4.5 Article

Modulation of joint and limb mechanical work in walk-to-run transition steps in humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 221, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.174755

关键词

Walk; Run; Gait transition; Joint work; Limb work

类别

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award scholarship through the University of Western Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surprisingly little information exists of the mechanics in the steps initializing the walk-to-run transition (WRT) in humans. Here, we assess how mechanical work of the limbs (vertical and horizontal) and the individual joints (ankle, knee and hip) are modulated as humans transition from a preferred constant walking velocity (v(walk)) to a variety of running velocities (v(run); ranging from a sprint to a velocity slower than v(walk)). WRTs to fast v(run) values occur nearly exclusively through positive horizontal limb work, satisfying the goal of forward acceleration. Contrary to our hypothesis, however, positive mechanical work remains above that at v(walk) even when decelerating. In these WRTs to slow running, positive mechanical work is remarkably high and is comprised nearly exclusively of vertical limb work. Vertical-to-horizontal work modulation may represent an optimization for achieving minimal and maximal v(run), respectively, while fulfilling an apparent necessity for energy input when initiating WRTs. Net work of the WRT steps was more evenly distributed across the ankle, knee and hip joints than expected. Absolute positive mechanical work exhibited a clearer modulation towards hip-based work at high accelerations (>3 m s(-2)), corroborating previous suggestions that the most proximal joints are preferentially recruited for locomotor tasks requiring high power and work production. In WRTs to very slow v(run) values, high positive work is nevertheless done at the knee, indicating that modulation of joint work is not only dependent on the amount of work required but also the locomotor context.

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