Neural oscillations
Can a 120 bpm beat change how unstable ankles land?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
In 20 men with functional ankle instability, adapting to auditory rhythms—especially 120 bpm—shifted drop-landing torques toward a more proximal (hip/knee) strategy versus no-beat, 60, or 180 bpm.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Within-subject drop-landing study: 20 men with FAI after auditory rhythmic adaptation (no beat, 60/120/180 bpm); two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (side × rhythm)
- N
- N=20 · 20 male FAI participants; unstable vs stable limb compared across four rhythm conditions
- Population
- Young men with functional ankle instability (mean age 23.5 years; CAIT 19.2 unstable vs 28.5 stable)
- Outcome
- GRF, joint torque, stiffness, and RoM during 30 cm single-leg drop landings
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Side affected GRF, torque, and stiffness (p < 0.05). Rhythm affected hip/knee RoM, stiffness, and torque, with side×rhythm interactions on stiffness and torque. 120 bpm favored a proximal-dominant torque redistribution (higher hip/knee extension and ankle plantarflexion torques on the stable side).
Methodology
After a time-interval reproduction check, participants did single-leg drop landings from 30 cm under no rhythm and 60/120/180 bpm while Vicon cameras (100 Hz) and a force plate recorded kinematics and GRF; two-way repeated-measures ANOVA tested side × rhythm.
Limitations
A lab landing protocol in 20 young men cannot prove that 120 bpm metronomes prevent real-world ankle sprains or that the effect generalizes to women, older adults, or sport play.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.