Literature DB >> 35142362

Energy expenditure does not solely explain step length-width choices during walking.

Stephen A Antos1,2,3, Konrad P Kording3,4, Keith E Gordon2,5.   

Abstract

Healthy young adults have a most preferred walking speed, step length and step width that are close to energetically optimal. However, people can choose to walk with a multitude of different step lengths and widths, which can vary in both energy expenditure and preference. Here, we further investigated step length-width preferences and their relationship to energy expenditure. In line with a growing body of research, we hypothesized that people's preferred stepping patterns would not be fully explained by metabolic energy expenditure. To test this hypothesis, we used a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Fifteen participants walked on an oversized treadmill. Each trial, participants performed two prescribed stepping patterns and then chose the pattern they preferred. Over time, we adapted the choices such that there was 50% chance of choosing one pattern over another (equally preferred). If people's preferences are based solely on metabolic energy expenditure, then these equally preferred stepping patterns should have equal energy expenditure. In contrast, we found that energy expenditure differed across equally preferred step length-width patterns (P<0.001). On average, longer steps with higher energy expenditure were preferred over shorter and wider steps with lower energy expenditure (P<0.001). We also asked participants to rank a set of shorter, wider and longer steps from most preferred to least preferred, and from most energy expended to least energy expended. Only 7/15 participants had the same rankings for their preferences and perceived energy expenditure. Our results suggest that energy expenditure is not the only factor influencing a person's conscious gait choices.
© 2022. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gait; Locomotion; Metabolic cost; Motor control; Two-alternative forced-choice; Utility theory

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35142362      PMCID: PMC8996813          DOI: 10.1242/jeb.243104

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


  29 in total

1.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination.

Authors:  Emanuel Todorov; Michael I Jordan
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  The loss function of sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Konrad Paul Körding; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-06-21       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Mechanical power and efficiency of level walking with different stride rates.

Authors:  Brian R Umberger; Philip E Martin
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.312

4.  The effects of step width and arm swing on energetic cost and lateral balance during running.

Authors:  Christopher J Arellano; Rodger Kram
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement. Minimum torque-change model.

Authors:  Y Uno; M Kawato; R Suzuki
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.086

6.  Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expenditure in man.

Authors:  J M Brockway
Journal:  Hum Nutr Clin Nutr       Date:  1987-11

7.  Effects of stride frequency on mechanical power and energy expenditure of walking.

Authors:  A E Minetti; C Capelli; P Zamparo; P E di Prampero; F Saibene
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  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

9.  Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics?

Authors:  Koren Gast; Rodger Kram; Raziel Riemer
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  Humans Can Continuously Optimize Energetic Cost during Walking.

Authors:  Jessica C Selinger; Shawn M O'Connor; Jeremy D Wong; J Maxwell Donelan
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  1 in total

1.  Energy expenditure does not solely explain step length-width choices during walking.

Authors:  Stephen A Antos; Konrad P Kording; Keith E Gordon
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.312

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.