CONSTRUCTING A SYSTEM TO EVALUATE EFFECTS

OF SUPPORT TAPING FOR ANKLE INVERSION SPRAIN

USING 3-D MOTION AND PLANTER PRESSURE

Jun Akazawa, Takaharu Ikeuchi, Takemasa Okamoto

Meiji University of Integrative Medicine, Honoda, Hiyoshi-cho, Nantan-shi, Kyoto, Japan

Ryuhei Okuno

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Setsunan University, Neyagawa, Osaka, Japan

Keywords: Plantar pressure, Motion analysis, Ankle sprain, Taping.

Abstract: In the field of sports science，support taping for ankle inversion sprain has often been used. The motion of

ankle joint would be limited with support taping for ankle inversion. In order to clarify the effects of the

ankle taping and to examine characteristics of the taping, we had constructed a system to measure the

distance between the metatarsus first head and the floor with 3D motion analysis system, and to measure the

planter pressure patterns during the ankle inversion with pressure monitoring system. When the eight

subjects were instructed to inverse their ankles as much as possible with and without taping, there was a

difference in the distances between taping and no taping.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the field of sports and clinical medicine, support

taping for ankle inversion sprain has been often used

in case the ankle was unstable. (Morrison and

Kaminski, 2007).

First, not only medical techniques but also

engineering science techniques, there are various

reports in order to evaluate the ankle inversion sprain

mechanism. Chan and coworker studied that they

had instructed subjects to stand at the two rotatable

plates. (Chan et al, 2008). And then, they had

measured subject’s foot angles of extension and

flexion at the each plate angle. Wei-Hsiu and

coworker studied unilateral ankle strength ratio of

inversion and eversion. (Wei-Hsiu et al, 2009).

Wright and coworker used muscle model with

computer simulations in order to evaluate the

mechanism of ankle sprain occurrences and the

relationship between ankle sprain occurrence and

foot position at touch-down phase. (Wright et al,

2000). On the other hand, Willems and coworker

studied gait patterns and foot biomechanics with 3-D

analysis and planter pressure distribution, and

indicated that it was necessary to pay the special

attention to gait patterns and foot biomechanics for

effective prevention and rehabilitation of ankle

sprain. (Willems et al, 2005).

To turn to the next point, there were researches

about ankle taping to prevent the ankle inversion

sprain. O'Sullivan and coworker had studied how the

ankle taping effects the planter pressure in walking.

(O'Sullivan et al, 2008). Recurrence of ankle sprain

was common among athletes. Even though ankle

taping reduces the risk of injury, its mechanism

remains unclear. Sawkins and coworker studied

placebo effects of the ankle taping. (Sawkins et al,

2007).

A purpose of taping is to limit the ankle

movement. We are to evaluate the effects of support

taping for ankle inversion sprain in the static position.

To begin with, in this study, we decided to evaluate

the effects of support taping for ankle inversion

sprain in the static position. We developed methods

with which to measure and analyze the degree of

ankle inversion, the planter pressure, and the foot

contact area.

522

Akazawa J., Ikeuchi T., Okamoto T. and Okuno R..

CONSTRUCTING A SYSTEM TO EVALUATE EFFECTS OF SUPPORT TAPING FOR ANKLE INVERSION SPRAIN USING 3-D MOTION AND

PLANTER PRESSURE.

DOI: 10.5220/0003275605220525

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Bio-inspired Systems and Signal Processing (BIOSIGNALS-2011), pages 522-525

ISBN: 978-989-8425-35-5

 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

2 METHOD

[Measurement equipment system] Fig. 1 shows the

system which evaluated the effects of ankle taping.

This system consisted of 3-D motion capture system

(OPTOTRAK CERTUS, Northern Digital Inc.),

planter pressure measuring system (BIG-MAT, Nitta

Corporation), and analyzing system. On calculation,

we used MATLAB (Version 7.2.0.232 (R2006a)).

Kinematic data was acquired using an

OPTOTRAK motion analysis system. This system

helps to calculate skin marker positions. The

coordinate system in the OPTOTRAK was

explained: The direction that moves from the left to

the right is x axis. A vertical direction to ground is y

axis. The direction going directly to x axis and y axis

is z axis. In this system, we were able to calculate

the distance between the light source of

OPTOTRAK and markers. In that case, if the

OPTOTRAK was located on vertical position to the

ground, the marker was sometimes not recognized,

so the OPTOTRAK was placed at slope.

Markers were positioned on four points (A,B,C,D)

in the floor plane, right and left coracoides (E,F)

measuring the shake of the body, 10 cm under the

centre of patella measuring the movement of the

knee joint (G), the middle point of medial malleolus

and lateral malleolus which measured the shake of

foot joint (H), metatarsus-fourth head (J) and

metatarsus-first head (I) which marker helped us to

evaluate the degree of ankle inversion.

3D motion data was collected at 50 Hz for 10 sec

while the subject was performing the instructed

motion. BIG-MAT data was collected at a frequency

of 50 Hz. Spatial resolution was 10×10 mm.

On the planter pressure system, we used sensor

mat which consisted of 1929 × 880 pressure

detecting cells, and measured the pressure during the

subjects were standing and doing the ankle inversion.

Measurement range was from 0.3 mgf to 3.0 kgf, and

the resolution was 0.0140 kgf. Planter contact areas

were the areas which were the right side of the foot

detected with planter pressure system, and then the

planter pressure was this right side pressure. We

made the function which extracted the planter

pressure of the right foot using the mask processing.

【Taping】

The taping method is described as follows:

underwrap (70 mm wide), cotton tape (38 mm wide),

and elastic tape (50 mm wide) were used.

The order of taping is described as follows:

underwrap taping, anchor, star up, anchor, horseshoe,

circular, heel lock, figure of eight, anchor, and

overlap were applied. Taping was applied only to

their right foot.

【Measurement method】

Eight healthy right-handed subjects volunteered to

participate in this study. Subjects were obtained

informed consent. Subjects with an adverse skin

reaction, with a lower limb injury in the past six

months were excluded. Measurement time was 10

sec. The subjects were performing the instructed

motion. The things which we instructed the subjects

are described as follows:

Figure 1: Outline of measurement apparatus.

(1) The subject performed first 3 cycles with taping

and next 3 cycles without taping. The subjects

were instructed to expand their foot at the

breadth of their shoulders level in standing

position, and look at a distant to prevent them

from looking down at the floor.

(2) They inverse the ankle as far as they can, and

they keep this position until the end of

measurement.

Needing to know the time when subjects inverted

their ankle as far as they could at first, we calculated

this time with differential and smoothing filters (Xu

and Xiao, 2000).

3 RESULTS

The distance from the metatarsus first head to the

floor using the way we developed is shown in Fig. 2.

The line was observed without taping, the dot line

CONSTRUCTING A SYSTEM TO EVALUATE EFFECTS OF SUPPORT TAPING FOR ANKLE INVERSION

SPRAIN USING 3-D MOTION AND PLANTER PRESSURE

523

was observed with taping. At 0-2 s the distance was

almost constant, because the subject kept their

standing position. After 2 s, the more he inversed the

inversion, the more the distance increased. About 3 s

he felt that it was difficult for him to increase the

degree of the ankle inversion so he kept this position

until the end of measurement. That was why the

angle was almost constant. On this result, the

threshold time without taping was 3.36 sec, and that

time with taping was 3.66 sec.

Figure 2: Distance from the metatarsus first head to the

floor.

Figure 3: Contact areas of right foot.

Contact areas of right foot with ankle inversion were

shown in Fig. 3. We normalized the foot contact

areas of the right foot dividing by the foot contact

areas of both right and left sides at their static

position. Solid line shows the foot contact areas

without taping, and the dot line shows the areas with

taping. At the start of the experiment, the foot

Figure 4: Planter pressure of right foot.

contact areas with taping were smaller than the areas

without taping. The subject kept their standing

position at first, so the foot contact areas without

taping were almost constant. After that, the more he

increased the degree of the ankle inversion, the more

foot contact areas with and without taping were

decreased.

About 3 sec, he realized that it was difficult for

him to more increase the degree of ankle inversion.

So after that the foot contact areas were almost

constant.

In this study, we normalized planter pressure

dividing by their weight (Fig. 4). Solid line shows

the foot contact area without taping, the dot line

shows the area with taping. The subject keeping their

standing position and didn’t move at 0-2 s, the

planter pressure wasn’t constant. Without taping, the

more the degree of ankle inversion increased, the

more the planter pressure decreased. After 3 s the

subject wasn’t used to try to increase the degree at

first, so the pressure was constant until the 7th s.

Then, he got used to increase the angle. There was

almost no planter pressure difference between with

or without taping.

Figure 5: Distance from the metatarsus first head to the

floor for taped and untapped conditions.

Figure 6: Foot contact area for taped and untapped

conditions.

We show the distance from the threshold time to

the end of the measurement in Fig. 5. Average

distance of eight subjects without taping was 18.92,

and the standard deviation was 3.64. Average

distance of eight subjects with taping was 11.59, and

the standard deviation was 6.12.

The distance from the metatarsus first head to the

floor without taping group (18.92 ± 3.64) was

significantly larger than that for the taping groups

(11.59 ± 6.12, respectively, p < 0.05).

Untaped taped

Height

withandwithouttaping

Distancefromthemetatarsusfirsthead

tothefloor

＊

＊p<0.05

100

Untaped taped

Area

withandwithouttaping

Footcontactarea

BIOSIGNALS 2011 - International Conference on Bio-inspired Systems and Signal Processing

524

In Fig. 6, we calculated the foot area. The average

area without taping was 57.65, and standard

deviation was 21.41. The average area with taping

was 54.53, and standard deviation was 23.31.

Broadly speaking, there seemed to be difference.

Thought, we didn’t have 5 % significant difference

between no taping and taping with t-test.

Figure 7: Pressure for taped and untapped conditions.

In Fig. 7, we calculated the pressure of eight

subjects. The average pressure without taping was

5.65 [N/kg], and standard deviation was 2.10 [N/kg].

The average pressure with taping was 5.34 [N/kg],

and standard deviation was 2.28 [N/kg]. We didn’t

have 5 % significant difference between no taping

and taping with t-test.

4 DISCUSSION

Results suggested that the time length from the start

time of ankle inversion to the threshold time

depended on their feelings of insecurity, and the

more subjects felt insecurity of their ankle inversion,

the more their pressure was decreased.

In Fig. 3, strange to say, the degree of the ankle

inversion has little to do with the foot contact area.

That must be why at the maximum inversed potion,

right side of the right foot contacted at the floor.

The result of Fig. 4 indicated that the planter

pressure began to increase at 6-7 s. This indicated

that at first he couldn’t help being feared and kept

the inversed position for a few seconds, which made

him feel like reducing the fear.

5 CONCLUSIONS

1) In this study, we develop methods to evaluate

the effects of support taping for ankle inversion

sprain in the static position. Analysing the degree of

ankle inversion, we calculated the distance from

metatarsus first head to the floor, the planter pressure,

and the foot contact areas with eight subjects.

2) Average distance of eight subjects without

taping was 18.92, and the standard deviation was

3.64. Average distance of eight subjects with taping

was 11.59, and the standard deviation was 6.12.

The distance from the metatarsus first head to the

floor without taping group (18.92 ± 3.64) was

significantly larger than that for the taping groups

(11.59 ± 6.12, respectively, p < 0.05).

The average area without taping was 57.65, and

standard deviation was 21.41. The average area with

taping was 54.53, and standard deviation was 23.31.

The average pressure without taping was 5.65

[N/kg], and standard deviation was 2.10 [N/kg]. The

average pressure with taping was 5.34 [N/kg], and

standard deviation was 2.28 [N/kg].

REFERENCES

Chan, Y. Y., Fong, D. T., Yung, P. S., Fung, K. Y., Chan,

K. M., 2008. A mechanical supination sprain simulator

for studying ankle supination sprain kinematics, J.

Biomech. vol.41, no.11: 2571-2574.

Morrison, K. E., Kaminski, T. W, 2007. Foot

characteristics in association with inversion ankle

injury. J Athl Train, vol.42, no.1: 135-142.

O'Sullivan, K., Kennedy, N., O'Neill, E., Ni Mhainin, U.,

2008. The effect of low-dye taping on rearfoot motion

and plantar-pressure during the stance phase of gait.

BMC Musculoskelet Disord, vol.9: 1-9.

Sawkins, K., Refshauge, K., Kilbreath, S., Raymond, J.,

2007. The placebo effect of ankle taping in ankle

instability. Med Sci Sports Exerc. vol.39, no.5: 781-

787.

Wei-Hsiu, L., Ying-Fang, L., City Chin-Cheng, H., Alex,

L., 2009. Ankle eversion to inversion strength ratio

and static balance control in the dominant and non-

dominant limbs of young adults. Journal of Science

and Medicine in Spor. vol.12, no.1: 42-49.

Willems, T., Witvrouw, E., Delbaere, K., De Cock, A., De

Clercq, D., 2005. Relationship between gait

biomechanics and inversion sprains. Gait Posture. vol.

21, no.4: 379-387.

Wright, C., Neptune, R., van den Bogert, A., Nigg, M.,

2000. The influence of foot positioning on ankle

sprains, Journal of Biomechanics. vol.33: 513-519.

Xu, Z., Xiao, S., 2000. Digital filter design for peak

detection of surface EMG. J Electromyogr Kinesiol.

Vol.10: 275-281.

Untaped taped

N/kg

withandwithouttaping

Pressure

CONSTRUCTING A SYSTEM TO EVALUATE EFFECTS OF SUPPORT TAPING FOR ANKLE INVERSION

SPRAIN USING 3-D MOTION AND PLANTER PRESSURE

525