Nathan D Neckel1. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Georgetown University, 3970 Reservoir Rd NW, Rm EP20 - NRB, Washington, DC 20007, USA. Electronic address: Nathan.Neckel@georgetown.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking slowly is a different biomechanical task than walking quickly, thus measures of gait will be different at different velocities, such as pre/post injury. It is necessary to determine if the difference in gait measures are from the experimental changes, or simply from traveling at different speeds. NEW METHOD: Instead of limiting this effect, we have developed techniques to embrace the velocity dependence of gait measures. By translating the pawprints into a body coordinate frame we are able to measure location of paw placement in addition to the standard gait measures. RESULTS: At higher velocities rats have greater consistency of steps, place their forelimb initial contact more medially and anteriorly, and place their hindlimb toe off more medially and posteriorly. Interlimb phasing also becomes more consistent at higher velocities. Following a cervical spinal cord injury consistency is reduced and the velocity dependent behaviors are significantly different. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD: Translating the coordinate frame improves the ability to measure changes in base of support following spinal cord injury. Employing a treadmill, or limiting analysis to a narrow velocity window does address the effects of velocity. We feel that measuring across all velocities is more appropriate than dictating that the animals match speeds. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying locomotion with automated gait analysis devices is a great way to evaluate the changes that experimental treatments provide. These new methods allow for a more appropriate way to address the confound of many gait measures being velocity dependent.
BACKGROUND: Walking slowly is a different biomechanical task than walking quickly, thus measures of gait will be different at different velocities, such as pre/post injury. It is necessary to determine if the difference in gait measures are from the experimental changes, or simply from traveling at different speeds. NEW METHOD: Instead of limiting this effect, we have developed techniques to embrace the velocity dependence of gait measures. By translating the pawprints into a body coordinate frame we are able to measure location of paw placement in addition to the standard gait measures. RESULTS: At higher velocities rats have greater consistency of steps, place their forelimb initial contact more medially and anteriorly, and place their hindlimb toe off more medially and posteriorly. Interlimb phasing also becomes more consistent at higher velocities. Following a cervical spinal cord injury consistency is reduced and the velocity dependent behaviors are significantly different. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD: Translating the coordinate frame improves the ability to measure changes in base of support following spinal cord injury. Employing a treadmill, or limiting analysis to a narrow velocity window does address the effects of velocity. We feel that measuring across all velocities is more appropriate than dictating that the animals match speeds. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying locomotion with automated gait analysis devices is a great way to evaluate the changes that experimental treatments provide. These new methods allow for a more appropriate way to address the confound of many gait measures being velocity dependent.
Authors: A Bozkurt; J Scheffel; G A Brook; E A Joosten; C V Suschek; D M O'Dey; N Pallua; R Deumens Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Dora Krizsan-Agbas; Michelle K Winter; Linda S Eggimann; Judith Meriwether; Nancy E Berman; Peter G Smith; Kenneth E McCarson Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: James V Lynskey; Faheem A Sandhu; Faheen A Sandhu; Hai-Ning Dai; Hail-Ning Dai; Marietta McAtee; Jonathan R Slotkin; Jon R Slotkin; Linda MacArthur; Barbara S Bregman Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Veronica J Tom; Harra R Sandrow-Feinberg; Kassi Miller; Cheryl Domitrovich; Julien Bouyer; Victoria Zhukareva; Michelle C Klaw; Michel A Lemay; John D Houlé Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Ivanna K Timotius; Sandra Moceri; Anne-Christine Plank; Johanna Habermeyer; Fabio Canneva; Jürgen Winkler; Jochen Klucken; Nicolas Casadei; Olaf Riess; Bjoern Eskofier; Stephan von Hörsten Journal: eNeuro Date: 2019-11-01
Authors: Elisabeth A Kappos; Patricia K Sieber; Patricia E Engels; Alessio V Mariolo; Salvatore D'Arpa; Dirk J Schaefer; Daniel F Kalbermatten Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Nathan D Neckel; Haining Dai; John Hanckel; Yichien Lee; Christopher Albanese; Olga Rodriguez Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 3.352