Vol.1, No.2, 10-16 (2013) Open Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojtr.2013.12003
Effects of semi-rigid ankle orthoses on tasks
related to athletic performance following a
bout of fatiguing exercise
James A. Y aggie1, W. Jeffrey Armstrong2*, Christina Smith3, Andrew Miller3,
Rebekah Trimbach3
1Department of Health and Human Performance, The University of Findlay, Findlay, USA
2Department of Health & Physical Education, Western Oregon University, Monmouth, USA;
*Corresponding Author:
3Department of Physical Therapy, The University of Findlay, Findlay, USA
Received 1 October 2013; revised 1 November 2013; accepted 12 November 2013
Copyright © 2013 James A. Yaggie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
Despite the perceived protection of semi-rigid
ankle orthoses (SRAO), coaches and clinicians
are often concerned w ith the restriction that the
SRAO may pose on functional performance. The
purpose of this study was to determine the ef-
fect of SRAO on performance-selected tasks,
following fatiguing activity. Twenty active, col-
lege-age subjects (22.7 ± 1.2 years; weight 71.7 ±
13.0 kg; height 171.7 ± 9.4 cm), without lower
extremity trauma within 2 years, consented par-
ticipation. Randomized trials for balance (star
excursion balance test (SEBT)), agility (shuttle
run (SR)), and power (vertical jump (VJ)) were
compared between 4 conditions [fatigued,
braced (FB); fatigued, un-braced (FUB); non-
fatigued, braced (NFB); non-fatigued, un-braced
(NFUB)]. Participants were bilaterally fitted with
a well-known, commercially available SRAO for
all braced trials. Two Wingate supramaximal ex-
ercise bouts were used as the fatiguing protocol.
RMANOVA was performed for each functional
test to determine main effect s (SPSS, IL; α = 0.05
for all tests). No main effects for VJ & SR were
observed under any of the bracing conditions.
Main effect for bracing was observed for the
SEBT. Tukey p airwise comparisons revealed that
there were significant increases in distance
reached for the posterior-medial direction (NFB
= 0.91 cm ± 0.2; FB = 0.95 ± 0.2; p = 0.046) and
medial direction (NFB = 0.74 cm ± 0.1; FB = 0.79
± 0.1; p = 0.039) during the braced conditions.
Although subjects reported that the SRAO re-
stricted ROM during most SEBT directions in-
volving inversion and eversion, overall perfor-
mance was not hindered by the application of
the brace. Further, the only main effects ob-
served with functional performance involved in-
creases in SEBT that cou ld likely be attributed to
comfort and confidence of motion while wearing
an ankle device. It was concluded that articu-
lated SRAO effectively limits ankle mobility, but
does not appear to hinder athletic performance
following a fatiguing bout.
Keywords: Agility; Ankle Braci ng; Balance; Fatigue;
Stability; Vertical Jump
1. INTRODUCTION
Athletes rely heavily on stability and balance for a th l et i c
performance. Unfortunately, the movements required in
some sports leave athletes at risk for injury. A review
conducted by Fong et al. [1] examined the distribution of
injuries in athletics via meta-analysis and concluded that
the ankle was the commonest body segment injured in
sports [1]. Further, lateral ankle sprains can account for
15% to 30% of all injuries in sports [2]. Risk factors for
such injuries include participation in sports that require
jumping, landing, and cutting maneuvers, and the risk for
injury is increased more with a history of previous ankle
sprain(s) [3]. Moreover, the risk for injury may increase
late in activity when the athlete becomes physically fa-
tigued [4]. This is likely due to instability at the ankle
and more proximal joints as the result of decreased pro-
prioception [ 5, 6] .
Consequently, ankle bracing has become increasingly

J. A. Y aggie et al. / Open Journal of Therapy and R ehabilitation 1 (2013) 10-16 11
prevalent in sports [7-9] and has lead clinicians, coaches
and athletes to utilize ankle strapping as a preventative
measure. The objective of ankle bracing is to provide
mechanical support at the joint b y limiting inversion and
eversion but not restrict dorsiflexion and plantarflexion,
thus allowing the athlete to maintain function for perfor-
mance [2]. Clinical methods to stabilize the ankle include
the use of tape, ACE bandages, soft braces, semi-rigid
braces, and rigid braces are available depending on the
types of movement needed at the ankle for competition
[2,10]. However, as the amount of stability increases at
the joint, the mobility at the joint decreases, and most
athletes have personal preferences for brace use and type.
According to Rosenbaum [2], semi-rigid braces provide
the most mechanical support at the ankle secondary to
rigid braces but still retain functional medial to lateral
mobility.
Among the types and styles of commercially available
ankle orthoses, the Active Ankle® (Active Ankle Sys-
tems, Louisville, KY) is a lightweight, comfortable, du-
rable brace, and has a quick-fit, single strap system that
adjusts to both high and low top shoes. The brace offers
flexibility, security, and is said to provide more support
than the leading air-stirrup brace, the leading lace-up
brace, and adhesive tape [11]. Although, Shaw et al. [12]
found the lace-up brace performed better than the Active
Ankle® brace when testing for dynamic stability using
“Time to Stabilization”, others have found that the Ac-
tive Ankle® provides a great deal of mechanical support.
Lindey et al. [13] examined functional range of mo-
tion of the ankle in semi-rigid braces and adhesive tapes.
The three semi-rigid braces tested were the Active
Ankle®, Airstirrup Ankle® (Aircas t In c . , S u mmit, NJ) and
Ankle Li game nt Prot ecto r® (Donjoy Orthopedics, Carlsbad,
CA). Out of the braces and adhesive tape, the Active
Ankle® brace had the best maximum dorsiflexion, plantar
flexion and functional range of motion [13].
Bot and van Mechelen [14] studied the impact ankle
bracing on performance of vertical jump, running speed,
agility, and broad jump. The authors concluded that an-
kle bracing has no effect on performance of those four
athletic tasks [14]. However, the researchers did suggest
that if the ankle joint range of motion (ROM) is re-
stricted by the brace, athletic performance will diminish
[14]. Similarly, Cordova et al. [7] conducted a meta-
analysis assessing the effects of ankle braces on func-
tional performance, as well as, the kinetics and kinemat-
ics of the joint. These results suggested that ankle brac-
ing produces minimal to small decrements on lower ex-
tremity functional performance [7]. The authors did note
negative effects on examining vertical jump performance
when ankle plant ar-fle xion was res t rict e d t hrough a brace.
The impact of ankle instability becomes particularly
noticeable when the muscles surrounding the joint be-
come fatigued. Gribble et al. [6] noted that fatigue may
impair proprioceptive and kinesthetic properties of the
joints because fatigue increases the threshold of the mus-
cle spindle discharge which disturbs afferent feedback
thereby altering joint awareness. Without adequate mus-
cle spindle reaction, the joint and associated structures
are subject to excessive stretch and injury.
It is been hypothesized that ankle braces may improve
dynamic stability with the onset of fatigue [12]. Shaw et
al. [12] used force plates to determine if braces decrease
time to stabilization in fatigued subjects. The results
showed that both the lace-up ankle brace (Sweede-O®,
Sweede-O, Inc., North Branch, MN) and the semi-rigid
brace (Active Ankle®) had a decrease in time to stabili-
zation [12].
Statement of the Problem. Bracing may offer support
to the ankle joint at a time when muscular support in
impeded during the fatigued state. Further, the qualities
and properties of ankle strapping may lead to a restric-
tion of the joint with little impact on athletic perfor-
mance. However, there is limited research investigating
the functionality of a brace following exhausting bouts of
lower extremity activity. The present stud y evaluated the
effects on various athletic demands before and after fa-
tigue, as well as in braced and unbraced conditions.
2. METHODS
Subjects. Twenty healthy, college age subjects (11 fe-
males and 9 males; mean age = 23 ± 1 years; mean
weight = 71.7 ± 13 kg; mean height = 171.7 ± 9.4 cm)
were recruited through convenience sampling and con-
sented to participation thro ugh completion IRB app roved
informed consent documentation in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were recreation-
ally active, participating in a minimum of 20 - 30 min-
utes of activity at least three times a week.
Exclusion criteria included acute lower extremity inju -
ries, severe ankle injuries within the past two years or
any lower extremity surgeries that would inhibit the cur-
rent research study. Additionally, participants were ex-
cluded if they have any medical conditions, i.e., cardio-
vascular or vestibular, that could be exacerbated by the
fatiguing protocol in this study.
Bracing. The Active Ankle® T-2 ankle orthosis
(Cramer Products, Inc., KS, Figure 1) was applied bilat-
erally following the manufacturer’s guidelines. Range of
motion (ROM) measurements were taken at the begin-
ning of each testing session and documented to note the
restrictions created by the brace. On the days where the
brace was worn, measurements were taken before and
after brace application. Measurements were also taken at
the end of each testing session in order to account for
loosening of the brace. The motions measured included
ankle dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, inversion, and ever-

J. A. Y aggie et al. / Open Journal of Therapy and R ehabilitation 1 (2013) 10-16
12
Figure 1. Activ e Ankle T-2 brace.
sion. Measurement protocol followed the guidelines from
Norkin and White [15]. The same researcher applied the
brace and assessed ROM with the same 6-inch goniome-
ter for each subject. The brace was reapplied if it did not
produce appropriate restrictions. Once the brace was ap-
plied correctly, it was not adjusted during testing .
Fatigue Protocol. Subjects performed two Wingate
(WAnT) supramaximal exercise bouts separated by a 2-
minute rest as the fatigue protocol. This was performed
on a modified Monark cycle ergometer (Model #858E,
Stockholm, Sweden) at a resistance of 0.075 kilopounds
per kilogram of body weight in order to standardize the
fatigue method. Each WAnT was 30 seconds in length
and was performed at maximal effort. For the purposes
of this study the investigators chose to fatigue the entire
lower extremity following WAnT protocol used by Yag-
gie and Armstrong [5]. Other studies have used localized
fatigue protocols, however strictly fatiguing the ankle
joint does not account for any compensation by more
proximal joints and musculature [5]. Also, fatiguing the
entire lower extremity more closely mimics the condi-
tions that may occur within athletic competition. Using
supramaximal WAnT exercise bouts Yaggie and Arm-
strong [5] found significant postural sway and instability
post-fatigue. Furthermore, the WAnT uses an ergometer
that requires concentric patterns of muscle activity to
fatigue the muscle rather than eccentric muscle activity
that has been shown to produce damage that further re-
duces forceful contractions and delays recovery [5].
Performance Tests. The subjects participated in tests
of athletic performance on two non-consecutive days
while wearing an ankle brace during fatigued and non-
fatigued conditions on one day and the same tests were
performed without the brace in fatigued an d non-fatigued
states on the other day. Half of the subjects wore the
brace on the first day, while the other half of the subjects
performed the tests without the brace. The order of per-
formance testing [Countermovement Vertical Jump (CMJ),
Shuttle Run (SR), and Star Balance Excursion Test
(SEBT)] was randomized through a Balance Latin Sq uare
design.
The CMJ was performed following the guidelines set
up by Brown and Ferrigno [16]. This tested the effect of
ankle bracing and fatigue on the individual’s power per-
formance. A countermovement jump was performed with
the subject standing with feet shoulder-width apart. The
subject was instructed to quickly squat down, flexing
hips and knees to 90˚, to apply a pre-stretch to the mus-
cles. The subject then forcefully jumped up, reaching up
with the dominant hand with the aim of moving as many
levers as possible. Subjects performed 3 jumps with one-
minute rest time between trials, and the best attempt was
recorded.
The 20-yard shuttle was also performed following the
guidelines set up by Brown and Ferrigno [16]. This eva-
luated the effects of ankle bracing and fatigue on the
individual’s speed and agility performance. Subjects be-
gan with feet hip-width apart, straddling a starting line.
Five-yards to the right and 5-yards to the left tape mark-
ers were in place for the individuals to touch. Subjects
turned to the right, ran 5-yards and touc hed the line with
his/her right hand. He/she then turn back to the left, ran
10 yards to the line passing the starting point, and
touched the line with his/her left hand. Lastly, the subject
turned back to the right and ran 5-yards through the
start/finish line (Figure 2). The recorder started the stop-
watch upon verbalizing “Go” and stopped it when the
subject crossed the start/finish line at the end. To prevent
inter-rater differences, the same researcher described and
recorded results for each subject. The 3 trials were per-
formed with a rest time of one minute between trials.
Times were recorded and averaged together in an attempt
to eliminate human error as there was risk for a time de-
lay in the start and stop of a hand-held stopwatch.
The SEBT was incorporated to assess the subject’s
balance. The SEBT was set up with a line drawn in eight
directions, with a 45-degree angle to the next direction
10-yards
Start/Stop line
10-yards
Figure 2. 20-yard shuttle run.

J. A. Y aggie et al. / Open Journal of Therapy and R ehabilitation 1 (2013) 10-16 13
(Figure 3). The subjects stood on their dominant leg at
the intersection of the eight lines, while extending the
opposite leg as far as possible in each of the eight direc-
tions: anterior, anterior-medial, medial, posterior-medial,
posterior, posterior-lateral, lateral, and anterior-lateral
directions [17]. Each subject completed the SEBT three
times, performing a reach in all directions per trial. To
prevent inter-rater differences, the same researcher marked
and recorded the subjects’ distance. The average distance
in each direction was calculated. If the subject’s foot
touched the ground, a loss of balance was noted. A rest
break of one minute betwee n e ach set was allot ted.
Following data collection, a RM-ANOVA was per-
formed for each functional test to determine main effects
of bracing and fatigue. If main effects were noted, pair-
wise comparisons were run to determine the specific
differences in each functional performance. All tests
were statistically scrutinized (α = 0.05) using SPSS for
Windows (V. 17, Chicago, IL).
The various testing conditions are abbreviated as fol-
lows:
non-fatigued braced = NFB
non-fatigue unbraced = NFUB
fatigue braced = FB
fatigued unbraced = FUB
3. RESULTS
Countermovement Jump Height (CMJH). Mean
CMJH (±S.D.) are reported in Table 1. On average, the
height of the jump trials after fatigue were less than that
of the non-fatigued trials, yet the values were not sig-
nificantly different (p = 0.269; power = 0.91). Bracing
the ankle did not have a sign ificant effect in either condi-
tion (p = 0.329 and p = 0.127 for FB and FUB, respec-
tively). Although, the mean jump height (47.59 ± 15.6
cm) for FB was higher than that of the FUB trials (45.61
± 14.2 cm) these numbers were not statistically signifi-
Figure 3. Performance of the SEBT.
cant (p = 0.093). However, this may indicate that the
bracing may attenuate the effects of fatigue. The NFUB
jumps averaged 49.42 ± 15.3 cm and NFB jumps aver-
aged 48.17 ± 16.4 cm with no significant difference to
note.
Shuttle Run (SR). Mean SR scores (±S.D.) are re-
ported in Table 1. No significant difference existed be-
tween the two non-fatigued conditions in the amount of
time it took to complete the 20-yard shuttle run (p =
0.632). The mean time for the subjects to complete the
shuttle test during NFB conditions was 5.57 ± 0.8 sec-
onds and the mean for NFUB conditions was 5.62 ± 0.9
seconds. There also lacked a significant difference be-
tween the fatigued conditions (p = 0.377). The average
time for FB trails was 6.02 ± 0.9 seconds while th e mean
for FUB trials was 5.89 ± 0.8 seconds. According to
these data, it did not appear that wearing an ankle brace
aided nor hindered performance under fatigued or rested
conditions. However, the fatigued trials, as predicted,
were consistently slower than all non-fatigued trials
(NFUB v. FUB (p = 0.038); NFB v. F B (p = 0.0010)).
Star Balance Excursion Test (SEBT). Results of the
SEBT are displayed above in Table 2. Fatigue trials dif-
fered from the non-fatigued trials (braced vs. unbraced
conditions). There was no main effect in the following
directions; Anterior, Anterior Lateral, Lateral, Posterior
Lateral, Posterior, and Anterior Medial (p  0.05). There
was a significant increase in Posterior Medial ( p = 0.046)
following the fatiguing bout. Independent t-tests were
run on the data to assess these potential differences in-
dependent of the more homogenous conditions. The re-
Table 1. Countermovement Jump Height (CMJH) and Shuttle
Run (SR) ± S.D.
NFUB FUB NFB FB
CMJH (cm)49.42 ± 15.345.61 ± 14.2 48.17 ± 16.4 47.59 ± 15.6
SR (s) 5.62 ± 0.95.89 ± 0.8 5.57 ± 0.8 6.02 ± 0.9
Table 2. Mean SEBT (±S.D.) normalized by subject leg length.
NFUB FUB NFB FB
Anterior 0.89 ± 0.10.90 ± 0.1 0.88 ± 0.10.90 ± 0.1
Anterior-Lateral0.94 ± 0.10.96 ± 0.1 0.93 ± 0.10.94 ± 0.1
Lateral 0.96 ± 0.10.97 ± 0.1 0.94 ± 0.10.95 ± 0.1
Posterior-Lateral1.02 ± 0.11.03 ± 0.1 0.99 ± 0.11.01 ± 0.2
Posterior 1.01 ± 0.11.04 ± 0.1 1.02 ± 0.21.03 ± 0.2
Posterior-Medial0.89 ± 0.10.92 ± 0.1 0.91 ± 0.20.95 ± 0.2
Medial 0.74 ± 0.10.76 ± 0.1 0.77 ± 0.10.79 ± 0.1
Anterior-Medial0.80 ± 0.10.82 ± 0.1 0.79 ± 0.10.82 ± 0.1

J. A. Y aggie et al. / Open Journal of Therapy and R ehabilitation 1 (2013) 10-16
14
sults indicated the NFB was significantly less than the
FB condition (p = 0.013). The significant difference be-
tween the extreme conditions (p = 0.046) was in favor of
NFUB condition.
Range of Motion. As anticipated, the brace effectively
restricted inversion and eversion upon application but
had minimal effect on dorsiflexion and plantarflexion.
The brace remained intact throughout the trials without
adjustment by the particip ant or the tester. Upon re-mea-
sure of the ROM after participation it was noted that the
restriction applied in all directions decreased (p  0.05,
refer to Table 3). No other significant results were ob-
served.
4. DISCUSSION
Ankle bracing is becoming increasingly more preva-
lent in the prevention of injuries in athletics today. Dur-
ing athletic events power, agility, and balance are impor -
tant for optimal performance. This study investigated the
effects of ankle bracing on performance during tasks fo-
cusing on the above demands before and after fatigue.
Following the aforementioned exhausting conditions no
significant differences between braced and non-braced
conditions during the shuttle run or the vertical jump
were found.
Results from these two tests partially support the hy-
potheses. It was hypothesized that NFB conditions would
have no effect on performance. During the vertical jump,
shuttle run, and SEBT performance was not significan tly
affected when comparing NFB. These findings help us to
conclude that bracing does not affect an athlete’s per-
formance during athletic events even late in participa-
tion.
One of our hypotheses stated that FB conditions would
decrease performance when compared to NFUB condi-
tions. However, when compared to FUB, it was believed
that the ankle brace would allow an individual to perform
at a higher level in times of fatigue. The results did not
support this hypothesis. No significant differences were
found when comparing results for the vertical jump or
the shuttle run. With this finding the investigators are
unable to make any conclusions stating that bracing as-
sists with power and agility performance at times of fa-
tigued. Perhaps the fatiguing bout did not sufficiently
exhaust the subject pool to a degree that the effect of
Table 3. Range of motion measurements pre-post trials (±S.D).
Plantarflexion Dorsiflexion Inversion Eversion
No brace 26.3 ± 7.8 31.1 ± 8.4 30.2 ± 11.8 30.6 ± 9.3
Brace, pre-test 27.6 ± 7.5 30.0 ± 9.0 14.3 ± 7.3 15.6 ± 7.0
Brace, post-test 28.0 ± 5.7 30.6 ± 8.2 16.8 ± 11.4 20.1 ± 12.1
braci ng would be noted .
The results of the SEBT indicated that there is no sig-
nificant difference when comparing braced and unbraced
conditions. The significant differences were noted when
comparing fatigue trials vs. non-fatigue trials in favor of
fatigue. It was hypothesized that fatigue would decrease
performance, but the results were just the opposite. This
could have been a result of having all subjects perform
non-fatigue trials prior to fatigue trials resulting in a
learning effect. The only two directions with significant
increases were posterior-medial and medial directions.
The other six directions did not have any significant dif-
ferences besides extreme conditions. In the posterior-
medial and medial directions, performance was increased
in the braced conditions. Ankle braces are to provide
mechanical support at the joint. In doing so, the ankle
brace limits eversion but primarily limits inversion.
While reaching laterally during the SEBT, the planted
ankle is rotated into a position of inversion; and when
reaching medially the planted ankle rotates into a posi-
tion of eversion. With this understanding, one would
think that there would be more of a difference between
BF and UBF when reaching laterally due to a greater
limitation of inversion by the brace. This was not the
case. The researchers hypothesized that the significant
difference in these two directions could have been due to
the fact that subjects reported these directions most chal-
lenging. The authors believe that since these were the
most difficult directions, the ankle relied on the brace
more for stability while fatigued than when reaching in
any other direction.
Finally, it was hypothesized that FB conditions would
demonstrate better control than when FUB. These data
support this in the three medial directions (medial, ante-
rior-medial, and posterior-medial) but not with the other
five directions. This further supports that the ankle brace
provides benefit in the more challenging directions. Al-
though FUB results were better than FB in five of the
eight directions, the differences were not significant.
The ankle brace provided adequate restriction in the
directions of inversion and eversion with minimal effect
to plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. The limitations to
these ranges did not significantly impact performance
during the shuttle run, the vertical jump or the SEBT.
This supports the hypothesis that the ankle brace would
effectively limit range of motion as anticip ated yet would
not hinder performance of agility, power and balance.
During administration of the test, subjective informa-
tion was gathered from subjects to get an idea of comfor t
level and level of support felt by each individual. With
performance of the vertical jump and shuttle run most
subjects did not have any complaints, however, a few
individuals stated that the brace felt limiting with the
SEBT. Out of seven subjects that provided feedback on

J. A. Y aggie et al. / Open Journal of Therapy and R ehabilitation 1 (2013) 10-16 15
the SEBT during testing, five people stated that the test
felt harder or they felt more off-balance during perfor-
mance. Three of these individuals had worn braces in the
past, two had not. Two people actually stated that they
felt more support with the brace during the SEBT and
both of these subjects had worn braces in the past.
As with any research project this study is not without
its limitations. One limitation was not identifying previ-
ous use of ankle braces and the circumstances. Patients
who had previous experience with bracing of the tested
ankle may have grown accustomed to the support. This
could have caused them to perform better with the brace
in comparison to trials without the brace, especially in
instances of chronic instability present. Chronic instabi-
lity was not assessed which could have also affected our
results thereby creating a second limitation. Also, our
study was limited by the small sample size and testing of
only healthy, active individuals. If individuals who had
ankle instability were assessed and tested then results
might have shown that performance with the brace is
actually better than without the brace. Lastly, because of
time constraints we could only test subjects on two days
and therefore had to test non-fatigued before fatigued
conditions. Testing fatigued conditions first would not
have allowed us to test non-fatigued conditions on the
same day. This limited the randomization of the testing.
These limitations prov ide suggestions for future resear ch
with a larger sample size, patients who either have or
have not worn braces in the past, and/or more randomi-
zation of the f atigue s essions.
Within our study, learning affect could have influ-
enced results. After patients had performed one day of
testing they knew what to expect when they came in for
the second day, even though the bracing conditions
changed. Perhaps in future studies the researchers could
allot time for a practice day that will allow participants to
become proficient in the tests thereby excluding the
learning effect noted in the present study. This would
make the testing days more about performance in the set
conditions. In addition to the learn ing effect, we also no-
ticed that an individual’s competitive drive affected their
effort. For example, after performing the first vertical
jump trial many individuals with competitive drive tried
to jump higher with each successive trial. Also, subjects
could hear their shuttle run results and see the marks on
the SEBT, which p rovided them with feedback regarding
performance. To limit this in future studies we believe
the individual needs to be blinded to their results.
5. CONCLUSION
Due to increased ankle injuries over the years, the use
of ankle braces is becoming more prevalent. However, as
the brace provides more stability at the joint, the mobility
at the joint decreases potentially affecting performance.
We attempted to determine if bracing the ankle hinders
an athlete’s power, agility or balance before and after
fatiguing the lower extremity. Under controlled testing
conditions, results show that bracing does not affect an
athlete’s performance during athletic events even late in
participation. Given more time, the researchers would
have like to randomize fatigue and non-fatigue trials and
incorporate an additional practice trial day to decrease
learning effect. Future research should examine a variety
of semi-rigid braces to determine if they have an effect
on an athlete’s performance. Additionally, studies could
exam the difference between localized and generalized
fatiguing protocols and the effect they have in similar
testing conditions as this may produce different results.
REFERENCES
[1] Fong, D., Hong, Y., Chan L.K., Yung, P. and Chan, K.M.
(2007) A systematic review on ankle injury and ankle
sprain in sports. Sports Medicine, 37, 73-94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737010-00006
[2] Rosenbaum, D., Kamps, N., Bosch, K., Thorwestern, L.,
Klaus, V. and Eils, E. (2005) The influence of external
ankle braces on subjective and objective parameters of
performance in a sports-related agility course. Knee Sur-
gery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 13, 419-425.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0584-7
[3] Gross, M.T. and Liu, H.Y. (2003) The role of ankle brac-
ing for prevention of ankle sprain injuries. Journal of
Orthopedic Sports Physical Therapy, 33, 572-577.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2003.33.10.572
[4] Johnston, R.B., Howard, M.E., Cawley, P.W. and Losse,
G.M. (1998) Effect of lower extremity muscular fatigue
on motor control performance. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 30, 1703-1707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199812000-00008
[5] Yaggie, J. and Armstrong, W.J. (2004) Effects of lower
extremity fatigue on indices of balance. Journal of Sports
Rehabilitation, 13, 312-322.
[6] Gribble, P. A., Hertel, J., Denegar, C.R. and Buckley, W.E.
(2004) The effects of fatigue and chronic ankle instability
on dynamic postural control. Journal of Athletic Training,
39, 321-329.
[7] Cordova, M.L., Ingersoll, C.D. and Palmieri, R.M. (2002)
Efficacy of prophylactic ankle support: An experimental
perspective. Journal of Athletic Training, 37, 446-457.
[8] Garrick, J.G. (1977) The frequency of injury, mechanism
of injury, and epidemiology of ankle sprains. American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 5, 241-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036354657700500606
[9] Garrick, J.G. and Requa, R.K. (1988) The epidemiology
of foot and ankle injuries in sports. Clinical Sports Medi-
cine, 7, 29-36.
[10] Macpherson, K., et al. (1995) Effects of a semirigid and
softshell prophylactic ankle stabilizer on selected per-
formance tests among high school football players. Jour-
nal of Orthopaedic and Sport Physical Therapy, 21, 147-

J. A. Y aggie et al. / Open Journal of Therapy and R ehabilitation 1 (2013) 10-16
16
152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1995.21.3.147
[11] T2 Active Ankle Brace and Support (2009) Catalog of
braces for sports and injuries.
http://supports4less.com/activeankle/anklebraces/activean
kle.htm
[12] Shaw, T.R., Gribble, P.A. and Frye, J.L. (2008) Ankle
bracing, fatigue, and time to stabilization in collegiate
volleyball athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 43, 164-
171. http://dx.doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.164
[13] Lindley, T.R. and Kernozek, T.W. (1995) Taping and
semirigid bracing may not affect ankle functional range
of motion. Journal of Athletic Training, 30, 109-112.
[14] Bot, S. and van Mechelen, W. (1999) The effect of ankle
bracing on athletic performance. Sports Medicine, 27, 171-
178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199927030-00003
[15] Norkin, C.C. and White, D.J. (2003) Measurment of joint
motion: A guide to goniometry. 3rd Edition, F.A. Davis,
Philadelphia.
[16] Brown, L.E. and Ferrigno, V.A., Eds. (2005) Training for
speed, agility, and quickness. 2nd Edition, Human Kinet-
ics, Champaign.
[17] Hardy, L., Huxel, K., Brucker, J. and Nesser, T. (2008)
Prophylactic ankle braces and star excursion balance meas-
ures in healthy volunteers. Journal of Athletic Training,
43, 347-351.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-43.4.347