4.5 Article

Mechanics of dog walking compared with a passive, stiff-limbed, 4-bar linkage model, and their collisional implications

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 210, Issue 3, Pages 533-540

Publisher

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.02647

Keywords

collision; inverted pendulum; walk; quadruped

Categories

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E013244/1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. BBSRC [BB/E013244/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E013244/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here, we present a simple stiff-limbed passive model of quadrupedal walking, compare mechanics predicted from the model with those observed from forceplate measurements of walking dogs and consider the implications of deviation from model predictions, especially with reference to collision mechanics. The model is based on the geometry of a 4-bar linkage consisting of a stiff hindleg, back, foreleg and the ground between the hind and front feet. It uses empirical morphological and kinematic inputs to determine the fluctuations in potential and kinetic energy, vertical and horizontal forces and energy losses associated with inelastic collisions at each foot placement. Using forceplate measurements to calculate centre of mass motions of walking dogs, we find that (1) dogs may, but are not required to, spend periods of double support (one hind- and one forefoot) agreeing with the passive model; (2) legs are somewhat compliant, and mechanical energy fluctuates during triple support, with mechanical energy being lost directly after hindfoot placement and replaced following forefoot placement. Footfall timings and timing of mechanical energy fluctuations are consistent with strategies to reduce collisional forces, analogous to the suggested role of ankle extension as an efficient powering mechanism in human walking.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available