## 4 Discussion  
The aim of this study was to examine the association between ankle instability and an individual's ability to cope with unexpected perturbations. The findings of this study indicate several correlations between the various mechanical and functional assessments. However, differences in the ability to cope with unexpected perturbations were apparent when participants were assessed depending on their method of CAI identification or evaluation. Similar to the current results, [PERSON] et al. [32] reported accuracy of predictions of ankle stability as non-homogenous, and inconsistent identification statuses when combining the CAIT and AII questionnaires. Significant associations have been previously reported between CAI-related deficits that were identified through a range of mechanical and functional assessments [33]. Unlike the current study, [PERSON] et al. [34] reported a low degree of correlation between mechanical and functional instability. Whereas [PERSON] et al. [35] found no relationship between the severity of functional ankle instability and mechanical ankle instability, suggesting that different factors are associated with these two instabilities. In the current study, the approach to identifying CAI through combining several mechanical and functional assessments stemmed from the wide discrepancies appearing in the literature in the inclusion criteria and definitions of CAI, which has been suggested to lead to non-homogenous groupings and inconsistent identification of individuals with CAI [13]. The participants' different coping abilities for the range of perturbations presented supports the concept that not all cases of CAI stem from the same mechanism, and not all cases of CAI present with the same functional or mechanical impairments [11]. Moreover, our findings indicate that implementing only one single measure for assessing CAI does not adequately identify individuals as meeting the minimally accepted criteria for being considered as suffering from CAI [32]. In the current study, individuals who were identified with CAI based on functional assessments were found to have a reduced ability to cope with unexpected perturbations compared with those with without CAI. These findings are consistent with the literature, where previous studies of balance and recovery from perturbation were shown to be impaired in individuals with CAI [34; 36]. These differences are suggested to be as a result of factors such as functional limitations, including abnormal muscle activation, longer stabilization time, impaired kinematic and kinetic parameters [10; 25]. Where healthy individuals may increase the intensity level of their responses appropriately in response to increased intensity levels of perturbation [19], individuals with CAI suffer from a reduced ability to respond appropriately, often relying on different postural strategies to restore balance and cope with perturbations [37]. Individuals with CAI tend to use one single strategy, with little ability to adjust or change their response across different perturbation conditions [11; 38]. This limited ability to develop appropriate responses that effectively address external perturbations reduces the ability of these individuals to cope with perturbations compared to their healthy counterparts [39]. The finding of significant correlations in the current study between reduced proprioception ability (assessed by the AMEDA device) and a reduced ability to cope with unexpected perturbation in most conditions for the CAI group is in accordance with previous studies [16; 40]. Individuals with CAI tend to use different proprioception strategies for weighting the sensory inputs that control their balance following perturbations when compared to individuals without CAI [21; 41; 42]. This may stem from the disruption caused to the sensory organs in ligamentous structure, muscles, tendons, and nerves around the ankle joint following repeated ankle sprains [41; 43]. [PERSON] et al.