Margit M Bach1, Andreas Daffertshofer1, Nadia Dominici2. 1. Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute of Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute of Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.dominici@vu.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to identify the developing maturity of walking and running in young children. We assessed gait patterns for the presence of flight and double support phases complemented by mechanical energetics. The corresponding classification outcomes were contrasted via a shotgun approach involving several potentially informative gait characteristics. A subsequent clustering turned out very effective to classify the degree of gait maturity. METHODS: Participants (22 typically developing children aged 2-9 years and 7 young, healthy adults) walked/ran on a treadmill at comfortable speeds. We determined double support and flight phases and the relationship between potential and kinetic energy oscillations of the center-of-mass. Based on the literature, we further incorporated a total of 93 gait characteristics (including the above-mentioned ones) and employed multivariate statistics comprising principal component analysis for data compression and hierarchical clustering for classification. RESULTS: While the ability to run including a flight phase increased with age, the flight phase did not reach 20% of the gait cycle. It seems that children use a walk-run-strategy when learning to run. Yet, the correlation strength between potential and kinetic energies saturated and so did the amount of recovered mechanical energy. Clustering the set of gait characteristics allowed for classifying gait in more detail. This defines a metric for maturity in terms of deviations from adult gait, which disagrees with chronological age. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of gait maturity estimated statistically using various gait characteristics does not always relate directly to the chronological age of the child.
PURPOSE: We sought to identify the developing maturity of walking and running in young children. We assessed gait patterns for the presence of flight and double support phases complemented by mechanical energetics. The corresponding classification outcomes were contrasted via a shotgun approach involving several potentially informative gait characteristics. A subsequent clustering turned out very effective to classify the degree of gait maturity. METHODS:Participants (22 typically developing children aged 2-9 years and 7 young, healthy adults) walked/ran on a treadmill at comfortable speeds. We determined double support and flight phases and the relationship between potential and kinetic energy oscillations of the center-of-mass. Based on the literature, we further incorporated a total of 93 gait characteristics (including the above-mentioned ones) and employed multivariate statistics comprising principal component analysis for data compression and hierarchical clustering for classification. RESULTS: While the ability to run including a flight phase increased with age, the flight phase did not reach 20% of the gait cycle. It seems that children use a walk-run-strategy when learning to run. Yet, the correlation strength between potential and kinetic energies saturated and so did the amount of recovered mechanical energy. Clustering the set of gait characteristics allowed for classifying gait in more detail. This defines a metric for maturity in terms of deviations from adult gait, which disagrees with chronological age. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of gait maturity estimated statistically using various gait characteristics does not always relate directly to the chronological age of the child.
Entities:
Keywords:
Children; Clustering; Locomotion; Maturity; Mechanical energy
Authors: Yuri P Ivanenko; Germana Cappellini; Nadia Dominici; Richard E Poppele; Francesco Lacquaniti Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Yuri P Ivanenko; Nadia Dominici; Germana Cappellini; Bernard Dan; Guy Cheron; Francesco Lacquaniti Journal: J Exp Biol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.312
Authors: Angkoon Phinyomark; Giovanni Petri; Esther Ibáñez-Marcelo; Sean T Osis; Reed Ferber Journal: J Med Biol Eng Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 1.553
Authors: Adam T C Booth; Marjolein M van der Krogt; Jaap Harlaar; Nadia Dominici; Annemieke I Buizer Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Arthur Henri Dewolf; Francesca Sylos-Labini; Germana Cappellini; Francesco Lacquaniti; Yury Ivanenko Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2020-05-19
Authors: Nikolaus Wenger; Eduardo Martin Moraud; Jerome Gandar; Pavel Musienko; Marco Capogrosso; Laetitia Baud; Camille G Le Goff; Quentin Barraud; Natalia Pavlova; Nadia Dominici; Ivan R Minev; Leonie Asboth; Arthur Hirsch; Simone Duis; Julie Kreider; Andrea Mortera; Oliver Haverbeck; Silvio Kraus; Felix Schmitz; Jack DiGiovanna; Rubia van den Brand; Jocelyne Bloch; Peter Detemple; Stéphanie P Lacour; Erwan Bézard; Silvestro Micera; Grégoire Courtine Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Annike Bekius; Coen S Zandvoort; Jennifer N Kerkman; Laura A van de Pol; R Jeroen Vermeulen; Jaap Harlaar; Andreas Daffertshofer; Annemieke I Buizer; Nadia Dominici Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Nadia Cristina Valentini; Marcelo Gonçalves Duarte; Larissa Wagner Zanella; Glauber Carvalho Nobre Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 4.614