Lower Extremity Muscle Activations in Response to Different Medial Longitudinal Arch Height during the Dynamic Balance Test

Article information

Asian J Kinesiol. 2025;27(3):75-81

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 July 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.15758/ajk.2025.27.3.75

Suhyeon Ko ¹

, Daeho Ha ²^,

, Byungjoo Noh ¹^,³^,

¹Biomechanics Laboratory, Jeju National University, Jeju, Republic of Korea

²Department of Sports Medicine, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

³Department of Sport Science, Jeju National University, Jeju, Republic of Korea

^*Correspondence: Daeho Ha, Department of Sports Medicine, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; Tel: +82-64-754-8318, Fax: +82-064-757-1752; E-mail: daeho.ha@gmail.com

Byungjoo Noh, Department of Sports Science, Jeju National University, 102 Jejudaehakro, Jeju-si, Jeju-do, Republic of Korea; Tel: +82-64-754-3588, Fax: +82-064-757-1752; E-mail: bnoh@jejunu.ac.kr

*These two authors contributed equally to conduct of the study.This paper was derived from the first author's thesis in 2024.

Received 2025 May 20; Revised 2025 July 13; Accepted 2025 July 31.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate whether muscle activation differs based on foot arch height and to examine the association between foot arch height and muscle activation during the dynamic balance test.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthy young males were classified into three arch groups (low, normal, and high arch groups) using the navicular drop test. Lower extremity muscle activation was assessed during the balance test.

RESULTS

The high-arch group showed higher muscle activation of the vastus lateralis than the low- and normalarch groups in the anterior direction and higher muscle activation in the posterolateral direction than the low-arch group. In addition, a higher medial longitudinal arch height was associated with increased muscle activation of the vastus lateralis in the anterior direction during the modified star excursion balance test.

CONCLUSIONS

Alteration in the foot arch height may influence the muscle activation pattern during the dynamic balance test. Increased vastus lateralis muscle activation in high-arch group and association higher medial longitudinal arch height and vastus lateralis activation may reflect compensatory strategies due to reduced plantar sensory input and greater loading on the lateral part of the foot. Our findings would provide a foundation for future research and contribute to understanding altered muscle activation patterns at different foot arch heights.

Keywords: Dynamic Balance; Foot Type; Medial Longitudinal Arch; Muscle Activation

Introduction

The medial longitudinal arch is a key anatomical structure of the foot and plays a critical role in foot function such as providing a base of support and shock absorption [1]. The foot can be classified into three types according to the height of the medial longitudinal arch: low-arch, normal-arch, and higharch [2]. It has been shown that foot structure is one of the risk factors for lower extremity injuries [3-5]. For example, previous studies reported that the low-arch foot is associated with a high risk for plantar fasciitis [6], medial tibial stress syndrome [4], and patellofemoral pain syndrome [3]. Also, the high-arch foot is associated with a high risk for lateral ankle sprain and iliotibial band syndrome [5]. Maintaining the center of gravity at the base of support, defined as dynamic balance, is crucial for preventing injuries [7]. Losing dynamic balance can lead to falls and long-term injuries, which may result in reduced mobility and functional independence [8]. Given that the foot provides a base of support during weight-bearing movements, it is reasonable to assume that alterations in the medial longitudinal arch height may change the plantar contact area [9], potentially influencing balance and postural control [10]. Therefore, understanding how the foot arch height affects balance is important.

From this perspective, several studies have examined dynamic balance ability in different foot types [10-12], these results are inconsistent. Furthermore, previous studies suggested that investigating muscle activation patterns can enhance our understanding of the neuromuscular and biomechanical compensation for altered structures in individuals with different foot types [10,13]. However, muscle activation during balance tasks remains unclear. Thus, research on dynamic balance ability and muscle activation patterns in different foot types is necessary to investigate the relationship between foot arch height and balance, as well as the compensatory strategies.

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether muscle activation differs based on foot arch height during the dynamic balance test in individuals with different foot types. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the association between the medial longitudinal arch height and the activation of the lower limb muscles. We hypothesized that differences in dynamic balance ability and lower extremity muscle activations among the three groups would be observed during the dynamic balance test.

Methods

Participants

Forty-three healthy young males were recruited for this study. Participants were excluded if they had any history of musculoskeletal disorders, injuries, vestibular, or balance disorders in the last 6 months. All participants provided the study details and signed informed consent. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Jeju National University (approval number: JJNU-IRB-2022-060).

Arch Height Measurements

For group classification, the navicular drop test was performed [14]. This study has shown good validity and reliability in classifying foot types [15-17]. The navicular tuberosity height was measured from the floor, seated with the hip and knee flexed at 90°. The same measurements were performed in the standing position. Measurements were performed three times in both the sitting and standing positions. Participants were classified into three groups based on the mean difference between the values measured in the sitting and standing positions: an average value of <5 mm was defined as high arch, 5–9 mm as normal arch, and >9 mm as low arch [18]. The intraclass correlation coefficients of the three trials were confirmed in advance to ensure measurement reliability (ICC=0.982). All the measurements were performed on the dominant leg that kicked the ball [19].

Dynamic Balance Measurement

A modified star excursion balance test (mSEBT) was used to measure dynamic balance [20]. Before the test, participants watched an instructional video and practiced four times in each of the three directions to minimize the learning effect [7]. In the anterior direction, the most distal part of the heel was placed at the center of the grid. The most distal part of the great toe was placed at the center of the grid in the posteromedial and posterolateral directions. The participants were instructed to maintain a single-leg stance on their dominant leg barefoot, with their hands on their waist. During the test, participants were instructed to look straight ahead to minimize the influence of visual input. They extended their contralateral leg as far as possible in three directions, touching a line on the floor with the distal part of the great toe, and then returning to the starting position within six seconds (three seconds for reaching and three seconds for returning). The participants performed three trials in each direction in randomized order. The examiner measured the reaching distance in centimeters using a ruler. A 10-second rest was given between tasks, and one minute between trials to minimize fatigue. A trial was discarded and repeated if the participants 1) lifted the heel of the stance limb off the floor, 2) did not keep their hands on the waist, 3) shifted their weight onto the reaching limb, 4) lost balance, or 5) failed to return to their starting position. We used the normalized reach distance (reach distance/leg length × 100) for the analysis [7]. While lying on the bed in the supine position, the leg length from the anterior superior iliac spine to the medial malleolus was measured using tape [7,20].

Muscle Activations

Surface electromyography (EMG) sensors (Trigno sensor; Delsys, Boston, MA, USA) were attached using adhesive tape to the gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, soleus, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, and biceps femoris long head according to the surface EMG for a noninvasive assessment of muscles guidelines [21]. Before attaching the surface EMG sensors, the participants’ skins were shaved and cleaned with alcohol wipes. The EMG data were collected at a sampling rate of 2,148 Hz and filtered using a 20–450 Hz secondorder Butterworth band-pass filter. EMGworks acquisition and analysis software (Delsys, Boston, MA, USA) was used to acquire the data and perform all analyses.

Statistical Analysis

The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess data normality. One-way analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to compare the reach distances and muscle activations within the three arch groups. Bonferroni or Mann-Whitney U tests were used for post-hoc comparisons. Stepwise multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate the association between the medial longitudinal arch height and lower limb muscle activation during the balance test. Effect sizes were calculated as eta-squared. Effect sizes were defined as small (0.01), medium (0.06). and large (0.14) [22]. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 24 for Microsoft Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The statistical significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

Participants who had musculoskeletal disorders (n=1), injuries (n=2), and refused to participate (n=15) were excluded. In total, 25 healthy young males (low arch=9, normal arch=8, and high arch=8) were included in the analysis. <Table 1> shows the demographic characteristics of participants. There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics, except for mean arch height.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics.

Differences in Reach Distances and Muscle Activations between Groups

There were no differences in the reach distances in the three directions. In the anterior direction, the high-arch group showed higher activation of the vastus lateralis than the normal- and low-arch groups <Table 2>. Additionally, the high-arch group showed greater activation of the vastus lateralis than the lowarch group in the posterolateral direction <Table 4>. There were no differences in muscle activation in the posteromedial direction <Table 3>. The three groups showed no differences in the activation of other muscles during the test, regardless of the direction.

Table 2.

Reach distance and muscle activation in the anterior direction.

Table 3.

Reach distance and muscle activations in the posteromedial direction.

Table 4.

Reach distance and muscle activation in the posterolateral direction.

Results of Stepwise Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis

<Table 5> shows the association between medial longitudinal arch height and muscle activation during the balance test. The medial longitudinal arch height was significantly associated with the vastus lateralis muscle activation (adjusted R²=0.277, β=-0.054, p=0.004).

Table 5.

Association of muscle activations with medial longitudinal arch height.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate whether muscle activation differs based on foot arch height and to examine the association between arch height and muscle activation during the mSEBT. Our results showed that vastus lateralis muscle activation was significantly higher in the high-arch group than in the normal and low-arch groups in the anterior and posterolateral directions during the test. In addition, the regression analysis showed that a lower navicular drop, indicated by a higher medial longitudinal arch, was associated with increased muscle activation of the vastus lateralis in the anterior direction during mSEBT.

A plausible explanation for these results is the difference in the anatomical structures of the medial longitudinal arch. Increasing or decreasing the foot arch height can change the alignment of the lower extremities, the muscle length-tension relationship, and the biomechanics of movement [13]. These may lead to a change in the muscle activation pattern among the groups. Specifically, individuals with high-arch feet exhibit excessive supination, which shifts the vertical ground reaction force vector laterally [23] and increases the load on the lateral part of the foot [10]. This may explain the increased activation of the vastus lateralis muscle in the high-arch group.

Interaction between the central and peripheral nervous systems is crucial for maintaining balance [10]. To maintain balance, the central nervous system integrates the peripheral information and determines optimal muscular responses [24]. Considering the foot is being fixed on the floor during the test, alteration of foot arch height may affect the muscular response of the central nervous system, due to the change in the peripheral information, particularly plantar sensory information [25,26]. A previous study reported that high-arch feet have reduced plantar sensory input compared to normal or low-arch feet [9]. Thus, the higher activation in high-arch feet reflects the compensation of the muscular response for reducing plantar sensory input to maintain balance.

Also, our study showed that the higher foot arch height was associated with the greater muscle activation of the vastus lateralis in the anterior direction of the mSEBT. It may be related to the characteristics of the anterior direction. In this direction, the quadriceps muscles [27], mechanical restriction, and plantar cutaneous sensation of the ankle complex [28] contribute to reaching. Due to the supination of the subtalar joint, reduced pronation causes greater leg and joint stiffness in individuals with high-arch feet [29]. Previous studies suggested that individuals with high-arch feet exhibited a lack of motion, leading to increased and earlier muscle activations of the lateral aspect of the lower extremity, such as peroneus longus and vastus lateralis, to compensate for the increased vertical loading rate [29,30]. As previously mentioned, the quadriceps muscles primarily contribute to reaching the limb; however, as the foot arch height increases, it may put more demands on the vastus lateralis muscle in response to increased loading in the lateral aspect of the lower extremity.

Our findings emphasize the potential role of foot structure in modulating neuromuscular control strategies during the dynamic balance test. Although altered muscle activation patterns in individuals with high-arch feet function as a compensatory strategy, if sustained over time, we speculate that it may lead to increased risk of musculoskeletal pain and/or injuries. Therefore, further studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of altered muscle activation patterns on the risk of injury. Also, intervention studies using foot orthoses are needed to prevent potential injury in this population. This study has some limitations. First, we could not collect kinematic data. Kinematics differ according to the foot type and may affect both the dynamic balance ability and muscle activations [31]. Second, only male participants were included in this study. Considering sex-related differences in anatomical and biomechanical factors, generalizing and interpreting these results in women requires caution. Lastly, this study had a relatively small sample size. Future studies are needed to investigate alteration of the lower extremity muscle activation pattern in response to different foot types with larger sample sizes.

Conclusions

Our study showed that individuals with high-arched feet exhibited a greater vastus lateralis muscle activation than lowand normal-arched feet during the dynamic balance test. Also, increased medial longitudinal arch height may influence muscular response during the dynamic balance test. Our findings are expected to provide a foundation for future research and enhance the understanding of the modulation of muscle activation patterns with different foot arch heights. Expanding on our findings, future studies should investigate the effects of prolonged compensatory patterns and of foot orthoses in preventing and mitigating potential musculoskeletal injury risks.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Jeju National University research fund in 2021.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Zhao X, Tsujimoto T, Kim B, Tanaka K. Association of arch height with ankle muscle strength and physical performance in adult men. BIOLOGY OF SPORT 2017;34(2):119–26.

2. Obrien DL, Tyndyk M. Effect of arch type and Body Mass Index on plantar pressure distribution during stance phase of gait. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2014;16(2):131–5.

3. Neal BS, Griffiths IB, Dowling GJ, et al. Foot posture as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res 2014;7:1–13.

4. Noh B, Masunari A, Akiyama K, Fukano M, Fukubayashi T, Miyakawa S. Structural deformation of longitudinal arches during running in soccer players with medial tibial stress syndrome. Eur J Sport Sci 2015;15(2):173–81.

5. Williams DS, McClay IS, Hamill J. Arch structure and injury patterns in runners. Clin Biomech 2001;16(4):341–7.

6. Pohl MB, Hamill J, Davis IS. Biomechanical and anatomic factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners. Clin J Sport Med 2009;19(5):372–6.

7. Gribble PA, Hertel J, Plisky P. Using the Star Excursion Balance Test to assess dynamic postural-control deficits and outcomes in lower extremity injury: a literature and systematic review. J Athl Train 2012;47(3):339–57.

8. Neptune R, Vistamehr A. Dynamic Balance during Human Movement: Measurement and Control Mechanisms. J Biomech Eng 2018;141(7):0708011–07080110.

9. Hertel J, Gay MR, Denegar CR. Differences in postural control during single-leg stance among healthy individuals with different foot types. J Athl Train 2002;37(2):129.

10. Cote KP, Brunet ME, Gansneder BM, Shultz SJ. Effects of pronated and supinated foot postures on static and dynamic postural stability. J Athl Train 2005;40(1):41.

11. Olmsted LC, Hertel J. Influence of foot type and orthotics on static and dynamic postural control. J Sport Rehabil 2004;13(1):54–66.

12. Gribble PA, Hertel J. Considerations for Normalizing Measures of the Star Excursion Balance Test. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2003;7(2):89–100.

13. Hajilou B, Esmaeili H, Anbarian M. Effect of foot type on electromyography characteristics and synergy of lower limb muscles during running. Scientific Reports 2024;14(1):25221.

14. Brody DM. Techniques in the evaluation and treatment of the injured runner. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 1982;13(3):541–58.

15. Williams DS, McClay IS. Measurements used to characterize the foot and the medial longitudinal arch: reliability and validity. Phys Ther 2000;80(9):864–71.

16. McPoil T, Cornwall M, Abeler M, et al. The optimal method to assess the vertical mobility of the midfoot: navicular drop versus dorsal arch height difference. Clin Res Foot Ankle 2013;1(1):1–7.

17. Zuil-Escobar JC, Martínez-Cepa CB, Martín-Urrialde JA, Gómez-Conesa A. Medial longitudinal arch: accuracy, reliability, and correlation between navicular drop test and footprint parameters. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2018;41(8):672–9.

18. Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the foot posture index. J Foot Ankle Res 2008;1:1–9.

19. Jaber H, Lohman E, Daher N, et al. Neuromuscular control of ankle and hip during performance of the star excursion balance test in subjects with and without chronic ankle instability. PLoS One 2018;13(8)e0201479.

20. Picot B, Terrier R, Forestier N, Fourchet F, McKeon PO. The Star Excursion Balance Test: An Update Review and Practical Guidelines. Int J Athl Ther Train 2021;26(6):285–93.

21. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 2000;10(5):361–74.

22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge, 2013.

23. Hillstrom HJ, Song J, Kraszewski AP, et al. Foot type biomechanics part 1: structure and function of the asymptomatic foot. Gait Posture 2013;37(3):445–51.

24. Ghorbani M, Yaali R, Sadeghi H, Luczak T. The effect of foot posture on static balance, ankle and knee proprioception in 18-to-25-year-old female student: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24(1):547.

25. Suganuma J, Ikeda Y, Chidori K. Effects of Foot Somatosensory Training on Plantar Somatosensory Function. Cureus 2024;16(12)e76399.

26. Horak FB. Postural orientation and equilibrium: what do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age Ageing. 2006;35(suppl_2):ii7–ii11.

27. Earl JE, Hertel J. Lower-extremity muscle activation during the star excursion balance tests. J Sport Rehabil 2001;10(2):93–104.

28. Gabriner ML, Houston MN, Kirby JL, Hoch MC. Contributing factors to star excursion balance test performance in individuals with chronic ankle instability. Gait Posture 2015;41(4):912–6.

29. Williams III DS, Davis IM, Scholz JP, Hamill J, Buchanan TS. High-arched runners exhibit increased leg stiffness compared to low-arched runners. Gait Posture 2004;19(3):263–9.

30. Williams DS 3rd, Tierney RN, Butler RJ. Increased medial longitudinal arch mobility, lower extremity kinematics, and ground reaction forces in high-arched runners. J Athl Train 2014;49(3):290–6.

31. Hollander K, Zech A, Rahlf AL, Orendurff MS, Stebbins J, Heidt C. The relationship between static and dynamic foot posture and running biomechanics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait Posture 2019;72:109–22.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

	Low arch (n=9)	Normal arch (n=8)	High arch (n=8)	p-value	Post-hoc	Effect size (η²)
Age (years)	22.6 ± 1.6	23.6 ± 1.7	23.0 ± 3.2	0.627	N/A	0.042
BMI (kg/m²)	24.1 ± 2.3	23.8 ± 2.1	25.1 ± 2.7	0.541	N/A	0.051
Mean arch height (mm)	11.7 ± 1.8	7.5 ± 1.2	4.0 ± 0.5	0.000	a, b, c	0.865
Non-dominant leg length (cm)	88.1 ± 3.1	87.6 ± 2.1	91.1 ± 3.1	0.043	N/A	0.248
Dominant leg length (cm)	88.3 ± 3.4	88.0 ± 2.1	91.3 ± 3.0	0.059	N/A	0.227