Effect of acute ankle experimental pain on lower limb motor control assessed by the modified star excursion balance test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Following most musculoskeletal injuries, motor control is often altered. Acute pain has been identified as a potential contributing factor. However, there is little evidence of this interaction for acute pain following ankle sprains. As pain is generally present following this type of injury, it would be important to study the impact of acute pain on ankle motor control. To do so, a valid and reliable motor control test frequently used in clinical settings should be used. Therefore, the objective of this study was therefore to assess the effect of acute ankle pain on the modified Star Excursion Balance Test reach distance. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, 48 healthy participants completed the modified Star Excursion Balance Test twice (mSEBT1 and mSEBT2). Following the first assessment, they were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: Control (no stimulation), Painless (non-nociceptive stimulation) and Painful (nociceptive stimulation). Electrodes were placed on the right lateral malleolus to deliver an electrical stimulation during the second assessment for the Painful and Painless groups. A generalized estimating equations model was used to compare the reach distance between the groups/conditions and assessments. Results: < 0.001) directions showed a significant reach distance reduction when compared to baseline values only for the Painful group. Regarding the anterior direction, this reduction was larger than the minimal detectable change (5.87%). Conclusion: The presence of acute pain during the modified Star Excursion Balance Test can affect performance and thus might interfere with the participant's lower limb motor control. As none of the participants had actual musculoskeletal injury, this suggests that pain and not only musculoskeletal impairments could contribute to the acute alteration in motor control.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".