본 연구의 목적은 필라테스 브릿지 동작 시 소도구의 적용과 발의 불안정성 차이에 따른 신체 근육의 근전도를 비교·분석하는데 있었다. 본 연구의 대상자는 20대 남성 18명을 대상으로 실시하였고(연령, 22.3±2.1세; 신장, 173.89±4.51cm; 체중, 72.61±4.13kg; 신체질량지수, 24.03±1.31kg/m2), 필라테스 브릿지는 소도구 적용(도구 없음, 링, 짐볼)과 발의 불안정성(기본 바닥, 폼롤러, 보수볼) 차이에 따른 9 가지 동작을 수행하였으며, 표면전극 부착 부위는 신체 우측의 상복직근, 하복직근, 외복사근, 장내전근, 대 퇴직근, 외측광근, 전경골근, 및 대퇴이두근으로 설정하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 필라테스 브릿지 동작 시 짐볼의 적용이 신체 근육의 근활성도에 효과적인 소도구로 검증되었고, 보수볼의 적용이 신체 근육의 근활성도에 가장 높은 발의 불안정성으로 검증되었다. 이상의 결과를 종합해보면, 필라테스 브릿지 동작 시 짐볼과 보수볼의 적용이 신체 근육의 근활성도에 지대한 영향력을 미친 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 본 연구의 결과는 신체 근력 강화를 위한 효율적인 필라테스 브릿지 운동을 제시할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Background: The multiple hop test is an active performance test that has been commonly used to assess individuals with functional ankle instability. Previous studies have suggested that insufficiency of dynamic postural stability and passive stability during dynamic activities can have an influence on performance in the multiple hop test. However, no study has investigated the effects of dynamic postural stability training and ankle bracing on multiple hop test performance in individuals with functional ankle instability. Objects: The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects of dynamic postural stability training versus ankle bracing in the performance of the multiple hop test for participants with functional ankle instability. Methods: Twenty-nine participants with functional ankle instability who scored below 24 in the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool were selected. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: a dynamic postural stability training group (n1=14) and an ankle bracing control group (n2=15). The multiple hop tests were performed before and after applying each intervention. Dynamic postural stability training was performed using visual-feedback-based balance-training equipment; participants in this group were asked to perform a heel raise in a standing position while watching the centering of their forefoot pressure to prevent excessive ankle inversion. Ankle bracing was applied in the control group. Results: When comparing the pre- and post-intervention period for both groups, both methods significantly improved the results of the multiple hop test (p<.05). However, no significant differences were shown between the dynamic postural stability training and ankle bracing groups (p>.05). Conclusion: Both dynamic postural stability training and ankle bracing showed significant improvement (2.85 seconds and 2.05 seconds, respectively) in test performance. Further study is needed to determine the long-term effects of dynamic postural stability training and to determine whether insufficient dynamic postural stability is a causative factor for functional ankle instability.