4.5 Article

Human walking isn't all hard work: evidence of soft tissue contributions to energy dissipation and return

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 213, 期 24, 页码 4257-4264

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.044297

关键词

locomotion; mechanical work; soft tissue; walking biomechanics; wobbling mass

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Department of Defense [DR081177]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R44HD055706]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The muscles and tendons of the lower extremity are generally considered the dominant producers of positive and negative work during gait. However, soft-tissue deformations not captured by joint rotations might also dissipate, store and even return substantial energy to the body. A key locomotion event is the collision of the leg with the ground, which deforms soft tissues appreciably in running. Significant deformation might also result from the impulsive ground collision in walking. In a study of normal human walking (N=10; 0.7-2.0ms(-1) speeds), we show indirect evidence for both negative and positive work performed by soft tissue, consistent with a damped elastic collision and rebound. We used the difference between measured joint work and another quantity - the work performed on the body center of mass - to indicate possible work performed by soft tissue. At 1.25ms(-1), we estimated that soft tissue performs approximately 7.5. J of negative work per collision. This constitutes approximately 60% of the total negative collision work and 31% of the total negative work per stride. The amount of soft tissue work during collision increases sharply with speed. Each collision is followed by 4. J of soft tissue rebound that is also not captured by joint work measures. Soft tissue deformation may save muscles the effort of actively dissipating energy, and soft tissue elastic rebound could save up to 14% of the total positive work per stride. Soft tissues not only cushion impacts but also appear to perform substantial work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据