4.7 Article

Task demand and load carriage experience affect gait variability among military cadets

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-22881-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. CDC/NIOSH [T03 OH008613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of load carriage on gait variability among military cadets, and shows that GV measures provide a more complete description of adaptability, stability, and control. The study also highlights the importance of alternate movement strategies during more difficult load carriage tasks, and captures experience-related differences in load carriage strategies.
Load carriage is an inevitable daily task for soldiers. The purposes of this study were to explore the extent to which gait variability (GV) is affected by load carriage and experience among military cadets, and whether experience-related differences in GV are dependent on task demand. Two groups of cadets (30 experienced, 30 less experienced) completed a load carriage task in each of three load conditions (no load, 16 kg, 32 kg). Three categories of GV measures were obtained: spatiotemporal variability, joint kinematic variability, and Lyapunov exponents. Compared to traditional mean gait measures, GV measures were more discriminative of experience: although both groups showed similar mean gait measures, the experienced participants had reduced variability in spatiotemporal measures (p <= 0.008) and joint kinematics (p <= 0.004), as well as lower levels of long-term local dynamic stability at the ankle (p = 0.040). In both groups, heavier loads were also caused increased GV (p <= 0.018) and enhanced short-term local dynamic stability at the knee (p = 0.014). These results emphasize the importance of GV measures, which may provide a more complete description of adaptability, stability, and control; highlight alternate movement strategies during more difficult load carriage; and capture experience-related differences in load carriage strategies.

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

4.7
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