Patients and methods: Between April 01, 2019 to September 30, 2019, a total of 24 adults (11 males, 13 females; mean age: 31.8±6.1 years; range, 24 to 47 years) were recruited in the study. Each participant needed to receive all four types of tape attachment, including facilitation attachment (from origin to insertion), relaxation attachment (from insertion to origin), cross attachment, and control attachment after fatigue procedure. The order of taping approaches was randomly assigned. The outcome parameters were maximal isometric contraction strength, peak contraction speed, maximal 10-s power, and isokinetic contraction work.

Results: The results revealed no significant differences among the four tape attachment methods for any of the parameters. However, the facilitation attachment exhibited the highest trend of improvement in all muscle contraction performance during fatigue, and the cross attachment exhibited the lowest trend of improvement in maximal isometric contraction and speed.

Conclusion: None of the kinesiology tape attachment methods significantly enhanced the contraction of fatigued muscles regardless of the attachment direction, including origin to insertion, insertion to origin and cross. Facilitation attachment exhibited the most effective trend of improvement and is, therefore, recommended for clinical applications. Cross attachment was not suggested to use due to the least effective trend. Keywords : Cross attachment, facilitation attachment, fatigue, kinesiology tape, relaxation attachment