Intact ankle proprioception is essential for the control of balance and gait. This study determined ankle position sense acuity for plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. In two separate assessments, the right ankle of 30 healthy young adults was passively rotated from neutral joint position to a 15° reference position and a smaller comparison position in either plantar- or dorsiflexion. Subsequently, participants verbally indicated which position felt more flexed. After 25 trials, a psychometric function was fitted to the respective response-stimulus size difference data for each participant and two outcome measures were derived: a Just-Noticeable-Difference (JND) threshold as a measure of systematic error and an Uncertainty Area (UA) indicating random error. Analysis showed that mean JND threshold and median UA were both significantly higher in dorsiflexion when compared to plantarflexion (p = 0.008, d = 0.52; p = 0.001, rb= 0.58). These findings indicate that ankle proprioceptive acuity is not uniform for sagittal plane ankle motion but is higher for plantarflexion. We discuss differences in plantar and dorsiflexor muscle mechanoreceptor density and central proprioceptive signal processing as possible reasons for the observed differences in acuity and highlight the importance of understanding movement-specific proprioceptive acuity for designing effective rehabilitation protocols.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

STUDY00021532

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study involved collecting human subject data specifically for the research purposes outlined in our protocol, under the approval of our Institutional Review Board (IRB). The data were not simulated nor were they publicly available prior to the initiation of the study. We followed all required ethical procedures and guidelines as mandated by the IRB for data collection and handling. The study protocol was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (STUDY00021532).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors