Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247581

The effect of chronic ankle instability on muscle activations in lower extremities

Chiao-I Lin 1,2,*, Mina Khajooei 1, Tilman Engel 1, Alexandra Nair 1,2, Mika Heikkila 1, Hannes Kaplick 1, Frank Mayer 1
Editor: Yumeng Li3
PMCID: PMC7899370  PMID: 33617592

Abstract

Background/Purpose

Muscular reflex responses of the lower extremities to sudden gait disturbances are related to postural stability and injury risk. Chronic ankle instability (CAI) has shown to affect activities related to the distal leg muscles while walking. Its effects on proximal muscle activities of the leg, both for the injured- (IN) and uninjured-side (NON), remain unclear. Therefore, the aim was to compare the difference of the motor control strategy in ipsilateral and contralateral proximal joints while unperturbed walking and perturbed walking between individuals with CAI and matched controls.

Materials and methods

In a cross-sectional study, 13 participants with unilateral CAI and 13 controls (CON) walked on a split-belt treadmill with and without random left- and right-sided perturbations. EMG amplitudes of muscles at lower extremities were analyzed 200 ms after perturbations, 200 ms before, and 100 ms after (Post100) heel contact while walking. Onset latencies were analyzed at heel contacts and after perturbations. Statistical significance was set at alpha≤0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were applied to determine group differences. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to evaluate the extent of differences.

Results

Participants with CAI showed increased EMG amplitudes for NON-rectus abdominus at Post100 and shorter latencies for IN-gluteus maximus after heel contact compared to CON (p<0.05). Overall, leg muscles (rectus femoris, biceps femoris, and gluteus medius) activated earlier and less bilaterally (d = 0.30–0.88) and trunk muscles (bilateral rectus abdominus and NON-erector spinae) activated earlier and more for the CAI group than CON group (d = 0.33–1.09).

Conclusion

Unilateral CAI alters the pattern of the motor control strategy around proximal joints bilaterally. Neuromuscular training for the muscles, which alters motor control strategy because of CAI, could be taken into consideration when planning rehabilitation for CAI.

Introduction

Ankle sprain is a common injury among athletes [1]. After the first acute ankle sprain, 40% of people will develop chronic ankle instability (CAI) which causes giving way, ankle instability or recurrent ankle sprain [2, 3]. CAI can lower the quality of daily life, affect functional performance, and is related to posttraumatic osteoarthritis [4]. An updated model of CAI suggests that damaged proprioceptors of sprained ankle ligaments can alter signal inputs to the central nervous system and consequently influence neuromuscular control [4]. In addition, this change affects not only the neuromuscular control of the ankle joint but also that of the proximal joints [4].

Altered neuromuscular control of the lower extremities has been shown in the individuals with CAI [4]. Individuals with CAI have shown an inverted and dorsiflexed ankle before heel contact together with a lateral shift of the center of pressure and greater ground reaction force, which may relate to recurrent ankle sprains and giving way [5]. Knees and hips have been shown to compensate for the altered ankle kinematics [6]. Individuals with CAI displayed an earlier and greater vastus medialis activity while walking and less knee flexion and increased hip flexion while landing than the control group [7, 8]. However, the evidence of the effect of CAI on muscle activity at the knee and hip is controversial [8, 9]. Moreover, the evidence regarding alterations to the trunk is scarce [5].

Because of the affected sensorimotor system, CAI affects not only the injured ankle but also the uninjured ankle [4, 10]. Individuals with unilateral CAI showed impaired proprioception, neuromuscular and postural control in both the injured and uninjured ankle [10]. Individuals with unilateral CAI with an affected uninjured ankle could potentially increase the risk of a recurrent ankle sprain on the injured side [11]. The uninjured ankle shows decreased compensatory postural adjustments [11]. Therefore, when the injured ankle encounters an accidental sudden ankle inversion, the uninjured ankle cannot reduce the potential further injury to the injured ankle because it cannot efficiently decelerate the movement of the center of mass in the medial and lateral direction for the injured ankle [11].

Proximal joints play an important role related to ankle injuries [12]. The lumbo-pelvic hip complex (core muscles) is important in controlling hip adduction and in regulating hip internal rotation. Hip adduction affects the postural stability of the frontal plane, and hip internal rotation affects muscle activations on lower extremities and ankle posture [13, 14]. Low core stability and hip muscle strength are risk factors for injuries in the lower extremity and for ankle sprain in athletes [12]. However, the effect of unilateral CAI on neuromuscular control of proximal joints bilaterally is unclear.

Methods of walking perturbation have been applied to investigate dynamic postural control [15, 16]. The perturbations can provoke a muscular reflex, a compensation for an unexpected perturbation, at the lower extremities and trunk [16]. The ability to return to postural stability following external unexpected perturbations is important because it is the performance of core stability and relates to the risk of lower limb injuries [12]. Besides, at heel contact during walking, the core muscles activate because the impact force of the heel strike is conducted from the lower extremities through the hip to the trunk [12]. At the same time, initial of heel contact is also the timing of weight acceptance from unloading to loading, when ankle sprain commonly occurs [17, 18]. Thus, observing the motor control strategy of proximal joints during walking and after an external perturbation in individuals with CAI could give an insight into the sensorimotor deficiency in CAI.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the difference of the motor control strategy in ipsilateral and contralateral proximal joints while unperturbed walking and perturbed walking between individuals with CAI and matched controls. To answer this question, the magnitude and onset of muscle activation around the proximal joints during unperturbed and perturbed walking trials on the injured and non-injured side were compared in individuals with unilateral CAI to a group of matched control participants. It was hypothesized that individuals with CAI show altered patterns of muscle activation on proximal joints bilaterally compared to controls.

Materials and methods

The study design was cross-sectional. The sample size was calculated (Gpower software; Effect size d: 1.16; α level: 0.05; power (1-β error probability): 0.80) based on the results of a previous study [19]. All the measurements were conducted in the biomechanics laboratory on the campus of the university from June to December 2019.

Participants

Thirteen individuals with unilateral CAI in the CAI group (25.2±4.5 years, 168.1±7.9 cm, 65.4±9.5 kg) and 13 individuals in the control group (CON) (26.8±4.0 years, 168.6±7.7 cm, 63.3±7.6 kg) matched by age, sex, height, weight and dominant leg participated in this study. Participants were physically active (more than 120 minutes of exercise per week) and over 18 years old. The dominant leg was defined as the leg used to kick a ball [20]. All participants were recruited by convenience sampling using flyers on the university campus and sports clubs from May to December 2019.

Participants in CON had no previous ankle injuries. The CAI group met the criteria recommended by the International Ankle Consortium [3]: (1) a history of at least one significant lateral ankle sprain which occurred at least 12 months prior to enrollment in this study. (2) History of ‘giving way’ on the previously injured ankle, which occurred at least twice in the past six months, and/or recurrent sprain, which happened twice or more in the injured ankle, and/or ‘feeling of ankle instability’ in their daily or sports activity. Feeling of ankle instability was evaluated using the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) [21].

Participants were excluded when they (1) had a history of previous surgeries or a fracture of the musculoskeletal structures in either lower extremity; or (2) had acute musculoskeletal injuries of lower extremities within the previous three months; or (3) had CAI and were attending regular balance training; or (4) were not able to complete the questionnaires: CAIT, and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) [3, 21, 22]; or (5) had other neurological disease affecting the sensorimotor system; or (6) were ankle sprain copers; or (7) had bilateral CAI. All participants read and signed the informed consent form. This study was approved by the local ethical committee of the university (43/2019).

Test procedure

Participants went through a physical examination, preparation for surface electromyography (EMG), maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) tests, and two walking trials.

Physical examination

Demographic data were collected, and participants filled out CAIT and FAAM to determine their level of ankle instability and ankle function [3, 22]. Ankle instability was defined as the score of CAIT≤24 [3, 21]. The impaired function was defined as a score of less than 90% in the activities of the daily living subscale of FAAM (FAAM_ADLs) and less than 80% in the sport subscale of FAAM (FAAM_SPORT) respectively [3]. A physician then evaluated the participants to determine the presence of a mechanical ankle instability using ankle anterior drawer test and tilt test [18].

EMG

Participants’ skin was shaved, abraded, and cleaned with a disinfectant before placing bipolar surface electromyography electrodes (2 cm inter-electrode distance, pre-gelled (Ag/AgCl), type P-00-S, Ambu, Medicotest, Denmark). A wireless EMG capture system (band-pass filter: 5–500 Hz, gain: 5.0, overall gain: 2500, sampling frequency: 4000 Hz, RFTD-32, myon AG, Switzerland) was used to record signals with internal signal processing (bandwidth 5–500 Hz, Butterworth filter 4th order, digitized). EMG electrodes were placed on the skin above the rectus femoris (RF), biceps femoris (BF), gluteus maximus (Gmax), gluteus medius (Gmed), rectus abdominus (RA) and erector spinae (ES) bilaterally, according to SENIAM guidelines [23].

MVIC test

Participants were instructed to perform sub-maximal familiarization sessions as a warm-up before the actual tests to confirm adequate performance. Each test included three sets of five seconds of MVIC knee extension/flexion (RF/BF) [24], hip extension/abduction (Gmax/Gmed) [25], and trunk flexion/extension (RA /ES), during which EMG signals of target muscles were recorded (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Maximum Voluntary Isometric Contraction (MVIC) tests for six targeting muscles.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

A: Rectus femoris (knee extension). B: Biceps femoris (knee flexion). C: Gluteus maximus (hip extension). D: Gluteus medius (hip abduction). E: Rectus abdominus (trunk flexion). F: Erector spinae (trunk extension).

Walking trials

There were two walking trials: an unperturbed walking trail and a perturbed walking trail. In the unperturbed walking trial, participants walked for a duration of five minutes at a velocity of 1 m/s. In the perturbed walking trial, participants walked for a duration of six minutes at the same velocity, during which 10 right- and 10 left-sided perturbations for a total of 20 perturbations were applied in a randomized order 200 ms after initial right heel contacts. The perturbations of the right side were triggered by a load cell embedded in the treadmill on the right belt (customized software solution: Stimuli, pfitec biomedical systems, Germany). Perturbations of the left side were also triggered by right side heel contact and were programmed to occur 200 ms plus stride duration (averaged from 3 stride durations of the unperturbed walking) which was measured during unperturbed walking using a 3D-motion capture system (Vicon MX3, 8 cameras, 200 Hz, Vicon, Oxford, UK). During perturbations, one of the treadmill belts decelerated to a velocity of -1 m/s (amplitude: 2 m/s; deceleration = -40m/s2) in 50ms, after which the belt returned to baseline velocity in 50ms. To detect heel contacts and the onsets of perturbation, the acceleration sensors (ACC) were placed on participants’ shoes. The signals from ACC were synchronized with EMG.

Data processing

EMG data were analyzed using a lab view based analysis tool (IMAGO process master pfitec, biomedical systems, Germany). The highest values (root mean squares, RMS) from three MIVC tests were applied to normalize the EMG data to each recorded muscle. To determine the magnitude of muscle activation, normalized RMS signals of each muscle were analyzed at three time points: 200 to 0 ms before initial heel contact (Pre200), 0 to 100 ms after initial heel contact (Post100) in the unperturbed walking trial, and 0 to 200 ms after the perturbed (Pert200) in the perturbed walking trail. Clear characteristics of acceleration, detected from ACC, allowed to find the precise timing of heel contact and onset of perturbation when analyzing EMG data (See Figs 2 and 3).

Fig 2. Visualized signals for each recorded muscle and the acceleration sensors in the electromyography analysis software during an unperturbed waling trial.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Heel contacts provoked visible spikes, which assisted the data analyzer in detecting the heel contacts. Pre200: 200 to 0 ms before initial heel contact. Post100: 0 to 100 ms after initial heel contact. RF: rectus femoris, BF: biceps femoris, Gmed: gluteus medius, Gmax: gluteus maximus, RA: rectus abdominus, ES: erector spinae. ACC: the acceleration sensors.

Fig 3. Visualized signals for each recorded muscle and the acceleration sensors in the electromyography analysis software during a left-walking perturbation.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Onset of perturbation provoked visible spikes, which assisted the data analyzer in detecting onsets of perturbation. RF: rectus femoris, BF: biceps femoris, Gmed: gluteus medius, Gmax: gluteus maximus, RA: rectus abdominus, ES: erector spinae. ACC: the acceleration sensor. Pert200: 0 to 200 ms after the perturbation in the perturbed walking trail.

RMS from 10 strides from the walking trial, 10 left-perturbed strides, and 10 right-perturbed strides from the perturbed walking trial were averaged and normalized to RMS of MVIC (%). All EMG signals were smoothened, rectified and filtered as RMS (using 2nd order, low pass 15 Hz) [8, 16].

To determine the onset of muscle activation (ms), an automated detection method was used. The timing when RMS exceeded two standard deviations from baseline was detected by an analysis software (IMAGO process master pfitec, biomedical system, Germany) and was defined as the onset of heel contact during the unperturbed walking trial and at the beginning of perturbations during the perturbed walking trial. In cases where the automatic detection algorithm failed to detect the onset or the onset was considered invalid because of artifacts, the data analyzer would correct it manually [16].

Statistical analysis

For demographics, CAIT, and FAAM, descriptive statistics with mean and standard deviation were calculated and tested for between groups differences using independent samples t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, depending on the distributions. The Shapiro–Wilk test was applied to examine the normal distribution of the data. To detect the group difference in EMG amplitude and onset at different measuring time points, Independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were applied. The level of statistical significance was set at p≤0.05. Significance levels were not adjusted for multiple comparisons based on Hopkins’s and colleagues’ recommendations [26]. Additionally, 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were also calculated. If 95% CIs did not cross zero, then it was considered a group difference. Cohen’s d effect size was calculated to show the magnitude of difference [8, 9, 19, 27, 28]. A small, medium, and large effect size were defined as ≥0.49, 0.50–0.79 and ≥0.80 [29]. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics 25 (Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Age, height, weight and weekly hours of physical activity showed no group differences (p>0.05), but the CAI group had a higher level of ankle dysfunction and instability than CON based on the score of FAAM_ADLs (CAI: 89.5±10.5, CON: 98.2±3.0; p<0.05), FAAM_SPORT (CAI: 82.7±13.1, CON: 98.1±3.7; p<0.05) and CAIT of the injured ankle (CAI: 20.7±4.3 and CON: 29.1±1.6; p<0.05).

Walking trail

Results of the magnitude and onset of muscle activation during the unperturbed walking trail are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Group means, Cohen’s d effect size, and group difference for the magnitude and onset of muscle activation in the unperturbed walking trail.

magnitude (%)
Muscles Injured side Non-injured side
CON CAI p Cohen’s d (95%CI) CON CAI p Cohen’s d (95%CI)
Pre200 RF 6.8±4.3 5.6±3.3 0.63 0.30(0.00, 0.61)§ 12.8±26.3 05.0±2.2 0.52 0.40(0.10, 0.71)§
BF 19.9±12.5 11.8±6.3 0.06 0.79(0.46, 1.11)# 16.4±9.4 13.1±8.0 0.37 0.36(0.06, 0.67)§
Gmed 10.6±5.9 6.8±3.0 0.10 0.76(0.44, 1.08)# 9.7±5.2 7.4±3.3 0.21 0.51(0.20, 0.82)#
Gmax 21.6±17.7 17.4±13.0 0.63 0.26(-0.05, 0.56) 14.5±6.56 16.6±15.9 0.49 -0.17(-0.47, 0.13)
RA 5.1±2.6 31.2±82.3 0.08 -0.43(-0.74, -0.12) 4.2±2.5 29.9±77.6 0.06 -0.45(-0.76, -0.14)§
ES 14.3±6.7 13.0±6.3 0.77 0.24(-0.09, 0.57) 14.0±5.7 31.8±57.2 0.56 -0.42(-0.75, -0.08)§
Post100 RF 17.7±14.8 11.0±4.6 0.59 0.58(0.27, 0.90)# 23.5±39.0 9.0±3.1 0.25 0.50(0.19, 0.82)#
BF 8.7±4.6 9.5±5.9 0.71 -0.15(-0.45, 0.16) 12.2±9.2 9.4±6.4 0.40 0.34(0.03, 0.64)§
Gmed 42.8±18.3 28.6±12.1 0.06 0.88(0.55, 1.21)※ 39.8±15.6 29.7±20.3 0.09 0.53(0.22, 0.85)#
Gmax 52.6±34.4 52.1±24.4 0.66 0.02(-0.28, 0.32) 50.8±36.0 47.7±32.5 0.78 0.09(-0.22, 0.39)
RA 5.4±3.2 36.1±100.8 0.30 -0.41 (-0.72, -0.11)§ 3.81±2.60 43.1±123.9 0.03* -0.43(-0.74, -0.12)§
ES 13.0±5.9 14.4±4.4 0.68 -0.17(-0.50, 0.16) 13.0±7.0 30.7±55.2 0.53 -0.40(-0.74, 0.07)
Onset (ms)
Heel contact RF 71.4±65.8 85.6±30.9 0.51 -0.28(-0.61, 0.05) 73.4±72.4 80.7±36.0 0.98 -0.13(-0.43, 0.17)
BF 189.8±53.3 169.5±39.8 0.53 0.43(0.10, 0.77)§ 178.1±31.7 172.8±38.7 0.78 0.15(-0.15, 0.45)
Gmed 59.8±35.0 47.79±109.7 0.70 0.15(-0.18, 0.48) 50.5±49.5 25.30±61.6 0.22 0.45(0.14, 0.76)§
Gmax 95.7±49.0 41.07±51.5 0.01* 1.09(0.71, 1.46)※ 76.1±50.5 65.62±36.4 0.71 0.24(-0.07, 0.54)
RA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ES -5.2±235.4 -85.5±266.1 0.22 0.32(-0.04, 0.68) -90.3±492.8 -72.3±247.1 0.92 -0.05(-0.35, 0.26)
Open in a new tab

RF: rectus femoris, BF: biceps femoris, Gmed: gluteus medius, Gmax: gluteus maximus, RA: rectus abdominus, ES: erector spinae, Pre200: 200 to 0 ms before initial heel contact. Post100: 0 to 100 ms after initial heel contact. CON: the matched control group, CAI: the group of chronic ankle instability, 95%CI: 95% of confident interval for Cohen’s d,

*representing p < .05,

※representing 95%CI did not cross zero with a large effect size,

#representing 95%CI did not cross zero with a median effect size,

§representing 95%CI did not cross zero with a small effect size

The magnitude of muscle activation

Generally, the CAI group activated the hip and knee muscles less and the trunk muscle more than CON.

At Pre200 both sides of RF, BF and Gmed activated less; and RA of both sides and the ES of the non-injured side (NON-ES) activated more in the CAI group than CON with a small to median effect sizes (0.30–0.79).

At Post100, RF, Gmed and BF of both sides and BF of the non-injured side (NON-BF) activated less; and RA of both sides activated more in the CAI group than CON with small to large effect sizes (0.34–0.88).

The onset of muscle activation

After heel contact, the CAI group activated BF of the injured side (IN-BF), Gmax of the injured side (IN-Gmax), and Gmed of the non-injured side (NON-Gmed) earlier than CON with small to large effect sizes (0.43–1.09). The onset of RA was not analyzed after heel contact, because the muscle activity was not clearly detectable for most of the participants (21 out of 26 and 15 out of 26 were undetectable on RA of the injured side (IN-RA) and NON-RA).

Perturbed walking trial

Results of the magnitude and onset of muscle activation during perturbed walking are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Group means, Cohen’s d effect size, and group difference for the magnitude and onset of muscle activation in the perturbed walking trail.

magnitude (%)
Muscles Injured side Non-injured side
CON CAI p Cohen’s d (95%CI) CON CAI p Cohen’s d (95%CI)
Pert200 RF 90.8±67.7 68.2±45.7 0.37 0.38 (0.07, 0.68)§ 102.3±88.3 65.2±31.5 0.36 0.54 (0.23, 0.85)#
BF 64.0±93.3 34.2±23.2 0.23 0.42(0.11, 0.73)§ 40.0±14.2 34.6±26.1 0.19 0.25(-0.06, 0.55)
Gmed 58.6±28.5 46.4±22.9 0.22 0.45(0.14, 0.76)§ 56.8±24.4 40.9±21.9 0.11 0.66(0.34, 0.97)#
Gmax 58.4±48.3 82.9±48.9 0.07 -0.48(-0.79, -0.17)§ 68.3±42.6 56.05±51.6 0.29 0.25(-0.06, 0.55)
RA 29.5±21.9 40.7±43.2 0.34 -0.43(-0.74, -0.13)§ 29.1±31.4 125.88±289.2 0.17 -0.47(-0.78, -0,16)§
ES 91.3±67.0 78.5±28.6 0.80 0.26(-0.07. 0.59) 91.0±46.1 106.17±30.3 0.20 -0.54(-0.88, -0.20)#
Onset (ms)
perturbation RF 101.1±18.7 98.0±14.6 0.64 0.18(-0.15, 0.51) 97.6±20.1 93.9±15.3 0.69 0.21(-0.12, 0.54)
BF 61.1±48.9 56.1±17.6 0.77 0.14(-0.19, 0.46) 68.0±30.2 66.5±17.0 0.45 0.06(-0.27, 0.39)
Gmed 119.9±23.1 118.3±31.9 0.56 0.06(-0.27, 0.38) 131.4±33.5 124.1±35.8 0.56 0.21(-0.12, 0.54)
Gmax 140.5±41.3 85.6±109.7 0.07 0.66(0.32, 1.01)# 117.6±38.1 127.3±49.1 0.64 -0.22(-0.55, 0.11)
RA 115.1±17.5 109.3±44.9 0.18 0.17(-0.16, 0.50) 114.1±20.0 105.9±9.2 0.30 0.42 (0.08, 0.75)§
ES 81.7±16.5 74.2±27.7 0.64 0.33(0.00, 0.66)§ 81.8±17.1 86.6±9.4 0.39 -0.36 (-0.69, -0.02)§
Open in a new tab

RF: rectus femoris, BF: biceps femoris, Gmed: gluteus medius, Gmax: gluteus maximus, RA: rectus abdominus, ES: erector spinae, Pert200: 0 to 200 ms after the perturbed in the perturbed walking trail. CON: the matched control group, CAI: the group of chronic ankle instability, 95%CI: 95% of confident interval for Cohen’s d,

*representing p < .05,

※representing 95%CI did not cross zero with a large effect size,

#representing 95%CI did not cross zero with a median effect size,

§representing 95%CI did not cross zero with a small effect size

The magnitude of muscle activation

Generally, RF, BF and Gmed activated less; and Gmax, ES and RA activated more in the CAI than CON. At Pert200, BF and Gmed of both sides, and the injured side of BF (IN-BF) activated less in the CAI group than CON with small to medium effect sizes (0.38–0.66). RA of both sides, Gmax of the injured side (IN-Gmax) and NON-ES activated more in the CAI than CON with small to medium effect sizes (0.43–0.54).

The onset of muscle activation

After perturbation, IN-Gmax, ES of the injured side (IN-ES), and NON-RA activated earlier, and NON-ES activated later in CAI group than CON with small to medium effect sizes (0.33–0.66).

Discussion

Individuals with CAI altered the pattern of muscle activation around proximal joints during unperturbed and perturbed walking in accordance with the initial hypothesis of this study.

Gmed, overall, had a lower activation in the CAI group than controls. In the non-injured side, the CAI group activated Gmed earlier during heel contact than CON. The current findings are consistent with two previous studies showing Gmed activating less in the CAI group during the stance phase of walking [9, 28]. DeJong and colleagues used ultrasound imaging and Son and colleagues applied surface EMG to investigate the influence of CAI on Gmed during walking. Both studies applied confidence intervals as a measure to determine the group difference by 90% and 95% CIs respectively [9, 28]. However, not all previous studies are in agreement with the current results [8, 9, 19, 28, 30]. Two previous studies found no group difference [8, 27], and one found that Gmed activated more in the CAI group than CON [19]. This might be caused by different methods used in the studies.

The decreased Gmed activation in individuals with CAI may be an indicator of an altered motor control [4]. As shown in a previous investigation, to compensate for the ankle instability, individuals with CAI activated the peroneal longus earlier and to a higher degree [4]. Rio and colleagues found that participants without CAI showed an ankle-dominant strategy to maintain postural stability, but individuals with CAI shifted from an ankle- to a hip-dominant strategy to maintain balance [6, 9]. However, based on Moisan et al. and Son et al. both suggested that the effort of an altered dominant strategy was insufficient [5, 9]. Because of the decreased Gmed activation, the hip being more adducted results in a lateral shift of the center of mass [9]. Studies showed that in the participants with CAI their center of mass still excessively shifted laterally, which puts the ankle in a vulnerable position and lead to a potential risk for recurrent ankle sprain in individuals with CAI [5, 9, 14]

In the current study, IN-Gmax activated significantly earlier after heel contact in the CAI group than CON, and the 95% CIs showed that IN-Gmax activated earlier and to a higher degree after the walking perturbation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, muscle activities in individuals with CAI have not been investigated using a perturbation with the anterior-posterior direction. Previous evidence showed that individuals with CAI activated Gmax more than CON in a landing and ball kicking task [4], which is consistent with the current study. No group difference has been found in the magnitude of muscle activation at Pre200 and Post100, which is consistent with the works done by Koshino et al. and DeJong et al. [28, 30].

The results of this study indicate that CAI altered the capability of compensation for unexpected external perturbations. Chuter and de Jonge suggested that core stability maintained by increased hip stiffness is in response to equilibrium perturbation, to force conduction to the spine and force absorption [12]. Another possible explanation could be that, based on the works from Rio et al. and Son et al., individuals with CAI showed a hip-dominant strategy (increased Gmax activity), which is a sign of sensorimotor deficits [6, 31]. Unlike Gmed, which assists in maintaining postural control in the frontal plane, Gmax and knee muscles maintain postural stability in the sagittal plane while walking and can attenuate impact by eccentric contraction [32]. However, previous studies showed that individuals with CAI presenting increased vertical ground reaction forces while walking is an indicator of a reduced capability of impact absorption [4, 5, 33].

The current results showed that the CAI group had smaller RF activation than CON based on the 95% CIs. This result is consistent with Son’s and colleagues’ work, which found individuals with CAI had less muscle activation of vastus lateralis while walking [9]. However, Koshino and colleagues found no difference in RF activity between groups [27], and other studies noted that individuals with CAI activated RF 108 ms earlier [8] and 51% higher [33] during heel contact than in CON. In the current study, the 95% CIs revealed that BF activated less at Pre200 bilaterally, IN-BF activated less and later after heel contact and NON-BF activated less at Pert200 in the CAI group than CON. In contrast, Feger et al. and Koshino et al. found no difference of BF activation in a walking task between groups [8, 27].

RF also assists with impact absorption [8, 33]. Hamstrings play an important role in the deceleration of knee extension at the end of a swing phase by eccentric contraction and in acceleration of the leg at initial heel contact by concentric contraction [34]. Reduced RF and BF activation while walking may affect the efficiency of impact absorption, which in turn may change the articular cartilage catabolism and is related to the cartilage degeneration [4, 9].

The varying results could be explained by different methods of RMS normalization and walking speed. Previous studies used static standing [19, 35], peak RMS during walking [33], or static squats [9] to normalize RMS, but the current study and Koshino’s and colleagues’ work [27] applied MVIC to normalize RMS. Individuals with CAI had altered motor strategy to activate muscle during functional tasks causing reduced or increased muscle activity [36]. This makes the results difficult to compare. Furthermore, walking speeds were also different among studies (self-selected speed or speed ranged from 1.1 m/s to 2.5 m/s), which may also cause the discrepant results [8, 9, 27]. Slower walking speed attenuates muscle activity of the lower extremities [37]. Although the current study applied slower walking speed (1.0 m/s) than the previous studies, the results are similiar to three previous studies which utilized faster walking speed (1.1 m/s, self-selected speed, and 1.35 m/s) [9, 28, 33]. This may imply that walking speed might not affect the presence of muscle activity in CAI.

The current results showed that at Post100, NON-RA activated significantly more in the CAI group than CON (p = 0.03), and 95% CIs revealed that bilateral RA and NON-ES activated higher in the CAI group than CON. After the perturbation in the perturbed walking trial, NON-RA and IN-ES activated earlier, and NON-ES activated later in CAI group more than CON. The connection between individuals with CAI and trunk stability has been investigated [38, 39]. Individuals with CAI showed delayed reflex activity of ES and RA after a sudden unload of trunk perturbation during flexion and extension movements [38], and had less hemidiaphragm contractility than CON [39]. Decreased hemidiaphragm contractility may reduce the intraabdominal pressure which is related to the trunk and postural stability [39]. However, the current results must be interpreted with caution because the inter-subject variability was high.

The increased and early activation in trunk muscle could be explained by a study performed by Nadler and colleagues, which supports the notion that athletes with overuse injuries or ligamentous laxity on lower extremities tend to develop low back pain [40]. The injured joints altered the force of transfer in the lower extremities and decreased shock absorption, which is transferred to the spine and can cause potential low back pain development [40]. The increased and early activation in the trunk muscles is related to a guarding mechanism to protect the lower back [41] or a result of limited ankle dorsiflexion in individuals with CAI which increases the range of RA activation [5, 42].

There were some limitations to the current study. First, it is not clear whether the neuromuscular deficit was a pre-existing condition or the results of CAI. Second, it is not clear if the neuromuscular strategy is affected differently by different stages of CAI development. A participant with a longer history of CAI may have more obvious signs of neuromuscular deficiency than a participant with a shorter history. A longitudinal study should be conducted to confirm it.

Conclusion

Altered muscle activations around proximal joints in individuals with CAI were found in the current study, which indicates that the motor control strategy of participants with CAI was changed. The results support the notion that CAI affects motor control on proximal joints bilaterally. The changes may relate to the development of further injuries. These findings could be taken into consideration by clinicians when planning rehabilitation programs for CAI. Training the muscles around proximal joints bilaterally should be incorporated when managing individuals with CAI.

Supporting information

S1 File. Root mean squares of six measured muscles at Pre200, 100 ms, and Pert200 ms and onsets of muscle activations at heel contact and perturbation during unperturbed walking trail and perturbed walking trail.

Averaged root mean squares of the corresponding time frame and onsets of muscle activation from ten unperturbed walking gaits and ten perturbations from each participant were presented in the dataset.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (29.8KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We want to express our gratitude to Doctor Kim Loose for performing physical examinations, to Anika Schönefeld for managing measurement appointments, to the whole staff of the outpatient clinic of University of Potsdam for supporting this study, to Anne Puschmann and Michael Fliesser for helping to recruit participants, and to Arash Asefi Rad and Myounghwee Kim for assisting with measurements. We are thankful to Henry Robert Mumm and Sanne Houtenbos for their help with proofreading.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files (S1 File).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Roos KG, Kerr ZY, Mauntel TC, Djoko A, Dompier TP, Wikstrom EA. The Epidemiology of Lateral Ligament Complex Ankle Sprains in National Collegiate Athletic Association Sports. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(1):201–9. 10.1177/0363546516660980 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Doherty C, Bleakley C, Hertel J, Caulfield B, Ryan J, Delahunt E. Recovery From a First-Time Lateral Ankle Sprain and the Predictors of Chronic Ankle Instability: A Prospective Cohort Analysis. Am J Sport Med. 2016;44(4):995–1003. 10.1177/0363546516628870 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gribble PA, Delahunt E, Bleakley C, Caulfield B, Docherty C, Fourchet F, et al. Selection criteria for patients with chronic ankle instability in controlled research: a position statement of the International Ankle Consortium. Brit J Sport Med. 2014;48(13). 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hertel J, Corbett RO. An Updated Model of Chronic Ankle Instability. J Athl Train. 2019;54(6):572–88. 10.4085/1062-6050-344-18 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moisan G, Descarreaux M, Cantin V. Effects of chronic ankle instability on kinetics, kinematics and muscle activity during walking and running: A systematic review. Gait Posture. 2017;52:381–99. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.11.037 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rios JL, Gorges AL, dos Santos MJ. Individuals with chronic ankle instability compensate for their ankle deficits using proximal musculature to maintain reduced postural sway while kicking a ball. Hum Movement Sci. 2015;43:33–44. 10.1016/j.humov.2015.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Doherty C, Bleakley C, Hertel J, Caulfield B, Ryan J, Delahunt E. Single-leg drop landing movement strategies 6 months following first-time acute lateral ankle sprain injury. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(6):806–17. 10.1111/sms.12390 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Feger MA, Donovan L, Hart JM, Hertel J. Lower extremity muscle activation in patients with or without chronic ankle instability during walking. J Athl Training. 2015;50(4):350–7. 10.4085/1062-6050-50.2.06 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Son SJ, Kim H, Seeley MK, Hopkins JT. Altered Walking Neuromechanics in Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability. J Athl Train. 2019;54(6):684–97. 10.4085/1062-6050-478-17 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Simpson JD, Rendos NK, Stewart EM, Turner AJ, Wilson SJ, Macias DM, et al. Bilateral spatiotemporal postural control impairments are present in participants with chronic ankle instability. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2019;39:1–7. 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sousa ASP, Silva M, Gonzalez S, Santos R. Bilateral compensatory postural adjustments to a unilateral perturbation in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Clin Biomech. 2018;57:99–106. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chuter VH, de Jonge XAKJ. Proximal and distal contributions to lower extremity injury: A review of the literature. Gait & Posture. 2012;36(1):7–15. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.De Ridder R, Witvrouw E, Dolphens M, Roosen P, Van Ginckel A. Hip Strength as an Intrinsic Risk Factor for Lateral Ankle Sprains in Youth Soccer Players: A 3-Season Prospective Study. Am J Sport Med. 2017;45(2):410–6. 10.1177/0363546516672650 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.MacKinnon CD, Winter DA. Control of whole body balance in the frontal plane during human walking. J Biomech. 1993;26(6):633–44. 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90027-c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Forner Cordero A, Koopman HFJM, van der Helm FCT. Multiple-step strategies to recover from stumbling perturbations. Gait & Posture. 2003;18(1):47–59. 10.1016/s0966-6362(02)00160-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Engel T, Mueller J, Kopinski S, Reschke A, Mueller S, Mayer F. Unexpected walking perturbations: Reliability and validity of a new treadmill protocol to provoke muscular reflex activities at lower extremities and the trunk. J Biomech. 2017;55:152–5. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.02.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stormont DM, Morrey BF, An KN, Cass JR. Stability of the Loaded Ankle—Relation between Articular Restraint and Primary and Secondary Static Restraints. Am J Sport Med. 1985;13(5):295–300. 10.1177/036354658501300502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kaminski TW, Hertel J, Amendola N, Docherty CL, Dolan MG, Hopkins JT, et al. National Athletic Trainers’ Association Position Statement: Conservative Management and Prevention of Ankle Sprains in Athletes. J Athl Training. 2013;48(4):528–45. 10.4085/1062-6050-48.4.02 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Koldenhoven RM, Feger MA, Fraser JJ, Saliba S, Hertel J. Surface electromyography and plantar pressure during walking in young adults with chronic ankle instability. Knee Surg Sport Tr A. 2016;24(4):1060–70. 10.1007/s00167-016-4015-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.van Melick N, Meddeler BM, Hoogeboom TJ, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, van Cingel REH. How to determine leg dominance: The agreement between self-reported and observed performance in healthy adults. Plos One. 2017;12(12). ARTN e0189876 10.1371/journal.pone.0189876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hiller CE, Refshauge KM, Bundy AC, Herbert RD, Kilbreath SL. The Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool: A Report of Validity and Reliability Testing. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2006;87(9):1235–41. 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.05.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Swearingen JMV. Evidence of Validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Foot & Ankle International. 2005;26(11):968–83. 10.1177/107110070502601113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(5):361–74. 10.1016/s1050-6411(00)00027-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tabard-Fougère A, Rose-Dulcina K, Pittet V, Dayer R, Vuillerme N, Armand S. EMG normalization method based on grade 3 of manual muscle testing: Within- and between-day reliability of normalization tasks and application to gait analysis. Gait & Posture. 2018;60:6–12. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Boren K, Conrey C, Le Coguic J, Paprocki L, Voight M, Robinson TK. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011;6(3):206–23. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2009;41(1):3–12. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Koshino Y, Ishida T, Yamanaka M, Ezawa Y, Okunuki T, Kobayashi T, et al. Kinematics and muscle activities of the lower limb during a side-cutting task in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1071–80. 10.1007/s00167-015-3745-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.DeJong AF, Mangum LC, Hertel J. Gluteus medius activity during gait is altered in individuals with chronic ankle instability: An ultrasound imaging study. Gait & Posture. 2019;71:7–13. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral-Sciences—Cohen, J. Percept Motor Skill. 1988;67(3):1007-. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Koshino Y, Yamanaka M, Ezawa Y, Ishida T, Kobayashi T, Samukawa M, et al. Lower limb joint motion during a cross cutting movement differs in individuals with and without chronic ankle instability. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2014;15(4):242–8. 10.1016/j.ptsp.2013.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Son SJ, Kim H, Seeley MK, Hopkins JT. Altered Walking Neuromechanics in Patients With Chronic Ankle Instability. J Athl Training. 2019;54(6):684–97. 10.4085/1062-6050-478-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Reiman MP, Bolgla LA, Loudon JK. A literature review of studies evaluating gluteus maximus and gluteus medius activation during rehabilitation exercises. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012;28(4):257–68. 10.3109/09593985.2011.604981 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Delahunt E, Monaghan K, Caulfield B. Altered neuromuscular control and ankle joint kinematics during walking in subjects with functional instability of the ankle joint. Am J Sport Med. 2006;34(12):1970–6. 10.1177/0363546506290989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Neptune RR, Zajac FE, Kautz SA. Muscle force redistributes segmental power for body progression during walking. Gait & Posture. 2004;19(2):194–205. 10.1016/S0966-6362(03)00062-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Feger MA, Donovan L, Hart JM, Hertel J. Lower Extremity Muscle Activation During Functional Exercises in Patients With and Without Chronic Ankle Instability. Pm&R. 2014;6(7):602–11. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.12.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Webster KA, Pietrosimone BG, Gribble PA. Muscle Activation During Landing Before and After Fatigue in Individuals With or Without Chronic Ankle Instability. J Athl Training. 2016;51(8):629–36. 10.4085/1062-6050-51.10.01 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Murray MP, Mollinger LA, Gardner GM, Sepic SB. Kinematic and EMG patterns during slow, free, and fast walking. J Orthop Res. 1984;2(3):272–80. 10.1002/jor.1100020309 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Marshall PWM, Mckee AD, Murphy BA. Impaired Trunk and Ankle Stability in Subjects with Functional Ankle Instability. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2009;41(8):1549–57. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31819d82e2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Terada M, Kosik KB, Mccann RS, Gribble PA. Diaphragm Contractility in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2016;48(10):2040–5. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nadler SF, Wu KD, Galski T, Feinberg JH. Low back pain in college athletes—A prospective study correlating lower extremity overuse or acquired ligamentous laxity with low back pain. Spine. 1998;23(7):828–33. 10.1097/00007632-199804010-00018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ghamkhar L, Kahlaee AH. Trunk Muscles Activation Pattern During Walking in Subjects With and Without Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. Pm&R. 2015;7(5):519–26. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Guan XY, Kuai SZ, Song L, Liu WF, Liu YL, Ji LH, et al. Effects of Ankle Joint Motion on Pelvis-Hip Biomechanics and Muscle Activity Patterns of Healthy Individuals in Knee Immobilization Gait. J Healthc Eng. 2019;2019 Artn 3812407 10.1155/2019/3812407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yumeng Li

3 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-26118

The Effect of Chronic Ankle Instability on muscle activations in lower extremities

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yumeng Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3.) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Some major revisions are needed based on the reviewer's comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary:

Individuals with chronic ankle instability and a control group walked on a split-belt treadmill while perturbations were introduced. Electromyography from muscles of the trunk and thigh were evaluated 200ms before, 100 ms after, and 200 ms after the perturbation to assess response amplitude and latencies.

Comments:

The authors have presented data to indicate that neuromuscular differences are present between individuals with CAI and healthy matched controls. The premise of this manuscript is commendable. There are areas where the authors need to further detail their procedures and/or explain themselves with more clarity. I would like to suggest that the authors also correct sentence structures and grammatical errors in the document.

Lines 97-99: “Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of unilateral CAI on the ipsilateral and contralateral muscle activations around proximal joints while walking.” Actually, based upon the background and ideas the authors have presented, the purpose of their study is to observe the effects of an external perturbation on the neuromotor control of proximal muscles in individuals with and without unilateral CAI. In doing so, they can compare differences between these groups regarding the motor control strategies.

Lines: 131-132: what questionnaires did the participants complete?

Lines 166-170: a graphic would assist the reader in determining how MVIC were performed or the authors can specify how the participants were positioned while performing the MVIC. It is also not clear what value from the MVIC was used to normalize the EMG

After reading the Data Processing within the Methods section, the authors stated that they compared average EMG profiles from 10 strides in each of the walking conditions. It is not clear how EMG and the perturbation were synchronized in order to accomplish this. The authors stated that a load cell was instrumented on the treadmill. Were these synchronized so that heel contact could be determined?

In the Results section, it is suggested that the sections titled “The magnitude of muscle activation “ and “The onset of muscle activation” be compartmentalized into analyses based upon the conditions (walking and perturbation). This will provide better clarity to the reader and better organization on the authors’ part. Similarly, tables 1 and 2 can be clarified further to match the text.

The authors indicated that other studies required participants to perform walking trials at 1.3-1.5 m/s, while the participants in this study walked at 1.0 m/s. It is not clear why this discrepancy was present, and this could influence the interpretation of the data with the literature.

Minor comments:

Lines 53-55: neuromuscular of ankle joint? Do the authors intend to state the neuromuscular control of the ankle joint?

Lines 72-75: this sentence needs further clarification. Do the authors intend to state that the uninjured ankle is incapable of movement control that would reduce the potential for further injury to the already injured ankle?

Lines 87-89: “The compensation of external unexpected perturbations” – are the authors suggesting that compensatory mechanisms are essential to maintain system stability when external perturbations are presented? If so, this is not how their sentence is communicated

Lines 175-179: were these 10 total perturbations or 10 on the left and 10 on the right for a total of 20?

Lines 180-184: was this same process used in the right side perturbation?

Lines 271-273: it is not clear what the authors are stating. Gmed had lower activation overall, but activated earlier at heel contact in the CAI group compared to controls?

Lines 288-291: the shift of the center of mass that the authors bring forward is unclear. During the gait cycle the center of mass shifts laterally depending upon the limb supporting the body. Do the authors indicate that excessive lateral shift occurs in individuals with CAI?

Lines 315-317: if there is no statistically significant difference, then there is no difference. Other areas of the Discussion section are stated similarly, and need to be adjusted accordingly (ex, lines 321-324). This section needs to be rewritten to reassess the authors’ findings with the current literature

Tables 1 and 2: are the statistics provided the comparisons between the healthy group and the CAI group? This is unclear in the legends

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247581.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

17 Dec 2020

Dr. Yumeng Li and the reviewer,

Thank you for the suggestions. I wrote responses point by point.

Additional requirements from the PLOG ONE:

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Yes, checked.

2) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses

Response: Citations of the two questionnaires applied in the current study (the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool) were added in the manuscript. The original articles provide the full version of the questionnaires.

3) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly.

Response: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files (S1 file).

4) In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers.

Response: The minimal anonymized data set has been uploaded.

From the reviewer:

The responses to each point:

1. To correct sentence structures and grammatical errors in the document.

Response: A colleague did proofreading for this manuscript (Line 449).

2. Lines 97-99: “Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of unilateral CAI on the ipsilateral and contralateral muscle activations around proximal joints while walking.” Actually, based upon the background and ideas the authors have presented, the purpose of their study is to observe the effects of an external perturbation on the neuromotor control of proximal muscles in individuals with and without unilateral CAI. In doing so, they can compare differences between these groups regarding the motor control strategies.

Response: Revised (Line 20-23 and line 106-109). The revised purpose is ‘‘Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the difference of the motor control strategy in ipsilateral and contralateral proximal joints while unperturbed walking and perturbed walking between individuals with CAI and matched controls.‘‘

3. Lines: 131-132: what questionnaires did the participants complete?

Response: Participants completed two questionnaires: (1) the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool, and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. The names of questionnaires were added to the manuscript (Line 139, 144-145).

4. Lines 166-170: a graphic would assist the reader in determining how MVIC were performed or the authors can specify how the participants were positioned while performing the MVIC. It is also not clear what value from the MVIC was used to normalize the EMG

Response: (1) A graphic has been added in the manuscript (Line 182-190 and Fig 1). (2) The maximum value from three MVIC tests was used to normalize EMG. The sentence is revised as „The highest value (root mean squares, RMS) from three MIVC tests were applied to normalize the EMG data to each recorded muscle.“ (Line 214-216)

5. After reading the Data Processing within the Methods section, the authors stated that they compared average EMG profiles from 10 strides in each of the walking conditions. It is not clear how EMG and the perturbation were synchronized in order to accomplish this. The authors stated that a load cell was instrumented on the treadmill. Were these synchronized so that heel contact could be determined?

Response: The signals from acceleration sensors were synchronized with the EMG signals. The acceleration sensors were applied to detect heel contact and the onset of perturbation. The descriptions (Line 207-209 and line 220-223) and two figures (Fig 2 and Fig 3, Line 225-240) were added to the manuscript.

6. In the Results section, it is suggest ed that the sections titled “The magnitude of muscle activation “ and “The onset of muscle activation” be compartmentalized into analyses based upon the conditions (walking and perturbation). This will provide better clarity to the reader and better organization on the authors’ part. Similarly, tables 1 and 2 can be clarified further to match the text.

Response: The text of results and tables has been revised based on the reviewer's suggestion. (page 16-24, tables 1 and 2)

7. The authors indicated that other studies required participants to perform walking trials at 1.3-1.5 m/s, while the participants in this study walked at 1.0 m/s. It is not clear why this discrepancy was present, and this could influence the interpretation of the data with the literature.

Response: The corresponding discussion has been revised. (line 399-406)

Minor comments:

1. Lines 53-55: neuromuscular of ankle joint? Do the authors intend to state the neuromuscular control of the ankle joint?

Response: Yes, ‘‘state the neuromuscular control of the ankle joint‘‘ is what the authors mean. Revised (Line 61-62).

2. Lines 72-75: this sentence needs further clarification. Do the authors intend to state that the uninjured ankle is incapable of movement control that would reduce the potential for further injury to the already injured ankle?

Response: Yes, the manuscript was revised (Line 79-84).

3. Lines 87-89: “The compensation of external unexpected perturbations” – are the authors suggesting that compensatory mechanisms are essential to maintain system stability when external perturbations are presented? If so, this is not how their sentence is communicated

Response: The sentence is revised as: The ability to return to postural stability following external unexpected perturbations is important because it is the performance of core stability and relates to the risk of lower limb injuries (Line 96-98).

4. Lines 175-179: were these 10 to tal perturbations or 10 on the left and 10 on the right for a total of 20?

Response: Yes, revised. ‚for a total of 20 perturbations‘ was added into the manuscript. (Line 196-198).

5. Lines 180-184: was this same process used in the right side perturbation?

Response: The description has been revised. Perturbations in both sides were triggered by right heel contact but were programmed differently. The trigger of perturbation for the right side was triggered directly by right heel contact. The left side of perturbation was also triggered by right heel contact. The left side of perturbations occurred 200 ms after right heel contact plus stride duration (Line 198-205).

6. Lines 271-273: it is not clear what the authors are stating. Gmed had lowe r activation overall, but activated earlier at heel contact in the CAI group compared to controls?

Response: Revised as “Gmed overall had lower activation in the CAI group than controls. In the non-injured side, the CAI group activated Gmed earlier while heel contact than CON.“ (Line 334-335)

7. Lines 288-291: the shift of the center of mass t hat the authors bring forward is unclear. During the gait cycle the center of mass shifts laterally depending upon the limb supporting the body. Do the authors indicate that excessive lateral shift occurs in individuals with CAI?

Response: Yes, revised as ‘‘Gmed overall had lower activation in the CAI group than controls. In the non-injured side, the CAI group activated Gmed earlier while heel contact than CON‘‘. (Line 350-356)

8. Lines 315-317: if there is no st atistically significant difference, then there is no difference. Other areas of the Discussion section are stated similarly, and need to be adjusted accordingly (ex, lines 321-324). This section needs to be rewritten to reassess the authors’ findings with the current literature

Response: Revised. (Line 357-359, 378-379, 407-409)

9. Tables 1 and 2: are the statistics provided the comparisons between the healthy group and the CAI group? This is unclear in the legends

Response: The legends of tables 1 and 2 were revised. (Table 1: Group means, Cohen’s d effect size, and group difference for the magnitude and onset of muscle activation in the unperturbed walking trail; and Table 2: Group means, Cohen’s d effect size, and group difference for the magnitude and onset of muscle activation in the perturbed walking trail.)

If you require any additional information regarding our manuscript, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chiao-I Lin

Attachment

Submitted filename: Respponse to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (18.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Yumeng Li

10 Feb 2021

The effect of chronic ankle instability on muscle activations in lower extremities

PONE-D-20-26118R1

Dear Dr. Lin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yumeng Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The study examined motor control strategy of individuals with CAI. The study is well designed and paper is well written. The authors have addressed all concerns from the reviewer. The paper could be accepted.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have improved their manuscript to effectively communicate their study, and have addressed the concerns of this reviewer.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Yumeng Li

12 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-26118R1

The effect of chronic ankle instability on muscle activations in lower extremities

Dear Dr. Lin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yumeng Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Root mean squares of six measured muscles at Pre200, 100 ms, and Pert200 ms and onsets of muscle activations at heel contact and perturbation during unperturbed walking trail and perturbed walking trail.

    Averaged root mean squares of the corresponding time frame and onsets of muscle activation from ten unperturbed walking gaits and ten perturbations from each participant were presented in the dataset.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (29.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Respponse to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (18.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files (S1 File).

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES