Journal of bodywork and movement therapies · 2025
Association between joint restriction and postural adjustment patterns in different ankle taping methods.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Daikuya Shinichi, Okayama Yumi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the effects of two taping methods-Taping A (nonelastic, restrictive) and Taping B (elastic, functional)-and a Nontaping condition on joint motion restriction, postural maintenance, and anticipatory postural adjustments (APA). Furthermore, it assessed subjective perceptions, including discomfort and instability.
METHODS: Twenty-two healthy participants, classified by ankle and foot instability, received taping on their nondominant leg. Measurements encompassed ankle and foot range of motion, leg-heel angle, center of pressure (COP) sway, and soleus/tibialis anterior muscle activity during single-leg standing and rapid arm elevation. Subjective discomfort was rated on an 11-point scale.
RESULTS: In the stable group, both taping methods restricted plantar flexion and dorsiflexion, whereas inversion was most restricted by Taping A. Taping A only reduced eversion. In the leg-heel angle, both tapes in weight-bearing reduced valgus, whereas varus was only affected by Taping B in the instability group. Taping A caused greater discomfort in the stable group, whereas the discomfort levels were similar in the instability group. COP sway or muscle activity during single-leg standing demonstrated no differences. However, in the instability group, Taping A caused delayed soleus activation latency compared with Nontaping and Taping B.
CONCLUSION: The taping methods restricted joint movement without affecting postural control. However, Taping B shortened soleus activation latency, reducing the inhibitory effects on APA, whereas Taping A delayed the activation, potentially inhibiting APA-related muscle function. These findings suggest that the taping method influences soleus muscle function in APA.
METHODS: Twenty-two healthy participants, classified by ankle and foot instability, received taping on their nondominant leg. Measurements encompassed ankle and foot range of motion, leg-heel angle, center of pressure (COP) sway, and soleus/tibialis anterior muscle activity during single-leg standing and rapid arm elevation. Subjective discomfort was rated on an 11-point scale.
RESULTS: In the stable group, both taping methods restricted plantar flexion and dorsiflexion, whereas inversion was most restricted by Taping A. Taping A only reduced eversion. In the leg-heel angle, both tapes in weight-bearing reduced valgus, whereas varus was only affected by Taping B in the instability group. Taping A caused greater discomfort in the stable group, whereas the discomfort levels were similar in the instability group. COP sway or muscle activity during single-leg standing demonstrated no differences. However, in the instability group, Taping A caused delayed soleus activation latency compared with Nontaping and Taping B.
CONCLUSION: The taping methods restricted joint movement without affecting postural control. However, Taping B shortened soleus activation latency, reducing the inhibitory effects on APA, whereas Taping A delayed the activation, potentially inhibiting APA-related muscle function. These findings suggest that the taping method influences soleus muscle function in APA.