Effect of a neoprene sleeve on knee joint kinesthesis: influence of different testing procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Objectives of this study were to examine the perceived sense of knee joint position during selected test situations, and to evaluate the proposed kinesthetic effect of a neoprene knee sleeve during these test situations. METHODS: Fifty-nine young healthy subjects (39 females and 20 males) attempted to replicate target knee joint angles using active and passive knee extension movements completed in sitting (nonaxially loaded) situations, and during active knee extension movements completed in supine while applying a load of 15% body weight through the long axis of the tibia (axially loaded). The criterion measure used was the absolute difference between target and reproduced angles, averaged over five attempts (Average absolute difference: AAD). RESULTS: A three-way ANOVA (two genders by three test situations by two sleeve conditions), with repeated measures on the last two factors, indicated a significant main effect for test situation and sleeve condition (P < 0.05), but not for gender. There was also a significant test situation by sleeve condition interaction (P < 0.05). Post-hoc analysis indicated that the AAD score during the active nonaxially loaded test situation without the sleeve was significantly greater than AAD scores for all other tests (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing differences in knee joint kinesthesis observed during different contexts of limb movement must be recognized before various interventions, including the effect of knee supports, can be adequately interpreted. Because knee joint position sense was attenuated during voluntary active movement, and because this attenuation was ameliorated by the use of a sleeve, future studies evaluating the kinesthetic effects of knee bracing may benefit from using active movements. However, since the sleeve did not affect performance during the axially loaded test situation, future studies should also evaluate the relationship between tests of knee joint kinesthesis and other more functional tests of neuromuscular performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".