What
 
isthe
 
effect
 
of 
 
compression
 
garments
 
on
 
a
 
balance
 
task
 
infemaleathletes?
 JacobS.Michael
a
,SeraN.Dogramaci
a,
*,
 
KylieA.Steel
b
,KennethS.Graham
a
a
 Applied
 
Research
 
Program,
 
New
 
South
 
Wales
 
Institute
 
of 
 
Sport,
 
 
Figtree
 
Drive,
 
Sydney
 
Olympic 
 
Park,
 
NSW 
 
 2127,
 
 Australia
b
School
 
of 
 
Science
 
and
 
Health,
 
University
 
of 
 
Western
 
Sydney,
 
Penrith
 
Campus,
 
Locked
 
Bag 
 
1797,
 
Penrith
 
South,
 
NSW 
 
1797,
 
 Australia
1.
 
Introduction
Compression
 
based
 
garments
 
have
 
been
 
used
 
in
 
the
 
medical
 
fieldto
 
optimise
 
circulatory
 
dynamics
 
for
 
many
 
years
 
 
Compressiongarments
 
(CGs)
 
provide
 
a
 
means
 
of 
 
creating
 
an
 
external
 
pressuregradient
 
at
 
the
 
surface
 
of 
 
the
 
body
 
[2],that
 
demonstrates
 
improvedvenous
 
return
 
 
and
 
a
 
reduction
 
in
 
peripheral
 
swelling
 
[4].Although
 
a
 
significant
 
amount
 
of 
 
research
 
exists
 
describing
 
thesepositive
 
roles
 
of 
 
CGs
 
within
 
therapeutic
 
settings,
 
research
 
examiningsports-specific
 
useof 
 
CGs
 
have
 
revealedmixed
 
results,
 
with
 
only
 
afew
 
reporting
 
performance
 
benefits.Research
 
data
 
related
 
to
 
exercise
 
and
 
wearing
 
CGs
 
hasdemonstrated
 
a
 
decrease
 
in
 
blood
 
lactate
 
concentrations
 
duringand
 
after
 
maximal
 
exercise
 
and
 
improvements
 
in
 
maximalaerobic
 
performance
 
in
 
repeated
 
5
 
min
 
maximal
 
cycle
 
efforts
 
[6].The
 
results
 
suggested
 
that
 
the
 
CGs
 
were
 
better
 
able
 
to
 
improverecovery
 
via
 
increasing
 
venous
 
return
 
and
 
aid
 
in
 
the
 
removal
 
of waste
 
products.
 
Moreover,
 
it
 
has
 
been
 
demonstrated
 
thatenhanced
 
repetitive
 
 jump
 
performance
 
and
 
an
 
increasedvertical
 
 jump
 
height
 
resulted
 
with
 
use
 
of 
 
CGs.
 
In
 
addition
 
tothose
 
mentioned
 
above,
 
possible
 
mechanisms
 
may
 
includeenhanced
 
 joint
 
proprioception
 
and
 
muscle
 
coordination
 
[10],as
 
well
 
as
 
assisting
 
muscle
 
contraction
 
via
 
the
 
reduction
 
in
 
muscleoscillation
 
during
 
 jump
 
landings
 
[9].Contrary
 
to
 
these
 
reportshowever,
 
no
 
improvements
 
in
 
maximal
 
throwing
 
distance
 
[1],repeat
 
sprint
 
performance
 
or
 
prolonged
 
running/cyclingperformance
 
times
 
were
 
gained
 
whilst
 
wearing
 
CGs.Recently
 
Pearce
 
et
 
al.
 
 
found
 
visuomotor
 
tracking
 
perfor-mance
 
improved
 
while
 
participants
 
wore
 
CGs
 
during
 
and
 
afterrepetitive
 
eccentric
 
arm
 
exercise.
 
The
 
CG
 
is
 
thought
 
to
 
have
&
A
 
 
T
 
I
 
C
 
 
E
 
I
 
N
 
F
 
O
 Articlehistory:
Received
 
26
 
March
 
2013
Receivedinrevisedform24September2013
Accepted
 
4
 
November
 
2013
Keywords:
ProprioceptionCompression
 
garmentMotor
 
learningFemaleAthlete
A
 
B
 
S
 
T
 
 
A
 
C
 
T
Objectives:
 
Toinvestigatetheeffectoflonglegcompressiongarmentsontheposturalswayandbalanceabilityoffemaleathletesatastatesportsinstitute.
Design:
Alaboratorywassetuptoanalysekineticandkinematicvariablesusingadoubleblind,randomisedcontrolledrepeatedmeasurescrossoverdesign.
Method:
Participantswererequiredtoperformasinglelegbalancetaskforupto60sacrosssixconditions;includingeyes-openandeyes-closedwhilewearingconventionalshorts(control),loose-fittedcompressiongarmentandwell-fittedcompressiongarments.Simultaneousmeasurementsof groundreactionforcesandfullbodyjointkinematicswererecorded.Posturalstabilitywasassessedbymeasuringtheoverallstabilisationtimeaswellasthemovementofthecentreofpressure(CoP)andcentreofmass(CoM)frombaselinemeasures.
Results:
Duringonelegstance,significantlygreaterposturalstability(
 p
<
0.01)wasobservedwitheyesopenvseyesclosed,irrespectiveofcompressiongroup.Asignificantlygreater(
 p
<
0.05)balancetimewasobservedwitheyesclosedwhenwearingwell-fittedcompressiongarmentscomparedtoconventionalshorts.Differenceswerenotpresentwithuseoftheloose-fittedgarment.Additionally,asignificantinteractioneffectbetweencompressionconditionandvisionwasobservedanalysingthevariationabout
 
thesway(swaySD)oftheCoPandCoMdata(
 p
<
0.05).Theinteractioneffectrevealedgreatervariabilityofmovementwitheyesclosedasparticipants’levelofcompressiondecreased.Nosignificantdifferenceswereobservedwitheyesopen.
Conclusions:
Thedifficultiesofposturalstabilitywhilemaintainingthesinglelegstancewearingconventionalshortswereimprovedwithuseofthewell-fittedcompressiongarments(intheeyes-closedcondition).Properfittedcompressiongarmentsmaybebeneficialforinjurymanagementandinjuryprevention.
2013ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
* Corresponding
 
author.
 
Tel.:
 
+612
 
9763
 
0267.
E-mail
 
address:
 
(S.N.
 
Dogramaci).
Contents
 
lists
 
available
 
at
 
Gait&Posture
jo
 
u
 
rn
 
al
 
h
 
omep
 
age:www.els
0966-6362/$
 
 
see
 
front
 
matter
 
 
2013
 
Elsevier
 
B.V.
 
All
 
rights
 
 
produced
 
increased
 
cutaneous
 
stimulation
 
allowing
 
for
 
improvedproprioceptive
 
feedback
 
and
 
 joint
 
positional
 
awareness.
 
Further-more,
 
Cameron
 
et
 
al.
 
investigated
 
the
 
effect
 
of 
 
CGs
 
on
 
a
 
legswing
 
task
 
in
 
Australian
 
Rules
 
football
 
players
 
and
 
found
 
highperforming
 
players
 
demonstrated
 
decreased
 
swing
 
discriminationscore
 
compared
 
to
 
less
 
skilled
 
players
 
who
 
improved.
 
In
 
contrast
 
tothe
 
results
 
found
 
by
 
Pearce
 
et
 
al.
 
the
 
increased
 
feedbackpresented
 
to
 
the
 
elite
 
players
 
via
 
the
 
cutaneous
 
sensory
 
receptorsin
 
the
 
skin,
 
may
 
have
 
presented
 
unfamiliar
 
feedback
 
that
 
wasdifficult
 
to
 
ignore
 
by
 
the
 
feedback
 
system.
 
Further,
 
less
 
skilledplayers
 
may
 
have
 
been
 
less
 
attuned
 
to
 
their
 
own
 
intrinsic
 
feedbackand
 
so
 
profited
 
from
 
the
 
novel
 
presentation
 
of 
 
feedback
 
in
 
thiscase.
 
Despite
 
the
 
aforementioned
 
studies
 
there
 
is
 
a
 
paucity
 
of research
 
in
 
the
 
application
 
of 
 
CGs
 
in
 
motor
 
control,
 
e.g.
 
balance.Balance
 
ability
 
in
 
sport
 
ranges
 
from
 
maintaining
 
an
 
uprightposture
 
to
 
executing
 
complex
 
sporting
 
skills,
 
and
 
is
 
required
 
tokeep
 
the
 
vertical
 
projection
 
of 
 
the
 
centre
 
of 
 
mass
 
over
 
the
 
base
 
of support
 
 
Constant
 
adjustments
 
and
 
counter-adjustments
 
of  joint
 
position
 
exist
 
(postural
 
sway)
 
which
 
maintain
 
equilibriumand
 
prevent
 
falling
 
 
Given
 
control
 
of 
 
posture
 
is
 
maintained
 
bya
 
complex
 
interrelationship
 
between
 
sensory
 
informationobtained
 
from
 
the
 
somatosensory,
 
visual,
 
and
 
vestibular
 
systemsand
 
responses
 
of 
 
the
 
musculoskeletal
 
system
 
regulating
 
bodyposture
 
and
 
movement
 
it
 
is
 
possible
 
that
 
these
 
systems
 
maybenefit
 
from
 
the
 
use
 
of 
 
CGs.
 
Further,
 
research
 
has
 
shown
 
thatsuperior
 
balance
 
enhances
 
postural
 
control
 
athletic
 
perfor-mance
 
[17],and
 
is
 
associated
 
with
 
a
 
reduction
 
in
 
injury
 
rates
 
[18].Therefore
 
the
 
purpose
 
of 
 
this
 
study
 
was
 
to
 
assess
 
the
 
effectivenessof 
 
wearing
 
CGs
 
on
 
the
 
balance
 
ability
 
of 
 
elite
 
athletes,
 
and
 
toinvestigate
 
the
 
effects
 
of 
 
compression
 
garment
 
sizing
 
on
 
posturalcontrol.
 
We
 
hypothesised
 
that
 
greater
 
conscious
 
awareness
 
of 
 
thebody’s
 
position
 
would
 
occur
 
as
 
a
 
result
 
of 
 
wearing
 
CGs
 
during
 
a60
 
s
 
single-leg
 
balance
 
task.
2.
 
Methods
Twelve
 
healthy
 
and
 
active
 
females
 
(24
 
 
7.2
 
yrs;
 
57.8
 
 
6.1
 
kg;168.3
 
 
6.3
 
cm)
 
volunteered
 
to
 
participate
 
in
 
this
 
study.
 
Participantswere
 
free
 
of 
 
neurological
 
illness,
 
musculoskeletal
 
injury
 
or
 
anydisease/condition
 
that
 
would
 
interfere
 
with
 
their
 
normal
 
balance.University
 
Human
 
Ethics
 
Committee
 
(ref.
 
H8620)
 
was
 
provided
 
priorto
 
the
 
commencement
 
of 
 
the
 
study
 
and
 
participants
 
gave
 
informedconsent
 
before
 
participating.
Kinetic
 
and
 
kinematic
 
variables
 
were
 
measured
 
using
 
a
 
doubleblind,
 
randomised
 
controlled
 
repeated
 
measures
 
cross
 
over
 
designto
 
assess
 
the
 
effects
 
CGs
 
had
 
on
 
balance
 
during
 
single
 
leg
 
stance(SLS).
 
Participants
 
were
 
required
 
to
 
perform
 
three
 
balance
 
trials:wearing
 
conventional
 
shorts
 
(control);
 
loose
 
fitted
 
CGs
 
(LF-CG);and
 
well
 
fitted
 
CGs
 
(WF-CG),
 
on
 
two
 
occasions:
 
eyes
 
open
 
and
 
eyesclosed
 
(visual
 
occlusion).
 
The
 
CGs
 
were
 
fitted
 
to
 
participants
 
on
 
thebasis
 
of 
 
the
 
company’s
 
guidelines
 
using
 
height
 
and
 
weight.
 
LF-CGwas
 
classified
 
as
 
loose-fitted
 
compared
 
to
 
the
 
normal
 
recom-mended
 
size.
 
Both
 
pairs
 
of 
 
CGs
 
looked
 
identical
 
to
 
minimise
 
anyplacebo
 
effects.
 
Each
 
testing
 
session
 
began
 
with
 
the
 
conventionalshorts
 
condition
 
which
 
provided
 
baseline
 
measurements
 
forbalance
 
ability.
 
The
 
two
 
remaining
 
compression
 
garment
 
condi-tions
 
were
 
then
 
randomised
 
for
 
each
 
subject
 
to
 
minimise
 
anylearning
 
effect
 
that
 
may
 
occur
 
with
 
familiarity.
 
The
 
CGs
 
used
 
werestandard
 
commercial
 
sportswear
 
(itsports,
 
Sydney,
 
Australia)which
 
covered
 
the
 
area
 
from
 
the
 
waist
 
to
 
the
 
ankle
 
with
 
a
 
stirrupunder
 
the
 
foot.
 
All
 
participants
 
had
 
worn
 
compression
 
garmentsduring
 
their
 
sporting
 
careers;
 
however,
 
in
 
this
 
instance
 
the
 
athleteshad
 
not
 
worn
 
this
 
brand
 
of 
 
garment.Prior
 
to
 
each
 
testing
 
condition,
 
instructions
 
were
 
givendirecting
 
the
 
participant
 
to
 
stand
 
in
 
a
 
comfortable
 
stance,balancing
 
on
 
their
 
dominant
 
leg
 
(stance
 
leg)
 
near
 
the
 
centre
 
of the
 
force
 
platform.
 
Participants
 
were
 
instructed
 
to
 
keep
 
their
 
non-weight
 
bearing
 
leg
 
(swing
 
leg)
 
in
 
approximately
 
15
8
of 
 
flexion,
 
sothat
 
their
 
foot
 
was
 
level
 
with,
 
but
 
not
 
touching,
 
the
 
calf 
 
of 
 
theirstance
 
leg.
 
Additionally,
 
participants’
 
arms
 
were
 
kept
 
in
 
a
 
flexedposition,
 
with
 
their
 
hands
 
resting
 
on
 
their
 
hips.
 
Participants
 
wereallowed
 
to
 
move
 
their
 
arms
 
and
 
swing
 
leg
 
during
 
the
 
trial
 
as
 
astrategy
 
to
 
regain
 
balance
 
if 
 
required,
 
but
 
were
 
instructed
 
to
 
returntheir
 
arms
 
and
 
swing
 
leg
 
to
 
the
 
initial
 
position
 
immediately
 
aftersway
 
was
 
controlled.
 
This
 
movement
 
was
 
allowed
 
to
 
representbalance
 
strategies
 
used
 
during
 
normal
 
balance
 
control.Each
 
trial
 
began
 
once
 
the
 
subject
 
was
 
in
 
a
 
‘‘ready’’
 
position
 
andgave
 
a
 
verbal
 
cue
 
to
 
indicate
 
she
 
felt
 
comfortable
 
in
 
a
 
quiet,balanced
 
stance.
 
Similar
 
to
 
previous
 
studies
 
measuring
 
healthyand
 
active
 
participants
 
the
 
participants
 
in
 
the
 
current
 
studywere
 
required
 
to
 
maintain
 
this
 
SLS
 
for
 
a
 
maximum
 
of 
 
60
 
s.
 
If 
 
thesubject
 
became
 
unbalanced
 
during
 
the
 
trial
 
and
 
touched
 
the
 
floorwith
 
the
 
swing
 
leg,
 
the
 
test
 
was
 
terminated
 
and
 
the
 
total
 
time
 
of the
 
test
 
was
 
recorded.An
 
eight
 
camera
 
motion
 
analysis
 
system
 
(Vicon
 
MX
 
13;
 
OxfordMetrics
 
Ltd.,
 
Oxford,
 
United
 
Kingdom)
 
and
 
one
 
force
 
plate
 
(Kistler9281CA,
 
Winterthur,
 
Switzerland)
 
were
 
used
 
to
 
sample
 
theparticipant’s
 
kinematic
 
and
 
kinetic
 
motion
 
data,
 
respectively.Subjects’
 
3D
 
trajectories
 
and
 
3D
 
reaction
 
forces
 
were
 
capturedusing
 
a
 
motion
 
capture,
 
measurement
 
and
 
analysis
 
software(Vicon
 
Motion
 
Systems,
 
Nexus
 
v1.6,
 
Oxford,
 
United
 
Kingdom)using
 
the
 
plug-in
 
gait
 
full
 
body
 
model.
 
Raw
 
marker
 
trajectorieswere
 
filtered
 
using
 
Vicon’s
 
Woltring
 
quintic
 
spline
 
algorithm
 
witha
 
MSE
 
value
 
of 
 
20.The
 
motion
 
analysis
 
software
 
enabled
 
synchronised
 
recordingof 
 
the
 
three
 
dimensional
 
motion
 
data
 
with
 
the
 
analogue
 
forcechannel
 
simultaneously
 
recorded
 
during
 
each
 
balance
 
trial(sampled
 
at
 
250
 
and
 
500
 
Hz
 
respectively).
 
Thirty-five
 
sphericalshaped
 
retro-reflective
 
markers
 
were
 
used
 
to
 
define
 
15
 
rigid,linked
 
segments
 
of 
 
the
 
participant
 
(head,
 
trunk,
 
upper
 
arms,forearms,
 
hand,
 
pelvis,
 
thighs,
 
shanks
 
and
 
feet)
 
during
 
each
 
trial(Fig.
1).The
 
3D
 
trajectories
 
of 
 
the
 
reflective
 
markers
 
(14
 
mmdiameter)
 
were
 
computed
 
with
 
a
 
dynamic
 
accuracy
 
of 
 
0.5
 
mm
 
[20].Centre
 
of 
 
mass
 
(CoM)
 
was
 
determined
 
from
 
the
 
anthropometricand
 
kinematic
 
analysis
 
of 
 
all
 
body
 
segments.
 
The
 
position
 
theparticipant
 
applied
 
weight
 
onto
 
the
 
force
 
platform
 
was
 
calculatedas
 
the
 
centre
 
of 
 
pressure
 
(CoP)
 
which
 
was
 
computed
 
using
 
thedigitised
 
output
 
signals
 
of 
 
the
 
force
 
platform
 
amplifiers.
Fig.
 
1.
 
An
 
example
 
of 
 
the
 
anatomical
 
landmark
 
locations
 
used
 
in
 
the
 
biomechanicalanalysis
 
of 
 
the
 
participants
 
in
 
this
 
study.
 J.S.
 
Michael
 
et 
 
al.
 
 / 
 
Gait 
 
 
Posture
 
 39
 
(2014)
 
804–809
 
805
 
Each
 
balance
 
trial
 
was
 
analysed
 
for
 
all
 
participants.
 
The
 
mainoutcome
 
measures
 
for
 
this
 
study
 
included
 
the
 
overall
 
stabilisationtime
 
and
 
measurements
 
of 
 
CoM/CoP
 
path
 
lengths.
 
Path
 
lengthmeasurements
 
include
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
range
 
differences
 
within
 
thesagittal
 
plane
 
(antero-posterior
 
axis)
 
and
 
the
 
frontal
 
plane
 
(medio-lateral
 
axis);
 
average
 
sway
 
within
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
time
 
series
 
andstandard
 
deviations
 
of 
 
this
 
range
 
of 
 
movement.
 
All
 
computationswere
 
based
 
on
 
the
 
total
 
stabilisation
 
time
 
acquired.The
 
antero-posterior
 
(AP)
 
and
 
medio-lateral
 
(ML)
 
coordinatesthat
 
define
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
path
 
were
 
computed
 
using
 
thedigitised
 
output
 
signals
 
of 
 
the
 
force
 
platform
 
amplifiers.
 
Theparticipant
 
was
 
positioned
 
on
 
the
 
force
 
platform
 
facing
 
the
 
positiveAP
 
direction.
 
Thus
 
the
 
location
 
and
 
movements
 
of 
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoPin
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
axis
 
during
 
SLS
 
were
 
recorded.
 
The
 
range
 
referredto
 
the
 
maximum
 
movement
 
of 
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP,
 
in
 
both
 
the
 
AP
 
andML 
 
directions.
 
Range
 
was
 
calculated
 
as
 
the
 
maximum
 
distancebetween
 
any
 
two
 
points
 
on
 
the
 
time
 
series
 
path.
 
The
 
CoP
 
range
 
inthe
 
AP
 
direction
 
for
 
example,
 
was
 
the
 
absolute
 
value
 
of 
 
thedifference
 
between
 
the
 
smallest
 
and
 
largest
 
values
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
timeseries
 
for
 
CoP
 
data.
 
Similarly,
 
ML 
 
range
 
was
 
calculated.
 
The
 
abilityto
 
keep
 
the
 
CoM
 
above
 
the
 
CoP
 
is
 
reflected
 
in
 
the
 
absolutedifference
 
between
 
the
 
two
 
variables
 
in
 
both
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML directions
 
(the
 
CoM–CoP
 
range
 
difference).
 
This
 
measurement
 
of path
 
lengths
 
has
 
been
 
used
 
in
 
previous
 
research
 
and
 
shown
 
tobe
 
a
 
valid
 
and
 
reliable
 
measure
 
of 
 
standing
 
balance
 
[21–23].Furthermore,
 
postural
 
sway
 
was
 
also
 
calculated,
 
and
 
defined
 
asthe
 
average
 
displacement
 
spent
 
away
 
from
 
the
 
central
 
point
 
of srcin
 
in
 
both
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
coordinate
 
time
 
series.
 
The
 
srcin
 
of the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
path
 
was
 
 X 
coordinate
 
recorded
 
at
 
thebeginning
 
of 
 
each
 
trial.
 
The
 
resultant
 
distance
 
was
 
calculated
 
as
 
thevector
 
distance
 
from
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
srcin
 
to
 
each
 
consecutivepoint
 
on
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
path
 
respectively.
 
Average
 
posturalsway,
 
the
 
mean
 
of 
 
the
 
resultant
 
distance
 
time
 
series,
 
was
 
recorded,along
 
with
 
the
 
variability
 
(standard
 
deviations)
 
of 
 
the
 
posturalsway
 
in
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
time
 
series.
 
The
 
swaySD
 
has
 
beensuccessfully
 
used
 
as
 
an
 
indicator
 
of 
 
postural
 
sway
 
by
 
previousresearchers
 
[24].All
 
statistical
 
procedures
 
were
 
conducted
 
with
 
SYSTAT
 
(SYSTAT,Inc.,
 
Evanston,
 
IL).
 
A
 
two-way
 
analysis
 
of 
 
variance
 
(compressioncondition
 
 
vision)
 
with
 
repeated
 
measures
 
was
 
used
 
to
 
test
 
thesignificance
 
of 
 
any
 
observed
 
differences
 
in
 
the
 
means
 
of 
 
theprimary
 
variables
 
and
 
to
 
determine
 
any
 
interaction
 
effects.
 
Aprobability
 
level
 
of 
 
 p
 
<
 
0.05
 
was
 
accepted
 
to
 
indicate
 
a
 
statisticallysignificant
 
difference
 
in
 
the
 
individual
 
comparisons.
 
Wheresignificance
 
was
 
reached,
 
a
 
Student–Newman–Keuls
 
post
 
hocanalysis
 
was
 
used
 
to
 
isolate
 
differences
 
among
 
conditions
 
[10].Alldata
 
are
 
presented
 
as
 
mean
 
 
standard
 
deviation
 
(SD).
3.
 
Results
The
 
results
 
for
 
the
 
overall
 
stabilisation
 
time
 
are
 
presented
 
inFig.
2.A
 
significant
 
main
 
effect
 
was
 
observed
 
when
 
analysing
 
theeffect
 
of 
 
vision
 
(
[1,11]
 
=
 
21.40,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.05)
 
and
 
compressioncondition
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
5.34,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.05).
 
A
 
significant
 
interaction
 
effectwas
 
also
 
observed
 
between
 
compression
 
condition
 
and
 
vision
 
fortotal
 
stabilisation
 
time
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
4.94,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.05).
 
Post
 
hoc
 
testsrevealed
 
that
 
with
 
eyes
 
closed,
 
total
 
balance
 
time
 
wearing
 
WF-GGwas
 
significantly
 
greater
 
than
 
wearing
 
shorts
 
2).
 
Nosignificant
 
differences
 
among
 
the
 
three
 
compression
 
conditionswere
 
observed
 
in
 
the
 
eyes
 
open
 
condition,
 
with
 
all
 
subjectsmaintaining
 
the
 
60
 
s
 
stance
 
balanced
 
on
 
one
 
leg.Representative
 
graphs
 
for
 
the
 
maximum
 
displacement
 
of 
 
theCoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
within
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
directions
 
are
 
presented
 
inFig.
3.Analysis
 
of 
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
range
 
allowed
 
for
 
the
 
CoM–CoPrange
 
differences.
 
No
 
significant
 
main
 
effects
 
were
 
observedbetween
 
compression
 
conditions
 
when
 
analysing
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoPrange
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
direction
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
1.58,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.23
 
and
[2,22]
 
=
 
0.75,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.48
 
respectively)
 
or
 
ML 
 
direction(
[2,22]
 
=
 
3.40,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.05,
 
and
 
[2,22]
 
=
 
1.93,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.17
 
respectively).Furthermore,
 
no
 
significant
 
main
 
effect
 
was
 
found
 
analysing
 
theCoM–CoP
 
range
 
differences
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
0.72,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.50)
 
andML 
 
directions
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
2.57,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.10).
 
Post
 
hoc
 
tests
 
showed
 
thatwith
 
vision
 
and
 
compression
 
conditions
 
grouped,
 
a
 
significantlygreater
 
CoP
 
displacement
 
was
 
found
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
direction
 
comparedto
 
the
 
ML 
 
direction
 
(
 p
 
<
 
0.05)
 
3B).
 
Alternatively,
 
analysis
 
of the
 
CoM
 
data
 
revealed
 
greater,
 
but
 
not
 
significant,
 
movement
 
inthe
 
ML 
 
direction
 
compared
 
to
 
the
 
AP
 
direction
 
(
 p
 
=
 
0.09).CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
plots
 
for
 
average
 
sway
 
and
 
swaySD
 
are
 
presentedin
 
4.
 
A
 
significant
 
main
 
effect
 
was
 
observed
 
when
 
analysing
 
theeffect
 
of 
 
vision
 
for
 
all
 
variables
 
measured
 
(
[1,11]
 
=
 
28.27,
 p
 
<
 
0.01;
 
[1,11]
 
=
 
17.83,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.01;
 
[1,11]
 
=
 
19.03,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.01
 
and
[1,11]
 
=
 
17.50,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.01,
 
respectively)
 
with
 
greater
 
balance
 
controlobserved
 
with
 
eyes
 
open
 
compared
 
to
 
eyes
 
closed.
 
Examination
 
of the
 
average
 
postural
 
sway
 
measured
 
from
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
timeseries
 
indicated
 
no
 
significant
 
differences
 
between
 
compressionconditions
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
0.18,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.84
 
and
 
[2,22]
 
=
 
0.54,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.59,respectively)
 
(Fig
 
4A).
 
Similarly,
 
no
 
significant
 
differences
 
wereobserved
 
when
 
analysing
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
swaySD
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
1.33,
 p
 
=
 
0.28
 
and
 
[2,22]
 
=
 
1.63,
 
 p
 
=
 
0.22,
 
respectively)
 
4B).
 
Asignificant
 
interaction
 
effect
 
was
 
observed
 
however,
 
betweencompression
 
condition
 
and
 
vision
 
when
 
analysing
 
the
 
CoM
 
andCoP
 
swaySD
 
(
[2,22]
 
=
 
3.92,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.05
 
and
 
[2,22]
 
=
 
4.03,
 
 p
 
<
 
0.05respectively).
 
The
 
interaction
 
effect
 
revealed
 
greater
 
variability
 
of movement
 
with
 
eyes
 
closed
 
as
 
participants’
 
level
 
of 
 
compressiondecreased
 
4B).
4.
 
Discussion
The
 
aim
 
of 
 
this
 
study
 
was
 
to
 
assess
 
the
 
effects
 
of 
 
CGs
 
comparedto
 
conventional
 
shorts
 
on
 
stability
 
during
 
one
 
leg
 
stance
 
for
 
60
 
swith
 
eyes
 
open
 
and
 
eyes
 
closed.
 
The
 
assessment
 
of 
 
stabilityincorporated
 
total
 
balance
 
time
 
as
 
well
 
as
 
measurement
 
of 
 
theCoM/CoP
 
and
 
deviations
 
from
 
these
 
points.
 
The
 
results
 
gatheredindicate
 
that
 
wearing
 
WF-CGs
 
significantly
 
improved
 
balance
 
timeand
 
significantly
 
decreased
 
postural
 
sway
 
variability
 
comparedwith
 
conventional
 
shorts
 
in
 
the
 
eyes
 
closed
 
condition.
 
However,wearing
 
LF-CGs
 
revealed
 
no
 
significant
 
differences,
 
highlightingthe
 
importance
 
of 
 
correct
 
sizing
 
control.
 
Furthermore,
 
CGs
 
had
 
noeffect
 
on
 
static
 
balance
 
and
 
postural
 
control
 
when
 
vision
 
waspresent.The
 
removal
 
of 
 
vision
 
demonstrated
 
a
 
significant
 
negative
 
effecton
 
balance
 
time
 
and
 
postural
 
sway,
 
which
 
is
 
consistent
 
with
Fig.
 
2.
 
Total
 
stabilisation
 
time
 
(s)
 
for
 
each
 
compression
 
condition
 
with
 
eyes
 
openand
 
eyes
 
closed
 
with
 
their
 
respective
 
SD
 
values.
 
*Significant
 
difference
 
betweenshorts
 
and
 
well
 
fitted
 
compression
 
garments
 
(
 p
 
<
 
0.05).
 J.S.
 
Michael
 
et 
 
al.
 
 / 
 
Gait 
 
 
Posture
 
 39
 
(2014)
 
804–809
806
 
previous
 
research
 
examining
 
unperturbed
 
stance.
 
It
 
has
 
beensuggested
 
that
 
vision,
 
as
 
well
 
as
 
proprioceptive
 
(somatosensory)inputs,
 
dominate
 
the
 
control
 
of 
 
orientation
 
and
 
balance
 
 
Anumber
 
of 
 
studies
 
have
 
also
 
isolated
 
specific
 
sensory
 
inputs
 
byaltering
 
either
 
vision
 
or
 
the
 
support
 
surface,
 
which
 
has
 
resulted
 
indata
 
that
 
can
 
be
 
used
 
as
 
a
 
baseline
 
for
 
balance
 
assessment
 
[16,25].Further,
 
the
 
reduction
 
of 
 
the
 
base
 
of 
 
support
 
present
 
in
 
a
 
one
 
legbalance
 
task
 
significantly
 
increases
 
body
 
sway
 
by
 
up
 
to
 
8
 
times[16]
compared
 
to
 
bipedal
 
stance
 
[14,25].This
 
suggests
 
that
 
theproprioceptive
 
feedback
 
extracted
 
when
 
performing
 
a
 
one
 
limbtask
 
is
 
not
 
sufficient
 
to
 
overcome
 
the
 
effect
 
of 
 
visual
 
occlusionduring
 
balance
 
and
 
posture
 
tasks
 
 
The
 
results
 
of 
 
the
 
currentstudy
 
support
 
this,
 
as
 
vision
 
enabled
 
all
 
participants
 
to
 
maintainbalance
 
on
 
one
 
leg,
 
irrespective
 
of 
 
compression
 
condition,
 
for
 
theentire
 
60
 
s
 
time
 
period
 
with
 
minimal
 
differences
 
in
 
posturalmovement
 
observed.
 
However,
 
with
 
visual
 
occlusion,
 
the
 
control‘‘shorts’’
 
condition
 
demonstrated
 
a
 
significant
 
reduction
 
in
 
balancetime
 
and
 
significantly
 
greater
 
body
 
movement
 
variability
 
com-pared
 
to
 
eyes
 
open.
 
Furthermore,
 
wearing
 
the
 
CGs
 
with
 
visualocclusion
 
resulted
 
in
 
a
 
insignificant
 
reduction
 
in
 
balance
 
time,
 
withthese
 
values
 
found
 
closer
 
to
 
those
 
observed
 
with
 
eyes
 
open.
 
Thiswas
 
particularly
 
evident
 
when
 
wearing
 
WF-CG,
 
where
 
participantssignificantly
 
improved
 
the
 
total
 
time
 
they
 
were
 
able
 
to
 
balance
 
onone
 
leg
 
compared
 
to
 
the
 
control
 
condition.Data
 
analysis
 
of 
 
the
 
maximum
 
absolute
 
CoM
 
movement
 
andCoP
 
displacement
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
directions
 
when
 
vision
 
wasoccluded
 
indicated
 
a
 
concomitant,
 
though
 
not
 
significant,
 
trend.Results
 
revealed
 
that
 
as
 
surface
 
compression
 
increased
 
(fromshorts
 
to
 
WF-CG),
 
maximum
 
amount
 
of 
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
movement
 
inboth
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
directions
 
decreased
 
to
 
values
 
closer
 
to
 
thoseobserved
 
with
 
eyes
 
open
 
3Aand
 
B).
 
Although
 
the
 
largevariability
 
limited
 
the
 
significance
 
of 
 
individual
 
comparisons,
 
asignificant
 
interaction
 
effect
 
was
 
found
 
between
 
vision
 
andcompression
 
when
 
analysing
 
the
 
movement
 
of 
 
the
 
CoP.
 
Theresults
 
highlighted
 
the
 
decreased
 
movement
 
of 
 
the
 
CoP
 
with
 
use
 
of CGs
 
when
 
vision
 
was
 
occluded.
 
Research
 
examining
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoPmeasures
 
have
 
found
 
increased
 
movement
 
with
 
eyes
 
closed
 
[24].This
 
was
 
suggested
 
to
 
be
 
due
 
to
 
greater
 
body
 
movements
 
in
 
anygiven
 
direction
 
before
 
movement
 
was
 
counteracted
 
by
 
correctivemuscle
 
action
 
[24].Considering
 
the
 
reduced
 
body
 
movementfound
 
with
 
use
 
of 
 
CGs,
 
it
 
may
 
be
 
suggested
 
that
 
CG
 
use
 
mayimprove
 
 joint
 
positional
 
sense
 
to
 
accommodate
 
for
 
visualocclusion,
 
and
 
thus
 
allowing
 
participants
 
to
 
improve
 
posturalcontrol
 
while
 
maintaining
 
SLS.Similarly,
 
following
 
fatiguing
 
exercise,
 
where
 
proprioceptionand
 
sensory
 
awareness
 
would
 
be
 
expected
 
to
 
decline
 
[26],Pearceet
 
al.
 
 
found
 
significantly
 
better
 
results
 
when
 
participantsperformed
 
post
 
exercise
 
visuomotor
 
tracking
 
tasks
 
when
 
wearingCGs.
 
This
 
supports
 
the
 
current
 
findings
 
that
 
the
 
compressionprovided
 
may
 
support
 
the
 
active
 
muscles
 
in
 
a
 
way
 
that
 
decreasesdependency
 
upon
 
the
 
visual
 
input
 
and
 
enhances
 
propriocep-tion
 
 
It
 
can
 
be
 
suggested
 
that
 
surface
 
compression
 
may
 
act
 
oncutaneous
 
mechanoreceptors
 
to
 
provide
 
an
 
additional
 
sensoryinput,
 
which
 
in
 
turn,
 
may
 
improve
 
sensation,
 
and
 
thus
 
lead
 
toimproved
 
muscle
 
coordination
 
and
 
 joint
 
stability
 
 
Recentstudies
 
have
 
also
 
observed
 
improvements
 
in
 
the
 
stabilisation
 
of 
Fig.
 
3.
 
Maximum
 
range
 
of 
 
the
 
CoM,
 
CoP
 
and
 
CoM–CoP
 
range
 
differences
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
directions:
 
(A)
 
the
 
effect
 
of 
 
compression
 
condition
 
and
 
vision
 
with
 
standarddeviations
 
presented
 
only
 
for
 
eyes
 
closed,
 
and
 
(B)
 
with
 
compression
 
condition
 
and
 
vision
 
grouped,
 
analysing
 
the
 
cumulative
 
effect
 
of 
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
directions.
 
*Significantdifference
 
between
 
AP
 
and
 
MLdirections
 
with
 
compression
 
and
 
vision
 
grouped
 
(
 p
 
<
 
0.05).
 
AP:
 
antero-posterior;
 
CoM:
 
centre
 
of 
 
mass;
 
CoP:
 
centre
 
of 
 
pressure;
 
LF-CG:
 
loosefitted
 
compression
 
garment;
 
ML:
 
medio-lateral;
 
WF-CG:
 
well
 
fitted
 
compression
 
garment.
 J.S.
 
Michael
 
et 
 
al.
 
 / 
 
Gait 
 
 
Posture
 
 39
 
(2014)
 
804–809
 
807
 
upright
 
posture
 
by
 
providing
 
additional
 
tactile
 
sensory
 
input,particularly,
 
using
 
‘light
 
touch’
 
of 
 
the
 
index
 
finger
 
with
 
a
 
stationarysurface
 
[28,29].Jeka
 
and
 
Lackner
 
found
 
that
 
contact
 
of 
 
the
 
indexfinger
 
with
 
a
 
stationary
 
bar
 
attenuated
 
postural
 
sway
 
with
 
visionoccluded.
 
In
 
a
 
similar
 
way
 
to
 
the
 
current
 
study,
 
the
 
authors
 
suggestthat
 
the
 
pattern
 
of 
 
somatosensory
 
stimulation
 
from
 
the
 
light
 
touchtriggers
 
postural
 
muscles
 
to
 
correct
 
sway.
 
The
 
current
 
findings
 
of improved
 
postural
 
control
 
with
 
CGs
 
together
 
with
 
those
 
examin-ing
 
light
 
touch
 
demonstrate
 
the
 
potential
 
applications
 
for
 
injurymanagement/rehabilitation
 
and
 
injury
 
prevention,
 
where
 
athleteshave
 
lost
 
varying
 
levels
 
of 
 
sensorimotor
 
processes
 
[30].Additional
 
data
 
analysis
 
revealed
 
positional
 
changes
 
recordedon
 
the
 
force
 
platform
 
were
 
not
 
always
 
accompanied
 
by
 
corre-sponding
 
movements
 
of 
 
the
 
CoM
 
3B).
 
Consistent
 
withprevious
 
research,
 
analysis
 
of 
 
the
 
CoP
 
displacement
 
indicatedmovement
 
in
 
the
 
AP
 
direction
 
was
 
significantly
 
greater
 
comparedto
 
the
 
ML 
 
direction
 
(
 p
 
<
 
0.05)
 
 
Interestingly
 
however,although
 
not
 
significant,
 
analysis
 
of 
 
the
 
CoM
 
data
 
revealed
 
theopposite
 
effect,
 
with
 
greater
 
movement
 
recorded
 
in
 
the
 
ML direction
 
compared
 
to
 
the
 
AP
 
direction
 
(
 p
 
=
 
0.09).
 
To
 
maintain
 
abalanced
 
posture
 
on
 
one
 
leg,
 
the
 
postural
 
control
 
system
 
allows
 
formovements
 
of 
 
the
 
body
 
segments
 
to
 
keep
 
the
 
CoM
 
over
 
the
 
base
 
of support
 
[23,25],which
 
may
 
explain
 
this
 
factor.
 
Many
 
perturba-tions
 
experienced
 
by
 
the
 
participants
 
were
 
accompanied
 
with
 
acounterbalancing
 
of 
 
a
 
body
 
segment
 
in
 
the
 
lateral
 
direction
 
inorder
 
to
 
prevent
 
falling.
 
During
 
SLS
 
with
 
eyes
 
open
 
all
 
testingconditions
 
revealed
 
that
 
the
 
CoP
 
and
 
the
 
vertical
 
line
 
of 
 
the
 
CoMare
 
very
 
close
 
to
 
alignment,
 
as
 
indicated
 
by
 
small
 
differencesmeasured
 
between
 
these
 
two
 
variables
 
3).
 
A
 
close
 
alignmentwould
 
suggest
 
a
 
small
 
sway
 
path,
 
thus
 
was
 
used
 
as
 
an
 
indication
 
of good
 
postural
 
control.
 
This
 
alignment
 
observation
 
was
 
recorded
 
inboth
 
the
 
AP
 
and
 
ML 
 
directions.
 
With
 
visual
 
occlusion,
 
differencesbetween
 
the
 
CoM
 
and
 
CoP
 
in
 
both
 
directions
 
were
 
shown
 
toincrease.
 
This
 
difference
 
was
 
reported
 
as
 
maximal
 
during
 
the
 
SLSwearing
 
conventional
 
shorts,
 
and
 
again
 
showed
 
a
 
non-significantdecrease
 
as
 
surface
 
compression
 
increased.Finally,
 
the
 
swaySD
 
revealed
 
significant
 
interaction
 
effects(Fig.
4B).
 
Results
 
revealed
 
greater
 
variability
 
of 
 
movement
 
witheyes
 
closed
 
as
 
participants’
 
level
 
of 
 
compression
 
decreased.
 
Thedata
 
from
 
the
 
WF-CG
 
in
 
both
 
eyes
 
open
 
and
 
eyes
 
closed
 
were
 
foundto
 
lie
 
close
 
to
 
the
 
mean
 
values
 
recorded.
 
These
 
results
 
againindicate
 
a
 
greater
 
musculature
 
control
 
combining
 
with
 
the
 
action
Fig.
 
4.
 
Average
 
postural
 
sway
 
(A)
 
and
 
the
 
respective
 
standard
 
deviation
 
(B)
 
for
 
CoP
 
and
 
CoM
 
time
 
series.
 
*Significant
 
interaction
 
effect
 
(
 p
 
<
 
0.05).
 
CoM:
 
centre
 
of 
 
mass;
 
CoP:centre
 
of 
 
pressure;
 
LF-CG:
 
loose
 
fitted
 
compression
 
garment;
 
WF-CG:
 
well
 
fitted
 
compression
 
garment.
 J.S.
 
Michael
 
et 
 
al.
 
 / 
 
Gait 
 
 
Posture
 
 39
 
(2014)
 
804–809
808
of 6