4.5 Article

Leg adjustments during running across visible and camouflaged incidental changes in ground level

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 215, 期 17, 页码 3072-3079

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.072314

关键词

biomechanics; human locomotion; spring-mass model

类别

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [DFG] [PAK 146 Bl 236/21]
  2. Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBF] [01EC1003B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During running in a natural environment, humans must routinely negotiate varied and unpredictable changes in ground level. To prevent a fall, changes in ground level, especially those that are invisible, require a quick response of the movement system within a short time. For 11 subjects we investigated two consecutive contacts during running across visible (drop of 0, 5 and 10 cm) and camouflaged (drop of 0 and 10 cm) changes in ground level. For both situations, we found significant variances in their leg parameters and ground reaction forces (GRFs) during the perturbed second contact but also one step ahead, in the unperturbed first contact. At visible first contact, humans linearly adapt their GRF to lower and smooth their centre of mass. During the camouflaged situation, the GRF also decreased, but it seems that the runners anticipate a drop of approximately 5-10 cm. The GRF increased with drop height during the visible perturbed second contact. At the camouflaged second contact, GRFs differed noticeably from the observed reaction when crossing a similar visible drop, whereas the contact time decreased and the initial impact peak increased. This increased impact can be interpreted as a purely mechanical contribution to cope with the event. Furthermore, we observed an increased angle of attack and leg length with drop height for both situations. This is in accordance with results observed in birds running over a track with an unexpected drop, and suggests that adaptations in swing leg retraction form part of the strategy for running across uneven ground.

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