, SGMax, IGMax, and GM in TAP conditions (ICC: 0.52 to 0.70. The paired t-test indicated that the ND value after TAP was significantly lower than that of NT condition (p<0.01) (see Table 1). Paired t-tests showed that contact time after TAP condition was significantly lower than that of NT (p = 0.041) while RSI of TAP condition was significantly higher (p<0.01). The sEMG in terms of %MVIC of all muscles between NT and TAP conditions were shown no significant difference (p>0.05) (Table 2).

Table 1

Comparison between non-taped (NT) and taped (TAP) conditions in performance measures.

Variables	NT	TAP	Difference (TAP—NT)	d	p
Navicular drop (mm)	13.71 ± 2.73	9.03 ± 2.90	-4.68 ± 0.42	-1.54	0.001†
Countermovement jump (cm)	45.20 ± 7.06	45.00 ± 6.03	-0.13 ± 0.63	-0.02	0.837
Flight time of drop jump (ms)	439 ± 39.00	448 ± 33.6	9.50 ± 6.53	0.24	0.174
Contact time of drop jump (ms)	206 ± 30.9	197 ± 33.5	-9.33 ± 4.03	-0.27	0.041†
Reactive strength index	2.00 ± 0.24	2.22 ± 0.35	0.22 ± 0.06	0.69	0.005†

NT = non-taped; TAP = taped;

Effect size was adjusted for small sample size.

†Significant difference between NT and TAP conditions.

Table 2

Muscle activities between NT and TAP conditions (%MVIC)*.

Variables		NT	TAP	Difference (TAP—NT)	d **	p
Eccentric	SGMax	6.19 ± 5.21	6.99 ± 7.24	0.8 ± 0.68	0.12	0.268
	IGMax	2.59 ± 1.30	2.96 ± 1.73	0.38 ± 0.32	0.23	0.266
	GM	6.5 ± 1.83	7.17 ± 2.87	0.68 ± 0.42	0.26	0.135
	TA	33 ± 15.70	36.8 ± 15.9	3.74 ± 2.70	0.22	0.193
Concentric	SGMax	13.2 ± 5.49	12.8 ± 5.3	-0.46 ± 0.80	-0.08	0.577
	IGMax	10.3 ± 3.45	10.4 ± 3.9	0.1 ± 0.45	0.03	0.825
	GM	10.8 ± 4.76	11.3 ± 4.08	0.44 ± 0.67	0.09	0.528
	TA	27.4 ± 14.6	30.3 ± 20.1	2.95 ± 2.95	0.16	0.339

*MVIC = maximum voluntary isometric contraction; SGMax = superior gluteus maximus; IGMax = inferior gluteus maximus; GM = gluteus medius; TA = tibialis anterior;

NT = non-taped; TAP = taped;

**Effect size was adjusted for small sample size.

The MBD results are presented in Figs 6 to 8, which shows when compared with NT, TAP provided a large effect on ND (standardized effect: -1.54±0.24), small effect on flight time (standardized effect: 0.24±0.30), small effect on contact time (standardized effect: -0.27±0.21), moderate effect on RSI (standardized effect: 0.69±0.35) and small effect on eccentric activities of IGMax (standardized effect: 0.23±0.35), GM (standardized effect: 0.26±0.29) and TA (standardized effect: 0.22±0.06).

Fig 6

Results of non-clinical magnitude-based decision in navicular drop test, countermovement jump, and drop jump performance.

RSI—reactive strength index; NT—non-taped condition; TAP—taped condition.

Fig 8

Results of surface electromyography during the concentric (up) phase of the bilateral squat.

NT—non-taped condition; TAP—taped condition; SGMax—superior gluteus maximus; IGMax—inferior gluteus maximus; GM—gluteus medius; TA—tibialis anterior.

Results of surface electromyography during the eccentric (down) phase of the bilateral squat.

Discussion

Findings of this study revealed that LDT was effective in elevating the ND height for participants with overpronated feet, which was in line with the results from Holmes et al. [22]. Since the ND assesses the subtalar position [14, 22], the increase of ND height for people with dropped MLA, can therefore be considered “closer to subtalar neutral”. Although the current study did not measure the change of plantar pressure, Lange et al. [14] have demonstrated the successful reduction of medial plantar pressure during walking after applying LDT. Similar findings on improving medial heel or plantar pressure during other walking tasks, drop jumps and single leg squats were also reported recently [38, 39]. It is speculated if the enhanced drop jump performance and muscle activity in our study are partly attributed to such plantar pressure change in our TAP condition. Further studies in this regard providing the full picture of the mechanism of how LDT potentially improves drop jump performance are warranted.

One of the important muscles to maintain subtalar stability and MLA during weight-bearing activities is the TA, which contributes to ankle dorsiflexion, deceleration of subtalar eversion, and resisting foot pronation [36, 40]. Participants with excessive foot pronation performing bilateral stability or squatting tasks without LDT may have decreased foot stability, causing higher demands on the TA to resist foot pronation [40]. Findings from Denyer et al. [41] study found no difference in TA activity during a bilateral standing task on a tilting platform among individuals with excessive pronation, supination, or neutral foot structures. Despite different movement patterns, the present study demonstrated contrasting results, showing a small increase of TA activation during the eccentric (down) phase of a bilateral squat after LDT application. Performing bilateral weight-bearing tasks such as standing or squatting increased medial-lateral stability, when compared to single-leg tasks. Therefore, it is believed that additional demand on TA to maintain frontal plane stability was not needed for individuals who have a lowered MLA [42]. During the eccentric (down) phase of a squat, the TA is recruited for initiating ankle dorsiflexion and maintaining anterior-posterior stability. Excessive foot pronation without LDT support puts the TA in a lengthened position, which may decrease force production and subsequent muscle activation [43]. Similarly, in this study, small increases in IGMax and GM muscle activation were observed in the TAP condition during the eccentric (down) phase of a squat. The primary functions of IGMax and GM include hip external rotation and hip abduction, respectively. It is believed that squatting with overpronated feet could potentially increase the hip and knee internal rotation, and hence lengthen IGMax and GM muscles leading to decreased EMG signal [43], therefore, rectifying ND with LDT may promote foot supination, and tibial and hip external rotation [6, 7], and subsequently increase muscle activities by normalizing the length of the IGMax, GM, and TA.

When evaluating CMJ performance, the present findings showed no significant difference and trivial effects after using LDT. This is consistent with a recent study using foot orthoses to limit subtalar eversion and foot pronation in basketball players with or without flat feet. In their study, since only the lower limb biomechanics was altered but not the vertical jump performance [44], it was attributed to the stationary CMJ position and leading to only high reliance on the forefoot in push-off whereas other dynamic locomotions such as running and hopping have considerable midfoot and rearfoot motions. Moreover, as CMJ relies on explosive force production through triple extension (i.e., hip extension, knee extension, and ankle plantarflexion), only altering force production capabilities and kinematics in those relevant regions may affect the jumping performance [45]. However, our LDT was presumed to have no effect on the hip, knee, and ankle (talocrural joint) range of motion, meanwhile, a recent study also proposed that the effect of only limiting inter-tarsal joints motion with LDT on vertical stiffness and hopping performance was insignificant [46]. In this study, although a small increase in IGMax, GM, and TA was observed during a slow-paced bilateral squat, such small beneficial changes induced by LDT were possibly inadequate to provide any visible kinetic or kinematic changes that would be reflected through CMJ performance.

Regarding the drop jump performance, results from this study showed a significant and moderate increase in RSI, a small decrease in contact time, and a small increase in flight time. Although stiff-legged drop jumps limit hip and knee flexion during the landing phase, they provide similar EMG muscle activation to a soft-legged technique [31]. Therefore, it is postulated that the small increase in IGMax, GM, and TA muscle activity observed in the eccentric (down) phase of the bilateral squat exercise in TAP condition, may also occur during the squatting motion in the landing phase of a drop jump. Interestingly, Struzik et al., [46] recently demonstrated no significant change in vertical ankle stiffness and hopping performance before and after LDT application on healthy basketball players. Without observing the actual change in vertical stiffness, we also assumed vertical stiffness was maintained in both ND and TAP conditions in our study. However, their study did not mention the foot alignment of the subjects and also the change of foot pronation before and after LDT application, therefore it is inconclusive regarding the relationship between frontal foot stability and hopping performance. In this regard, Porter et al., [47] suggested that faster transitions between the eccentric landing phase and concentric jumping phase (i.e., amortization phase) could reduce the loss of elastic energy, and subsequently improve jumping performance and RSI scores. A potentially shortened amortization phase and faster ground contact time observed in this study could be explained through the additional support and rigidity of the subtalar and inter-tarsal joints with LDT. However, such proposed benefits were not observed in our CMJ test and we believe that, during the slow SSC task, the vertical jump performance is mostly dependent on the hip, knee, and ankle (talocrural joint) kinematics, and the vertical stiffness while the foot frontal plane stability and the force transmission efficiency in the amortization phase on the foot region, in such a jumping task with long duration, has become insignificant and negligible.

The present study is not without limitations. Since the force production, plantar pressure, and lower extremity joint angles during jumping tasks were not measured, the actual effects of LDT on foot functions, lower limb posture and kinematics, and the force output were not fully understood. To measure the actual CMJ value, our study has adopted a novel method using a video clip to observe the true jump height, however, this method has not been validated and compared with other recognized devices such as force plate or 3D measured displacement. Moreover, only sEMG activities of the slow unloaded squatting task were observed. Future research could measure the impact of LDT on the kinematics and joint angles achieved at the hip, knee, and ankle, as well as force output and EMG activities during the vertical jump and landing tasks. Additionally, investigating the change in plantar pressure, the center of balance, and the EMG activity of foot and ankle muscles during forefoot drop landing with or without LDT would add value to this field of research. Furthermore, our study did not measure the comfort level in NT and TAP conditions and therefore, the degree of impact from such factor on performance and muscle activity were not understood.

Practical applications

This study provides provisional evidence on the changes in lower extremity muscle activities during bilateral squat and jumping performance when using LDT on overpronated feet. Our findings offer conditioning coaches and therapists alternate techniques to potentially correct the foot alignment and enhance the fast SSC performance in drop jump without decreasing the slow SSC performance in CMJ. Furthermore, it may give some benefits to the muscle activation of the gluteal group during squat-related activities.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 May 2022

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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Emiliano Cè

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

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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: The manuscript meets the publication criteria established by the journal. However, there are some issues that concern me.

TITLE

I would recommend using a more concise and impactful title. Now it's a bit repetitive and long

ABSTRACT

The objective of the study is not clearly defined in the abstract. “Effects” of DLT on what?

LDT abbreviations are not predefined in the abstract

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Was there a prior familiarization session for the tests?

Is there any information on the comfort level of individuals after taping placement? You should Indicate this like a limitation of the study, since the level of comfort could influence the performance achieved.

To determine the possible influence of fatigue, it would be interesting to report about the time that the individuals were performing the tests. 1, 2 hours or how many hours? What rest time was there between the treatment conditions (NT test and TAP)?

Line 287: superscript what does it refer to? Check and correct

RESULTS

Table 1. Indicate that the flight time refers to the drop jump, and not to the CMJ. It could confuse the reader.

DISCUSSION

General speaking, the discussion regarding the effects on performance in vertical jumps is too brief. It is necessary to provide more information about this topic. Why does DJ performance improve and not the CMJ, in which there is also a concentric phase and an eccentric phase of the movement? Could being overpronated, neutral or supinator influence the results? What has been observed in other studies? The following articles will help you in this task.

Struzik A, Stawarz M, Zawadzki J. The effect of low-Dye taping on hopping performance in handball players. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2020;22(3):3-8. PMID: 33518734.

Radford JA, Burns J, Buchbinder R, Landorf KB, Cook C. The effect of low-Dye taping on kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006 Apr;36(4):232-41. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2006.36.4.232. PMID: 16676873

Line 390, 398 If the journal instructions do not prevent it, it is preferable to write the citation number immediately after the authors (et al.)

Line 391-393. It is speculative. Provides scientific reference and justification

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I think that you should better describe the potential practical applicability of your study. Specific remarks are given below.

INTRODUCTION: consider shortening

METHODS: Subjects Exclusion and inclusion criteria must be better described (more information is needed). What were the criteria for overpronation? ND value? If so, please state that in the text and report clear cuttoff for inclusion, so that readers can understand who were the participants in this study.

Why you didn’t use contact mat for CMJ as well? And additional don’t you think that force plate would be best choice for both tests? Please elaborate that as potential limitation.

Statistics: state clearly which effect size was used

RESULTS: Table 1 and 2 are nice, clear. However, you are introducing MBI without any explanation what that is. Please correct.

DISCUSSION.

To shorten your findings you have only managed to show that LDT does change ND values in basketball players with overpronation without almost any effect on performance. In light of such findings you should go through your practical application once again to see if you data really support your claims that “Our findings offer conditioning coaches and therapists alternate techniques to reduce lower limb injuries and enhance plyometric and RSI performance. Furthermore, it provides a method for increasing muscle activation of the gluteal group during squat-related exercises without decreasing the CMJ performance.”

Also there is a study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33518734/ that also showed no effect of LDT on mean jump height, mean ground contact time and mean vertical stiffness.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.

31 Aug 2022

Reviewer 1

Reviewer: I would recommend using a more concise and impactful title. Now it's a bit repetitive and long

Response: Thank you for the comments and suggestions. Yes we have struggled a bit on deciding the title and were greedy to try including everything inside. Now the title is revised to more precise and appealing as “Low-dye taping may enhance physical performance and muscle activation in basketball players with overpronated feet” (line 1-2)

Reviewer: The objective of the study is not clearly defined in the abstract. “Effects” of DLT on what? LDT abbreviations are not predefined in the abstract

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have added (LTD) in line 40 and also indicate clearly the effects in line 42-43 as “This study investigated the effects of using low-dye taping on plyometric performance and muscle activities in recreational basketball players with overpronated feet.”

Reviewer: Was there a prior familiarization session for the tests?

Response: Thank you for your question. We did not have additional familiarization session for subjects adapting the use of low-dye taping. But we have given practice trials for the drop jump test (line 216), CMJ (line 235), squat (line 247).

Reviewer: Is there any information on the comfort level of individuals after taping placement? You should Indicate this like a limitation of the study, since the level of comfort could influence the performance achieved.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this. We didn’t measure the comfort level. Therefore we have added such limitation in line 463-465.

Reviewer: To determine the possible influence of fatigue, it would be interesting to report about the time that the individuals were performing the tests. 1, 2 hours or how many hours? What rest time was there between the treatment conditions (NT test and TAP)?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out and your reminder. We have indicated back the resting period (30 min) between conditions in line 152. Yes, we agree there can be carryover fatigue from the testing activities in the former conditions brought to the latter one. Since only a total of 5 drop jump (2 practice + 3 testing trials) and 5 CMJ (2 practice + 3 testing trials), and another 5 trials of free squat (2 practice + 3 repetitions) without failure were performed, whereas we have given resting period between tests and trials in jumping tasks and MVC tests, we assume no, or very minimum fatigue will be induced and cumulated from the first conditions to the latter one. To tackle this we performed counterbalance order for NT and TAP conditions to offset such potential bias.

Reviewer: Line 287: superscript what does it refer to? Check and correct

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. This should be the citation but we used the inconsistent format before. Now rectified as shown in line 279

Reviewer: Table 1. Indicate that the flight time refers to the drop jump, and not to the CMJ. It could confuse the reader.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have indicated “the drop jump” in table 1 for better clarity.

Reviewer: Line 390, 398 If the journal instructions do not prevent it, it is preferable to write the citation number immediately after the authors (et al.)

Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have amended per your suggestions as shown in line 382 and 394 now.

Reviewer: General speaking, the discussion regarding the effects on performance in vertical jumps is too brief. It is necessary to provide more information about this topic. Why does DJ performance improve and not the CMJ, in which there is also a concentric phase and an eccentric phase of the movement? Could being overpronated, neutral or supinator influence the results? What

has been observed in other studies? The following articles will help you in this task.

Struzik A, Stawarz M, Zawadzki J. The effect of low-Dye taping on hopping performance in handball players. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2020;22(3):3-8. PMID: 33518734.

Radford JA, Burns J, Buchbinder R, Landorf KB, Cook C. The effect of low-Dye taping on kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006 Apr;36(4):232-41. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.36.4.232. PMID: 16676873

Response: Thank you raising this out, your resources and suggestions. We have extended the paragraph regarding CMJ performance in line 412-427 using Struzik et al., 2020 and another paper by Ho, Kong, Chong & Lam (2019). We have also extended the content for drop jump part in line 428 to 446 while why DJ and CMJ yieided different results was explained from line 446-451.

Line 391-393. It is speculative. Provides scientific reference and justification

Response: Thank you raising this out. We have amended this part and also give additional justification with reference 38 and 39 to support such speculation (not belief). Line 383-388.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer: consider shortening

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have reviewed this part again and simplified/cut some sentences without affecting the meaning. The number of lines were reduced from a total of 65 lines to now 59 lines.

Reviewer: METHODS: Subjects Exclusion and inclusion criteria must be better described (more information is needed). What were the criteria for overpronation? ND value? If so, please state that in the text and report clear cuttoff for inclusion, so that readers can understand who were the participants in this study.

Response: Thank you for point out this. We have revised this section to state clearly about the exclusion and inclusion criteria including the clear cut-off point line (157-162).

Reviewer: Why you didn’t use contact mat for CMJ as well? And additional don’t you think that force plate would be best choice for both tests? Please elaborate that as potential limitation.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this. We agreed that force-plate is widely used and also kind of accepted as one of the gold-standards in jump measurement. However, recent studies shown variable jump heights using different devices. The contact mat is reliable but can underestimate high performer (Whitmer et al., 2015; PMID: 24852256). Meanwhile a very recent paper by Conceição et al., 2022 (DOI: 10.3390/app12010511) shown high jump height error/inconsistency when compared with 3D measured displacement in all devices. Our study aims to measuring the true jump height value instead of an estimated value and therefore, we use a relatively novel method. But we agree that we should add potential limitation in the discussion section and we have added this in line 455-457.

Reviewer: Statistics: state clearly which effect size was used

Response: Thank you for point out this. It is Cohen’s d and now added this back to line 299.

Reviewer: RESULTS: Table 1 and 2 are nice, clear. However, you are introducing MBI without any explanation what that is. Please correct.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We just found that Will Hopkins recently changed the name from magnitude-based inference to magnitude-based decision and we have also renamed all of them accordingly. Meanwhile we highlight the full form and abbreviation first in line 296 such that readers will not be confused in the result section.

Reviewer: To shorten your findings you have only managed to show that LDT does change ND values in basketball players with overpronation without almost any effect on performance. In light of such findings you should go through your practical application once again to see if you data really support your claims that “Our findings offer conditioning coaches and therapists alternate techniques to reduce lower limb injuries and enhance plyometric and RSI performance. Furthermore, it provides a method for increasing muscle activation of the gluteal group during squat-related exercises without decreasing the CMJ performance.”

Response: We have revised the practical applications to make all the claims more accurate and in line to our data/findings (Line 468-473)

Reviewer: Also there is a study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33518734/ that also showed no effect of LDT on mean jump height, mean ground contact time and mean vertical stiffness.

Response: Thank you for giving us the recent similar study that we haven’t covered. Since in their study, they didn’t specifically recruit subjects with overpronated feet and also didn’t measure any change on the navicular alignment to check the change of medial arch, we have highlighted such differences between their and our studies in our discussion (line 434-441).

.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Sep 2022

Low-dye taping may enhance physical performance and muscle activation in basketball players with overpronated feet

PONE-D-22-03490R1

Dear Dr. Luk,

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,

Emiliano Cè

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-03490R1

Low-dye taping may enhance physical performance and muscle activation in basketball players with overpronated feet

Dear Dr. Luk:

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

Professor Emiliano Cè

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE