Article

Angular momentum synergies during walking.

Université de Lyon, 69622, Lyon; INRETS, UMR_T9406, Laboratoire de Biomécanique et Mécanique des Chocs, Bron; Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France.
Experimental Brain Research (Impact Factor: 2.22). 09/2009; 197(2):185-97. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1904-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We studied the coordination of body segments during treadmill walking. Specifically, we used the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis framework to quantify the segmental angular momenta (SAM) synergies that stabilize (i.e., reduce the across trials variability) the whole body angular momentum (WBAM). Seven male subjects were asked to walk over a treadmill at their comfortable walking speed. A 17-segment model, fitted to the subject's anthropometry, was used to reconstruct their kinematics and to compute the SAM and WBAM in three dimensions. A principal component analysis was used to represent the 17 SAM by the magnitudes of the first five principal components. An index of synergy (DeltaV) was used to quantify the co-variations of these principal components with respect to their effect on the WBAM. Positive values of DeltaV were observed in the sagittal plane during the swing phase. They reflected the synergies among the SAM that stabilized (i.e., made reproducible from stride to stride) the WBAM. Negative values of DeltaV were observed in both frontal and sagittal plane during the double support phase. They were interpreted as "anti-synergies", i.e., a particular organization of the SAM used to adjust the WBAM. Based on these results, we demonstrated that the WBAM is a variable whose value is regulated by the CNS during walking activities, and that the nature of the WBAM control changed between swing phase and double support phase. These results can be linked with humanoid gait controls presently employed in robotics.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
59 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the uncontrolled manifold (UCM) approach, variability in elemental variables (such as joint angles or muscle modes) is decomposed into goal-equivalent and non-goal-equivalent variability components (GEV, NGEV) with regard to a specified task variable. A UCM effect is present, when GEV exceeds NGEV, and different indices have been proposed to quantify the strength of UCM effects. We propose variance-stabilizing transformations for each of these measures. Our results indicate that the variability components should be log-transformed prior to statistical analysis, to reduce non-normality and inhomogeneity of variances. Moreover, it is formally shown that the UCM indices are identical after appropriate variance-stabilizing transformations. The theoretical analysis is illustrated by empirical and simulated data from a study on manual pointing.
    Journal of neuroscience methods 08/2010; 191(2):166-70. · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fluctuations in the repeated performance of human movements have been the subject of intense scrutiny because they are generally believed to contain important information about the function and health of the neuromotor system. A variety of approaches has been brought to bear to study these fluctuations. However it is frequently difficult to understand how to synthesize different perspectives to give a coherent picture. Here, we describe a conceptual framework for the experimental study of motor variability that helps to unify geometrical methods, which focus on the role of motor redundancy, with dynamical methods that characterize the error-correcting processes regulating the performance of skilled tasks. We describe how goal functions, which mathematically specify the task strategy being employed, together with ideas from the control of redundant systems, allow one to formulate simple, experimentally testable dynamical models of inter-trial fluctuations. After reviewing the basic theory, we present a list of five general hypotheses on the structure of fluctuations that can be expected in repeated trials of goal-directed tasks. We review recent experimental applications of this general approach, and show how it can be used to precisely characterize the error-correcting control used by human subjects.
    Human movement science 11/2013; · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Walking is a complex dynamic task that requires the regulation of whole-body angular momentum to maintain dynamic balance while performing walking subtasks such as propelling the body forward and accelerating the leg into swing. In human walking, the primary mechanism to regulate angular momentum is muscle force generation. Muscles accelerate body segments and generate ground reaction forces that alter angular momentum about the body's center-of-mass to restore and maintain dynamic stability. In addition, gravity contributes to whole-body angular momentum through its contribution to the ground reaction forces. The purpose of this study was to generate a muscle-actuated forward dynamics simulation of normal walking to quantify how individual muscles and gravity contribute to whole-body angular momentum in the sagittal plane. In early stance, the uniarticular hip and knee extensors (GMAX and VAS), biarticular hamstrings (HAM) and ankle dorsiflexors (TA) generated backward angular momentum while the ankle plantar flexors (SOL and GAS) generated forward momentum. In late stance, SOL and GAS were the primary contributors and generated angular momentum in opposite directions. SOL generated primarily forward angular momentum while GAS generated backward angular momentum. The difference between muscles was due to their relative contributions to the horizontal and vertical ground reaction forces. Gravity contributed to the body's angular momentum in early stance and to a lesser extent in late stance, which was counteracted primarily by the plantar flexors. These results may provide insight into balance and movement disorders and provide a basis for developing locomotor therapies that target specific muscle groups.
    Journal of biomechanics 01/2011; 44(1):6-12. · 2.66 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
25 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014