# The Effects of Ankle Versus Plantar Vibrotactile Orthoses on Joint Position Sense and Postural Control in Individuals with Functional Ankle Instability: A Pilot Randomized Trial

## TL;DR

A pilot study found that plantar vibrotactile orthoses improved ankle joint position sense more than ankle-based ones in people with ankle instability.

## Contribution

This is the first study to compare plantar versus ankle vibrotactile orthoses for functional ankle instability.

## Key findings

- Plantar vibrotactile orthoses improved joint position sense more than ankle-based ones after two weeks.
- Both orthoses improved static postural stability but had no effect on dynamic balance tests.
- Minor discomfort from the device was reported but resolved within a week.

## Abstract

Functional ankle instability (FAI) is a common consequence of lateral ankle sprains, characterized by impaired sensorimotor control. While orthoses and localized vibration have shown individual benefits for FAI, their combined application in a wearable device has not been previously investigated. This pilot randomized trial compared the effects of a vibrotactile foot orthosis (VFO) and a vibrotactile ankle orthosis (VAO) on joint position sense (JPS) and postural control in individuals with FAI. Sixteen participants were randomized to receive either a VFO or a VAO, both delivering 30–50 Hz pulsed vibration in 20 min sessions, three times a week, for two weeks. Outcome measures included joint position sense (JPS) error (°), center of pressure (COP) velocity (mm/s), the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), and the Six-Meter Hop Test (SMHT), which were assessed pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and after two weeks of use. The analysis showed a statistically significant interaction between time and intervention group for JPS error (p = 0.02, η2 = 0.42). Specifically, the VFO group improved JPS significantly more than VAO at two weeks follow-up (MD = −1.75°, p = 0.005, d = −1.68). Both groups significantly reduced in anteroposterior COP velocity after two weeks (VFO: MD = 1, p = 0.003, d = 1.47; VAO: MD = 1.39, p ˂ 0.001, d = 2.05) with no between-group differences. No changes were observed in the SEBT or SMHT. Plantar-based vibrotactile stimulation was more effective than ankle-based stimulation in enhancing proprioceptive acuity in individuals with FAI. Both interventions improved static postural stability, supporting the potential of integrated vibrotactile orthoses in FAI rehabilitation. No major practical issues were reported during the intervention. Two participants experienced minor discomfort related to the electronic housing bulk in the first week, which was resolved by week two. No further complaints regarding device weight or usability were observed.