Literature DB >> 24902746

Fast and slow processes underlie the selection of both step frequency and walking speed.

Renato Pagliara1, Mark Snaterse1, J Maxwell Donelan2.   

Abstract

People prefer gaits that minimize their energetic cost. Research focused on step frequency selection suggests that a fast predictive process and a slower optimization process underlie this energy optimization. Our purpose in this study was to test whether the mechanisms controlling step frequency selection are used more generally to select one of the most relevant characteristics of walking - preferred speed. To accomplish this, we contrasted the dynamic adjustments in speed following perturbations to step frequency against the dynamic adjustments in step frequency following perturbations to speed. Despite the use of different perturbations and contexts, we found that the responses were very similar. In both experiments, subjects responded to perturbations by first rapidly changing their speed or step frequency towards their preferred pattern, and then slowly adjusting their gait to converge onto their preferred pattern. We measured similar response times for both the fast processes (1.4±0.3 versus 2.7±0.6 s) and the slow processes (74.2±25.4 versus 79.7±20.2 s). We also found that the fast process, although quite variable in amplitude, dominated the adjustments in both speed and step frequency. These distinct but complementary experiments demonstrate that people appear to rely heavily on prediction to rapidly select the most relevant aspects of their preferred gait and then gradually fine-tune that selection, perhaps using direct optimization of energetic cost.
© 2014. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Energy optimization; Gait; Motor control; Neuromechanics

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24902746     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.105270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  9 in total

1.  Contribution of blood oxygen and carbon dioxide sensing to the energetic optimization of human walking.

Authors:  Jeremy D Wong; Shawn M O'Connor; Jessica C Selinger; J Maxwell Donelan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Proprioceptive feedback contributes to the adaptation toward an economical gait pattern.

Authors:  Jill E Hubbuch; Blake W Bennett; Jesse C Dean
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Is natural variability in gait sufficient to initiate spontaneous energy optimization in human walking?

Authors:  Jeremy D Wong; Jessica C Selinger; J Maxwell Donelan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Multi-objective control in human walking: insight gained through simultaneous degradation of energetic and motor regulation systems.

Authors:  Kirsty A McDonald; Joseph P Cusumano; Peter Peeling; Jonas Rubenson
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.118

5.  Movement consistency during repetitive tool use action.

Authors:  Sandra Dorothee Starke; Chris Baber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Effects of supraspinal feedback on human gait: rhythmic auditory distortion.

Authors:  Arturo Forner-Cordero; João Pedro Pinho; Guilherme Umemura; João Carlos Lourenço; Bruno Mezêncio; Cinthia Itiki; Hermano Igo Krebs
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 4.262

7.  Stroller running: Energetic and kinematic changes across pushing methods.

Authors:  Ryan S Alcantara; Cara M Wall-Scheffler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Mechanisms of gait phase entrainment in healthy subjects during rhythmic electrical stimulation of the medial gastrocnemius.

Authors:  Jenna E Thorp; Peter Gabriel Adamczyk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Evaluating the energetics of entrainment in a human-machine coupled oscillator system.

Authors:  Ryan T Schroeder; James L Croft; John E A Bertram
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.