Subjects then performed the following tasks, each for 30 s; i) quiet standing with eyes open (QS EO); ii) quiet standing with eyes closed (QS EC); iii) one-leg standing with eyes open (OLS EO) and; iv) one-leg standing eyes closed (OLS EC). One-leg standing was performed on the dominant leg. For each task the subject was asked to remain with their feet positioned on specific points marked on the floor and to remain as still as possible for 30 s; the timer was started once the subject had established their balance. If the subject lost their balance

during the task (and moved their feet from the specific points), the trial was terminated and restarted until they were able to remain balanced for the full 30 s trial. For each MVC, the root mean JQ1 square (RMS) value was calculated over 0.2 s intervals of the raw EMG data, using an automated script Galunisertib datasheet in Spike2 software. The greatest 0.2 s interval RMS value from the 3 MVCs was taken. For each muscle, the RMS of the EMG voltage over 0.2 s intervals was calculated throughout each 30 s task. To allow comparison of muscle activity between subjects this was normalised to the peak RMS value during an MVC for that muscle. The normalised RMS

values were averaged, disregarding the first and last 3 s of data. This gave one normalised value per muscle for each task. Co-contraction of antagonistic muscles (RF-ST and TA-GL) was calculated using Equation (1) (Rudolph et al., 2001). equation(1) Co-contraction Index = (lower EMG/higher EMG)∗(lower EMG + higher EMG)where; lower EMG and higher EMG represent the average normalised RMS value of the agonist and antagonist muscles. Statistical analysis was performed using SigmaPlot statistical 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl package. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare tasks and between the hypermobile and control groups for each muscle. Where data was not normally distributed, a logarithm transformation was used. Post-hoc analysis involved an all pairwise multiple comparison procedure using either the Holm-Sidak method or Tukey Test. A p-value of <0.05 was taken as significant. All subjects were able to complete

each task for 30 s on their first attempt. Fig. 1 shows normalised EMG RMS amplitudes of the 6 muscles measured during the 4 tasks for both groups. ANOVA revealed a significant effect of task on muscle activity (P < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis revealed that TA activity was significantly greater during task 4 compared with tasks 1 and 2 for both groups (P < 0.001; Fig. 1). GM activity was significantly greater during task 4 compared with tasks 1 and 2 (P < 0.05; Fig. 1) within the control group only; although it was observed to increase in the hypermobile group, this did not reach statistical significance. A co-contraction index was calculated for antagonistic muscles (RF-ST and TA-GL). ANOVA revealed a significant effect of task on TA-GL co-contraction (P < 0.001).