4.5 Article

Lower limb joint work and joint work contribution during,clownhill and uphill walking at different inclinations

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 75-80

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.07.001

关键词

Sloped walking; Inverse dynamics; Gait analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Work performance and individual joint contribution to total work are important information for creating training protocols, but were not assessed so far for sloped walking. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze lower limb joint work and joint contribution of the hip, knee and ankle to total lower limb work during sloped walking in a healthy population. Eighteen male participants (27.0 +/- 4.7 yrs, 1.80 +/- 0.05 m, 74.5 +/- 8.2 kg) walked on an instrumented ramp at inclination angles of 0 degrees, +/- 6 degrees, +/- 2 degrees and +/- 18 degrees at 1.1 m/s. Kinematic and kinetic data were captured using a motion -capture system (Vicon) and two force plates (AMTI). Joint power curves, joint work (positive, negative, absolute) and each, joint's contribution to total lower limb work were analyzed throughout the stance phase using an ANOVA with repeated measures. With increasing inclination positive joint work increased for the ankle and hip joint and in total during uphill walking. Negative joint work increased for each joint and in total work during downhill walking. Absolute work was increased during both uphill (all joints) and downhill (ankle & knee) walking. Knee joint contribution to total negative and absolute work increased during downhill walking while hip and ankle contributions decreased. This study identified, that, when switching from level to a 6 and from 6 to a 12 inclination the gain of individual joint work is more pronounced compared to switching from 12 to an 18 inclination. The results might be used for training recommendations and specific training intervention with respect to sloped walking. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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