Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2026

Evaluating Postural Control and Lower-extremity Muscle Activation in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability
Published on: September 18, 2020
Effects of Dynamic Taping on Dynamic Balance and Proprioception in Recreational Athletes with Chronic Ankle
Yun-Chi Chang1, Po-Tsun Chen2, Wei-Jie Hsu3
1Department of Physical Education Fu Jen Catholic University.
Background:
Chronic ankle instability (CAI) commonly develops after recurrent ankle sprains and is associated with deficits in proprioception and dynamic balance. Sports taping (ST) is frequently used to enhance joint stability but may restrict movement. Dynamic taping (DT) is a novel alternative elastic taping technique designed to provide support without restricting functional motion.
Purpose:
To compare the immediate effects of DT and ST on dynamic balance and proprioception in recreational athletes with CAI.
Study Design:
Single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Methods:
Twenty-eight participants with CAI were randomly assigned to either a DT group (n = 14) or an ST group (n = 14). Outcomes included joint position sense error (reproduction of angle measured using a smartphone App) and dynamic balance (assessed using the single-leg multiple hop stabilization test). Measurements were obtained before and 15 min after taping. A mixed-design, repeated-measures 2-way analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis.
Results:
Both groups exhibited significant improvements in joint position sense error over time (p < 0.05), with no significant group × time interaction (F (1,26) = 0.85, p = 0.366, η² = 0.03). A significant group × time interaction was observed in dynamic balance (F (1,26) = 20.42, p < 0.001, η² = 0.44), indicating that DT may enhance dynamic balance relative to ST.
Conclusions:
DT may enhance dynamic balance more than ST does, although both taping methods improve proprioception in individuals with CAI. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the sample size was small and the assessment was conducted over a short period.
Levels Of Evidence:
Level 2.
