To control movement, the brain has to integrate proprioceptive information from a variety of mechanoreceptors. The role of proprioception in daily activities, exercise, and sports has been extensively investigated, using different techniques, yet the proprioceptive mechanisms underlying human movement control are still unclear. In the current work we have reviewed understanding of proprioception and the three testing methods: threshold to detection of passive motion, joint position reproduction, and active movement extent discrimination, all of which have been used for assessing proprioception. The origin of the methods, the different testing apparatus, and the procedures and protocols used in each approach are compared and discussed. Recommendations are made for choosing an appropriate technique when assessing proprioceptive mechanisms in different contexts.

Balance control improvement is one of the most important goals in sports and exercise. Better balance is strongly positively associated with enhanced athletic performance and negatively associated with lower limb sports injuries. Proprioception plays an essential role in balance control, and ankle proprioception is arguably the most important. This paper reviews ankle proprioception and explores synergies with balance control, specifically in a sporting context. Central processing of ankle proprioceptive information, along with other sensory information, enables integration for balance control. When assessing ankle proprioception, the most generalizable findings arise from methods that are ecologically valid, allow proprioceptive signals to be integrated with general vision in the central nervous system, and reflect the signal-in-noise nature of central processing. Ankle proprioceptive intervention concepts driven by such a central processing theory are further proposed and discussed for the improvement of balance control in sport.

Superiority of the left upper limb in proprioception tasks performed by right-handed individuals has been attributed to better utilization of proprioceptive information by a non-preferred arm/hemisphere system. However, it is undetermined whether this holds for multiple upper and lower limb joints. Accordingly, the present study tested active movement proprioception at four pairs of upper and lower limb joints, after selecting twelve participants with both strong right arm and right leg preference. A battery of versions of the active movement extent discrimination apparatus were employed to generate the stimuli for movements of different extents at the ankle, knee, shoulder and fingers on the right and left sides of the body, and discrimination scores were derived from participants’ responses. Proprioceptive performance on the non-preferred left side was significantly better than the preferred right side at all four joints tested (overall F _{1, 11} = 36.36, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.77). In the 8 × 8 matrix formed by all joints, only correlations between the proprioceptive accuracy scores for the right and left sides at the same joint were significant (ankles 0.93, knees 0.89, shoulders 0.87, fingers 0.91, p ≤ 0.001; all others r ≤ 0.40, p ≥ 0.20). The results point to both a side-general effect and a site-specific effect in the integration of proprioceptive information during active movement tasks, whereby the non-preferred limb/hemisphere system is specialized in the utilization of the best proprioceptive sources available at each specific joint, but the combination of sources employed differs between body sites.

Physical activity (PA) may have an impact on digestive-system cancer (DSC) by improving insulin sensitivity and anticancer immune function and by reducing the exposure of the digestive tract to carcinogens by stimulating gastrointestinal motility, thus reducing transit time. The current study aimed to determine the effect of PA on different types of DSC via a systematic review and meta-analysis. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Using a random effects model, the relationship between PA and different types of DSC was analyzed. The data used for meta-analysis were derived from 161 risk estimates in 47 studies involving 5,797,768 participants and 55,162 cases. We assessed the pooled associations between high vs. low PA levels and the risk of DSC (risk ratio (RR) = 0.82, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.79-0.85), colon cancer (RR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.76-0.87), rectal cancer (RR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.80-0.98), colorectal cancer (RR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.69-0.85), gallbladder cancer (RR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.64-0.98), gastric cancer (RR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.76-0.91), liver cancer (RR = 0.73, 0.60-0.89), oropharyngeal cancer (RR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.72-0.87), and pancreatic cancer (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.93). The findings were comparable between case-control studies (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.68-0.78) and prospective cohort studies (RR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.80-0.91). The meta-analysis of 9 studies reporting low, moderate, and high PA levels, with 17 risk estimates, showed that compared to low PA, moderate PA may also reduce the risk of DSC (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.80-1.00), while compared to moderate PA, high PA seemed to slightly increase the risk of DSC, although the results were not statistically significant (RR = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.94-1.32). In addition, limited evidence from 5 studies suggested that meeting the international PA guidelines might not significantly reduce the risk of DSC (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.91-1.02). Compared to previous research, this systematic review has provided more comprehensive information about the inverse relationship between PA and DSC risk. The updated evidence from the current meta-analysis indicates that a moderate-to-high PA level is a common protective factor that can significantly lower the overall risk of DSC. However, the reduction rate for specific cancers may vary. In addition, limited evidence suggests that meeting the international PA guidelines might not significantly reduce the risk of DSC. Thus, future studies must be conducted to determine the optimal dosage, frequency, intensity, and duration of PA required to reduce DSC risk effectively.