University of Washington

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine

http://rehab.washington.edu/research/articles/showref.asp?id=4706


Search Again

Title:

Response to Tendon Vibration Questions the Underlying Rationale of Proprioceptive Training

Author(s):

Lubetzky-Vilnai A, McCoy SW, Price R, Kartin D

Year:

2017

Publication Info:

Journal of Athletic Training, in press:

Abstract:

CONTEXT: Proprioceptive training on compliant surfaces is used to rehabilitate and prevent ankle sprains. The ability to improve proprioceptive function via such training has been questioned. Achilles tendon vibration is used in motor-control research as a form of proprioceptive stimulus. Using measures of postural steadiness with nonlinear measures to elucidate control mechanisms, tendon vibration can be applied to investigate the underlying rationale of proprioceptive training. OBJECTIVE: To test whether the effect of vibration on young adults' postural control depended on the support surface. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Thirty healthy adults and 10 adults with chronic ankle instability (CAI; age range = 18-40 years). INTERVENTION(S): With eyes open, participants stood in bilateral stance on a rigid plate (floor), memory foam, and a Both Sides Up (BOSU) ball covering a force platform. We applied bilateral Achilles tendon vibration for the middle 20 seconds in a series of 60-second trials and analyzed participants' response from previbration to vibration (pre-vib) and from vibration to postvibration (vib-post). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We calculated anterior-posterior excursion of the center of pressure and complexity index derived from the area under multiscale entropy curves. RESULTS: The excursion response to vibration differed by surface, as indicated by a significant interaction of P < .001 for the healthy group at both time points and for the CAI group vib-post. Although both groups demonstrated increased excursion from pre-vib and from vib-post, a decrease was observed on the BOSU. The complexity response to vibration differed by surface for the healthy group (pre-vib, P < .001). The pattern for the CAI group was similar but not significant. Complexity changes vib-post were the same on all surfaces for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reacted less to ankle vibration when standing on the BOSU as compared with the floor, suggesting that proprioceptive training may not be occurring. Different balance-training paradigms to target proprioception, including tendon vibration, should be explored.

Link to Article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125270


© Copyright 2000-2017 University of Washington