The Effect of Ankle Taping on the Kinematics of the Lower Extremity While Running on Level, Inclined, and Declined Slopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topics in Exercise Science and Kinesiology Volume 2: Issue 1, Article 8, 2021. Therapeutic taping is often prescribed as a treatment for various overuse injuries in the lower extremity. Researchers believe that taping may control the position and alter alignment of the calcaneus to correct foot pathologies when applied to the ankle in runners, however, the utility and specific mechanical effects of different taping techniques remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of ankle taping (no tape (NT), Kinesiotape® (KT), or Leukotape® (LT)) across different slope conditions (level, inclined, and declined) on the kinematics of the hip, knee, and ankle joints. Forty healthy participants (males=18, females=22) ran on a treadmill under different taping and slope conditions. Lower extremity kinematics at the hip, knee, and ankle were analyzed using a Contemplas Templo® 3D motion capture system. Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs; p<0.05) for each kinematic variable, respectively. Data analysis revealed no significant interactions effects between taping conditions and slope on kinematics measured across joints. The results, however, revealed a significant main effect for type of tape for peak knee flexion angle during the stance phase of running with the application of LT, which produced less knee flexion when compared to KT. The results also revealed a significant main effect regarding slope conditions which identified an increase in stride length (SL) while running on a declined slope compared to an inclined slope. Finally, a significant main effect concerning slope conditions was found which identified a decrease in stride frequency (SF) while running on a declined slope compared to a level and inclined slope. The results of this study suggested that the application of LT affected knee flexion during the stance phase of running. This tape outcome may have implications for clinicians, coaches, and patients because they suggest that the application of LT may potentially reduce the risk of overuse injury due to repetitive flexion at the knee joint while running. Additionally, slope outcomes suggest that increased SL and decreased SF may reduce impact forces while running on a declined slope. Future research is required to further explore these preliminary results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".