Ankle bracing’s effects during a modified agility task: analysis of sEMG, impulse, and time to complete using a crossover, repeated measures design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the effects of no braces, softshell (AE), and semi-rigid (T1) ankle braces on time to complete a modified agility task, as well as lower extremity muscle activity and impulse during the change of direction component of the task. Thirty-nine healthy, active individuals completed a modified agility task under the three brace conditions. Time to complete the modified agility task, along with mean surface electromyographic activity (sEMG) and impulse during the deceleration and propulsive phases of the task were measured. There were no significant differences across conditions with respect to sEMG or impulse measures during the deceleration or propulsive phases. There was a significant change in time to complete the modified agility task, F(2,76) = 17.242, p< 0.001, ηp2 = 0.312. Post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in time to complete the modified agility task when wearing the AE (0.16 (95% CI, 0.062 to 0.265) seconds, p< 0.001) and T1 (0.20 (95% CI, 0.113 to 0.286) seconds, p< 0.001) ankle braces compared to no braces. It appears that performance on a modified agility task may be diminished when wearing ankle braces, although sEMG activity and impulse are unaffected.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".