Results
AH stiffness, pronation
The standing AHI of all participants was 0.32 ± 0.03 while the sit-to-stand arch flexibility was 16.6 ± 4.5 mm/kN.There was no significant main effect for ankle eversion RoM, but there were for the other two early stance metrics (Table Metric comparisons across conditions (mean ± st dev).Condition acronyms are: Main effect p-values are displayed, with * denoting statistical significance (α = 0.05, with additional Benjamini–Hochberg procedure). A Cohen’s d pairwise effect size is also presented, representing the largest pairwise effect size with respect to barefoot (with the chosen condition following in parentheses).Pairwise comparisons across conditions for the six metrics showing main effect significance. Bar plots show means with standard deviation bands. Significant pairwise comparisons are denoted by * symbol above brackets connecting the associated pair.Both late stance metrics also showed significant main effects (Table Visually, all kinematic waveforms (Fig. Mean (across participants) angular waveforms for each condition: (Significant main effects were also found for both spreading metrics (Table The greatest taping effect was found between BF and FS in SHA pronation, thus the correlations were run on this difference. AHI had a significant (p = 0.007) and moderately strong (r = − 0.67) correlation with pronation difference, while AH stiffness did not quite reach significance (p = 0.052, r = 0.51). AHI and AH stiffness were also not correlated with each other (p = 0.348).