Reducing Lumbar Flexion in a Repetitive Lifting Task: Comparison of Leukotape and Kinesio Tape and Their Effect on Lumbar Proprioception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigid leukotape applied to the skin of the trunk dorsum, superficial to the lumbar paraspinals, has been shown to reduce lumbar flexion in repetitive lifting, with the potential to reduce the risk of injury in jobs requiring the handling of material. It is unclear which mechanism underpins this reduction, and whether a tape with more elastic properties (i.e., kinesio tape) can yield similar results. In this study, twelve participants were randomly allocated into two groups, and practiced a repetitive lifting task with either leukotape or kinesio tape applied to the skin of their trunk dorsum. The participants also performed a sagittal plane repositioning task to assess changes in lumbar proprioception. The results showed a small reduction in lumbar flexion in the kinesio tape group and a moderate reduction in the leukotape group, and suggested a reduction in repositioning errors in the kinesio tape group only. We suggest that leukotape may correct the movement and improve performance during a flexion-based task, while kinesio tape may improve lumbar proprioception and promote learning. These results have implications for the choice and use of wearable textiles aiming to reduce injury risks in the manual handling industry.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".