4.6 Article

Virtual pivot point: Always experimentally observed in human walking?

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292874

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the effects of manipulating the center of pressure on the kinetics and kinematics of human walking and its influence on the virtual pivot point (VPP). The results showed that the majority of participants exhibited a VPP in various conditions, with the exception of one participant during handstand walking. There were no significant differences in the horizontal and vertical position of the VPP between the conditions.
A main challenge in human walking is maintaining stability. One strategy to balance the whole body dynamically is to direct the ground reaction forces toward a point above the center of mass, called virtual pivot point (VPP). This strategy could be observed in various experimental studies for human and animal gait. A VPP was also observed when VPP input variables like center of mass or ground reaction forces were perturbed. In this study, the kinetic and kinematic consequences of a center of pressure manipulation and the influence on the VPP are investigated. Thus, eleven participants walked with manipulated center of pressure (i.e. barefoot, backwards, with a rigid sole, with stilts, and in handstand compared to shoe walking). In all conditions a VPP could be observed, only one participant showed no VPP in handstand walking. The vertical VPP position only differs between shoe walking and rigid sole walking, there are no significant differences between the conditions in the horizontal VPP position and the spread around the VPP. However, it is conceivable that for more severe gait changes, walking without VPP could be observed. To further analyze this issue, the authors provide a VPP calculation tool for testing data regarding the existence of the VPP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available