Purpose: Limited data in current literature can be found on the relation between the two commonly-used active proprioception assessment methods -active joint position reproduction (JPR) and active movement extent discrimination assessment (AMEDA). The current study compared the two active methods, JPR and AMEDA, to investigate their interrelationship over two studies that differed in task difficulty, using active ankle inversion movements made in weight-bearing to maximise ecological validity.Methods: 50 participants volunteered in this research, 20 of whom on a harder protocol and the other 30 on an easier protocol, were tested by both methods, JPR and AMEDA. Proprioceptive acuity was represented by absolute error (AE) and variable error (VE) for JPR and by AE and the area under the curve (AUC) for AMEDA.Results: Proprioceptive acuity scores are found to be significantly correlated within test methods but not between methods for either hard or easy tasks, where JPR AE and VE scores were not correlated with either AMEDA AE or AUC. Further, proprioceptive acuity scores were significantly higher on the easy task when tested with the AMEDA method, but not with JPR method.Conclusion: Scores obtained from the two active movement proprioception tests, movement extent discrimination and joint position reproduction, were not significantly correlated. Taken together with previous findings, these results show that for proprioception, scores from the three classical psychophysical methods for measuring sensitivity (adjustment, limits and constant stimuli) are not correlated with each other. This suggests that each proprioception measurement system assesses a different aspect of proprioception.

中文翻译：

---

踝关节处的关节位置再现和关节位置辨别不相关。


目的：目前文献中关于两种常用主动本体感觉评估方法——主动关节位置再现（JPR）和主动运动程度辨别评估（AMEDA）之间关系的数据有限。当前的研究比较了 JPR 和 AMEDA 这两种主动方法，以调查它们在任务难度不同的两项研究中的相互关系，使用负重时的主动踝关节内翻运动来最大限度地提高生态有效性。方法：50 名参与者自愿参与这项研究，其中 20 人采用较难的方案，另外 30 人采用较简单的方案，通过 JPR 和 AMEDA 两种方法进行了测试。 JPR 的本体感觉敏锐度由绝对误差 (AE) 和可变误差 (VE) 表示，AMEDA 则由 AE 和曲线下面积 (AUC) 表示。 结果：发现本体感觉敏锐度分数在测试方法内显着相关，但在测试方法之间不显着相关。困难或简单任务的方法，其中 JPR AE 和 VE 分数与 AMEDA AE 或 AUC 均不相关。此外，在使用 AMEDA 方法测试时，简单任务的本体感觉敏锐度分数显着较高，但使用 JPR 方法则不然。结论：从两个主动运动本体感觉测试（运动程度辨别和关节位置再现）获得的分数没有显着相关。与之前的研究结果相结合，这些结果表明，对于本体感觉，测量敏感性的三种经典心理物理学方法（调整、限制和持续刺激）的得分彼此不相关。这表明每个本体感觉测量系统评估本体感觉的不同方面。