Optimizing ankle performance when taped: Effects of kinesiology and athletic taping on proprioception in full weight-bearing stance

Zhi Long, Renwei Wang, Jia Han, Gordon WADDINGTON, Roger Adams, Judith Anson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Objectives To explore the effects of kinesiology taping (KT) and athletic taping (AT) on ankle proprioception when tested in functional, full weight-bearing stance. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Twenty-four healthy university students participated. Proprioception was measured using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA). The three testing conditions: no-taping, KT, AT, and foot tested were randomly assigned. Perceived comfort, support and proprioceptive performance under two taping conditions were recorded. Results Proprioceptive discrimination scores with 95% CIs for no-taping, KT and AT were 0.81 (0.79–0.84), 0.81 (0.79–0.83), and 0.79 (0.77–0.81). Repeated measures ANOVA showed neither any significant difference associated with taping compared with no-taping (p = 0.30), nor any difference between KT and AT (p = 0.19). The group was then divided, according to their no-taping scores, into two sub-groups: with scores below the no-taping mean (n = 13), and above the mean (n = 11). ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (p = 0.008) indicating that above-average no-taping performers proprioception scores were worse when taped, whereas below-average performers improved. For both KT and AT, only ratings of perceived comfort when taped were significantly associated with actual proprioceptive performance (both r > 0.44, p ≤ 0.03). Other perception ratings (support and performance) were significantly inter-correlated (both r > 0.42, p < 0.04), but neither was significantly correlated with actual performance (both p > 0.31). Conclusions Taping of the foot and ankle may amplify sensory input in a way that enhances proprioception of poor performers but produces an input overload that impairs proprioception in those who originally performed well when no-taping. Screening of ankle proprioception may identify those who would benefit most from taping.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)236-240
    Number of pages5
    JournalJournal of Science and Medicine in Sport
    Volume20
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2017

    Fingerprint

    Proprioception
    Weight-Bearing
    Ankle
    Sports
    Foot
    Analysis of Variance
    Cross-Sectional Studies
    Students

    Cite this

    @article{f1d72fa4f4214ca9a6fe40c3fd1049f9,
    title = "Optimizing ankle performance when taped: Effects of kinesiology and athletic taping on proprioception in full weight-bearing stance",
    abstract = "Objectives To explore the effects of kinesiology taping (KT) and athletic taping (AT) on ankle proprioception when tested in functional, full weight-bearing stance. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Twenty-four healthy university students participated. Proprioception was measured using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA). The three testing conditions: no-taping, KT, AT, and foot tested were randomly assigned. Perceived comfort, support and proprioceptive performance under two taping conditions were recorded. Results Proprioceptive discrimination scores with 95{\%} CIs for no-taping, KT and AT were 0.81 (0.79–0.84), 0.81 (0.79–0.83), and 0.79 (0.77–0.81). Repeated measures ANOVA showed neither any significant difference associated with taping compared with no-taping (p = 0.30), nor any difference between KT and AT (p = 0.19). The group was then divided, according to their no-taping scores, into two sub-groups: with scores below the no-taping mean (n = 13), and above the mean (n = 11). ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (p = 0.008) indicating that above-average no-taping performers proprioception scores were worse when taped, whereas below-average performers improved. For both KT and AT, only ratings of perceived comfort when taped were significantly associated with actual proprioceptive performance (both r > 0.44, p ≤ 0.03). Other perception ratings (support and performance) were significantly inter-correlated (both r > 0.42, p < 0.04), but neither was significantly correlated with actual performance (both p > 0.31). Conclusions Taping of the foot and ankle may amplify sensory input in a way that enhances proprioception of poor performers but produces an input overload that impairs proprioception in those who originally performed well when no-taping. Screening of ankle proprioception may identify those who would benefit most from taping.",
    keywords = "Ankle injury, Injury prevention, Movement control, Sport performance",
    author = "Zhi Long and Renwei Wang and Jia Han and Gordon WADDINGTON and Roger Adams and Judith Anson",
    year = "2017",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.024",
    language = "English",
    volume = "20",
    pages = "236--240",
    journal = "Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport",
    issn = "1440-2440",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "3",

    }

    Optimizing ankle performance when taped: Effects of kinesiology and athletic taping on proprioception in full weight-bearing stance. / Long, Zhi; Wang, Renwei; Han, Jia; WADDINGTON, Gordon; Adams, Roger; Anson, Judith.

    In: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. 20, No. 3, 03.2017, p. 236-240.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Optimizing ankle performance when taped: Effects of kinesiology and athletic taping on proprioception in full weight-bearing stance

    AU - Long, Zhi

    AU - Wang, Renwei

    AU - Han, Jia

    AU - WADDINGTON, Gordon

    AU - Adams, Roger

    AU - Anson, Judith

    PY - 2017/3

    Y1 - 2017/3

    N2 - Objectives To explore the effects of kinesiology taping (KT) and athletic taping (AT) on ankle proprioception when tested in functional, full weight-bearing stance. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Twenty-four healthy university students participated. Proprioception was measured using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA). The three testing conditions: no-taping, KT, AT, and foot tested were randomly assigned. Perceived comfort, support and proprioceptive performance under two taping conditions were recorded. Results Proprioceptive discrimination scores with 95% CIs for no-taping, KT and AT were 0.81 (0.79–0.84), 0.81 (0.79–0.83), and 0.79 (0.77–0.81). Repeated measures ANOVA showed neither any significant difference associated with taping compared with no-taping (p = 0.30), nor any difference between KT and AT (p = 0.19). The group was then divided, according to their no-taping scores, into two sub-groups: with scores below the no-taping mean (n = 13), and above the mean (n = 11). ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (p = 0.008) indicating that above-average no-taping performers proprioception scores were worse when taped, whereas below-average performers improved. For both KT and AT, only ratings of perceived comfort when taped were significantly associated with actual proprioceptive performance (both r > 0.44, p ≤ 0.03). Other perception ratings (support and performance) were significantly inter-correlated (both r > 0.42, p < 0.04), but neither was significantly correlated with actual performance (both p > 0.31). Conclusions Taping of the foot and ankle may amplify sensory input in a way that enhances proprioception of poor performers but produces an input overload that impairs proprioception in those who originally performed well when no-taping. Screening of ankle proprioception may identify those who would benefit most from taping.

    AB - Objectives To explore the effects of kinesiology taping (KT) and athletic taping (AT) on ankle proprioception when tested in functional, full weight-bearing stance. Design Cross-sectional study. Methods Twenty-four healthy university students participated. Proprioception was measured using the Active Movement Extent Discrimination Apparatus (AMEDA). The three testing conditions: no-taping, KT, AT, and foot tested were randomly assigned. Perceived comfort, support and proprioceptive performance under two taping conditions were recorded. Results Proprioceptive discrimination scores with 95% CIs for no-taping, KT and AT were 0.81 (0.79–0.84), 0.81 (0.79–0.83), and 0.79 (0.77–0.81). Repeated measures ANOVA showed neither any significant difference associated with taping compared with no-taping (p = 0.30), nor any difference between KT and AT (p = 0.19). The group was then divided, according to their no-taping scores, into two sub-groups: with scores below the no-taping mean (n = 13), and above the mean (n = 11). ANOVA revealed a significant interaction (p = 0.008) indicating that above-average no-taping performers proprioception scores were worse when taped, whereas below-average performers improved. For both KT and AT, only ratings of perceived comfort when taped were significantly associated with actual proprioceptive performance (both r > 0.44, p ≤ 0.03). Other perception ratings (support and performance) were significantly inter-correlated (both r > 0.42, p < 0.04), but neither was significantly correlated with actual performance (both p > 0.31). Conclusions Taping of the foot and ankle may amplify sensory input in a way that enhances proprioception of poor performers but produces an input overload that impairs proprioception in those who originally performed well when no-taping. Screening of ankle proprioception may identify those who would benefit most from taping.

    KW - Ankle injury

    KW - Injury prevention

    KW - Movement control

    KW - Sport performance

    U2 - 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.024

    DO - 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.024

    M3 - Article

    VL - 20

    SP - 236

    EP - 240

    JO - Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

    JF - Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

    SN - 1440-2440

    IS - 3

    ER -