Our results indicate that the use of an ankle tape, during five days, does not affect the neuro-mechanisms of the ankle (balance control and reaction time parameters) in healthy subjects. This may be considered an interesting result for athletes who may think that preventive functional taping may affect motor control. Ankle taping and motor control José Esteves 1 , Filipe Melo 2 , Raul Oliveira 1,2 & Jan Cabri 2 1 Escola Superior de Saúde do Alcoitão, Department of Physiotherapy, Estoril – Portugal 2 Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Department of Sport Sciences, Lisboa – Portugal Conclusions Study A Introduction Contact: José Esteves, MSc, PT Email address: jesteves@essa.pt Phone: +351-214607450 www.essa.pt SUBJECTS: The sample was constituted by 17 collegiate healthy subjects, selected by convenience to a unique single group (Table A.1). Study B SUBJECTS: The sample was constituted by 32 collegiate healthy subjects randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group (Table B.1). Ankle taping, as a therapeutic procedure and a prophylactic strategy, is very commonly used in physiotherapy. Nevertheless, one can ask if its prolonged use is harmful to the neuro-mechanisms of joint protection and to motor control. For a long time, clinical research aimed to investigate the effects of musculoskeletal injury and rehabilitation on joint proprioception mechanisms. High level athletes practice under different constraints such as injury and fatigue. These factors, which may affect motor control and performance, depend mostly on balance control which is related to the base of support (foot/ankle (dis)placement) and can influence rehabilitation and prevention. During sports activities the use of an ankle tape can be uncomfortable and may affect movement control. The objective of this poster was to demonstrate the effect of ankle tape on motor control and balance. Two studies were developed in order to answer the above mentioned concern. N = 32 Groups Experimental Control n 17 15 Sex Female 9 9 Male 8 6 Age (years old) mean (SD) 20 (1,9) 19 (0,9) Height (m) mean (SD) 1,69 (0,08) 1,66 (0,09) Weight (kg) mean (SD) 61,7 (9,7) 63,4 (9,5) Table B.1 – Characteristics of sample PROCEDURES: O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 5 days 5 days 5 days X Ankle tape applied Ankle tape removed O’ 1 O’ 2 O’ 3 O’ 4 Experimental group Control group Figure B.1 – Experimental design All subjects were submitted to four measurements of the peroneal reaction time (PRT) with an interval of five days between each measurement. In each of the four measurement sessions, the subjects were measured three times on the dominant limb, barefoot with no tape (Figure B.1). Figure B.2 – Setup to measure the PRT The subjects of the experimental group used an ankle tape (Figures A.2) during a period of five days between the second (O 2 ) and the third (O 3 ) measurements. No intervention was done on the control group. The setup to measure the PRT was composed by a trap-door and a surface EMG system connected to a computer (PC) through a 12 bit A/D converter (Figure B.2). The PRT is the period of time between the beginning of an ankle sudden inversion movement and the EMG activity onset of the peroneus longus and peroneus brevis muscles. To calculate the PRT it was created an algorithm with MATLAB ® . RESULTS: The descriptive statistics for the PRT can be observed in Graphics B.1 and B.2 for peroneus longus muscle and Graphics B.3 and B.4 for peroneus brevis muscle. Experimental Group - Peroneus Longus 74,12 74,08 73,18 75,10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 O1 O2 O3 O4 Peroneal Reaction Time (ms) Control Group - Peroneus Longus 70,60 71,76 68,36 72,96 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 O1 O2 O3 O4 Peroneal Reaction Time (ms) Experimental Group - Peroneus Brevis 78,45 76,06 77,78 77,82 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 O1 O2 O3 O4 Peroneal Reaction Time (ms) Control Group - Peroneus Brevis 75,89 75,11 73,96 74,09 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 O1 O2 O3 O4 Peroneal Reaction Time (ms) Graphic B.1 – Mean and standard deviation Graphic B.2 – Mean and standard deviation Graphic B.3 – Mean and standard deviation Graphic B.4 – Mean and standard deviation The normality tests showed a normal distribution for the peroneus brevis muscle in both groups but no normality was found for all the measurements of the peroneus longus muscle. When comparing the 4 measurements of the experimental group for the peroneus longus reaction time, the Friedman test showed no significant differences (p>0,05). For the peroneus brevis reaction time, the ANOVA test revealed no significant differences between measurements, either (p>0,05). When comparing the experimental group with the control group for each of the 4 measurements, no significant differences were found (p>0,05). Wearing an ankle tape during five days did not affect the peroneal reaction time. Unique group n = 17 Sex Female 12 Male 5 Age (years old) mean (SD) 21 (1,9) Height (m) mean (SD) 1,68 (0,09) Weight (kg) mean (SD) 58,1 (10,0) PROCEDURES: All subjects were submitted to four measurements of the postural sway with an interval of five days between each measurement (Figure A.1). The subjects were measured on the dominant limb, barefoot with no tape. Table A.1 – Characteristics of sample To measure the postural sway it was used a Balance Master ® system (Neurocom ® International Inc.). The test used was the Unilateral Stance, during 10 seconds, for each measurement, in both conditions with open eyes and closed eyes (Figure A.3). In each of the four measurement sessions, each subject was measured three times in an open eyes condition and then three times in a closed eyes condition. O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4 5 days 5 days 5 days X Ankle tape applied Ankle tape removed Unique single group Figure A.1 – Experimental design RESULTS: The descriptive statistics for the Postural sway can be observed in Graphic A.1 for the open eyes condition and Graphics A.2 for the closed eyes condition . Figure A.3 – Unilateral Stance test on the Balance Master ® All the subjects wore an ankle tape during a period of five days between the second (O 2 ) and the third (O 3 ) measurements. The objective of this tape was to functionally immobilize the ankle on a neutral position, limiting the inversion and eversion movements (Figure A.2). Figure A.2 – Ankle tape Using the ANOVA with the LSD post-hoc test to compare measurements, it was verified that the postural sway increased in the open eyes condition (p<0,05) after 5 days using the ankle tape (O 2 ≠O 3 ). There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements in the closed eyes condition (p>0,05). 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 O1 O2 O3 O4 Postural sway (mm) Open eyes condition 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 O1 O2 O3 O4 Postural sway (mm) Closed eyes condition Graphic A.1 – Mean and standard deviation Graphic A.2 – Mean and standard deviation