## 4 Discussion  
This study examined the effects of low-dye and anti-pronation spiral taping on ankle strength, gait parameters, and balance control ability in young women with flexible flat feet. These findings suggest that taping, particularly elastic anti-pronation taping, may be an effective intervention for improving certain aspects of functional movement in this population. The most notable improvement in ankle strength was observed in dorsiflexion after elastic taping. This result supports the findings of [PERSON] et al., who found that taping enhances dorsiflexion strength in basketball players with overpronated feet [28]. One possible explanation for this finding is that elastic taping facilitates greater proprioceptive input and muscle activation around the tibialis anterior. Additionally, [PERSON] et al. (2023) emphasized the importance of the tape tension direction, which supports the methodological \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Taping Type** & **No Tape** & **Low-Dye** & **A-PESI** & **A-PESE** & **F** & \(p\) & **n\({}^{2}\) (Effect Size)** \\ \hline sway length (cm) & 12.03 \(\pm\) 3.77 & 13.67 \(\pm\) 6.48 & 12.82 \(\pm\) 5.42 & 12.93 \(\pm\) 5.99 & 1.17 & 0.34 & 0.119 \\ \hline sway velocity (cm/s) & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 1.64 & 0.20 & 0.159 \\ \hline LOS (mm\({}^{2}\)) & 10,096.06 \(\pm\) & 8991.61 \(\pm\) & 9038.29 \(\pm\) & 9245.77 \(\pm\) & 3.84 & 0.01 \({}^{*}\)No Tape \(<\) Low & 0.307 \\  & 3251.56 & 3500.21 & 2884.41 & 3019.21 & 3.84 & Dye \(=\) Inelastic \(=\) Elastic & 0.307 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)_p_ < 0.05 (mean \(\pm\) SD), LOS: Areas of limits of stability, _F_-statistic from a repeated-measures ANOVA, A-PESI: anti-pronation spiral taping inelastic, A-PESE: inelastic anti-pronation spiral taping elastic.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Difference in balance control ability parameters (sway length, velocity, and LOS). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Taping Type** & **No Tape** & **Low-Dye** & **A-PESI** & **A-PESE** & **F** & \(p\) & **n\({}^{2}\) (Effect Size)** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Dorsiflexion (kg)} & \multirow{2}{*}{19.36 \(\pm\) 6.04} & \multirow{2}{*}{20.06 \(\pm\) 6.81} & \multirow{2}{*}{20.85 \(\pm\) 8.01} & \multirow{2}{*}{21.41 \(\pm\) 7.24} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.24} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.24} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.329} \\  & & & & & & & Low Dye \(<\) Elastic & \\ \hline Plantarflexion (kg) & 17.26 \(\pm\) 3.62 & 19.58 \(\pm\) 4.83 & 19.64 \(\pm\) 6.83 & 19.69 \(\pm\) 5.69 & 2.69 & 0.08 & 0.237 \\ \hline Inversion (kg) & 12.38 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 12.80 \(\pm\) 2.80 & 13.38 \(\pm\) 3.82 & 12.28 \(\pm\) 3.82 & 0.32 & 0.47 & 0.036 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Eversion (kg)} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.33 \(\pm\) 2.54} & \multirow{2}{*}{13.53 \(\pm\) 2.31} & \multirow{2}{*}{13.09 \(\pm\) 2.75} & \multirow{2}{*}{12.60 \(\pm\) 2.53} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.48} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.07} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.222} \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)_p_ < 0.05 (mean \(\pm\) SD), _F_-statistic from a repeated-measures ANOVA, A-PESI: anti-pronation spiral taping inelastic, A-PESE: inelastic anti-pronation spiral taping elastic.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Difference in ankle strength according to Athletic Tape types.