Coping with disturbances

Blickhan, Reinhard; Ernst, Michael; Koch, Markus; Müller, Roy

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2013.02.009

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To facilitate a stable steady gait (constant speed and bounce height), a strategy during running on uneven ground could be to maintain the centre of mass trajectory. Simulations revealed that this goal can be achieved by using the flight phase to set the correct parameters of the system (angle of attack and spring stiffness) at the instant of touchdown [28,35,36]. Without feedback, this feed-forward control automatically adjusts the angle of attack and spring stiffness with the falling time and thus, to the falling height [28].…”

Section: Spring -Mass Model For Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human and avian running on uneven ground: a model-based comparison

Müller

Birn-Jeffery

Blum

2016

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Birds and humans are successful bipedal runners, who have individually evolved bipedalism, but the extent of the similarities and differences of their bipedal locomotion is unknown. In turn, the anatomical differences of their locomotor systems complicate direct comparisons. However, a simplifying mechanical model, such as the conservative spring-mass model, can be used to describe both avian and human running and thus, provides a way to compare the locomotor strategies that birds and humans use when running on level and uneven ground. Although humans run with significantly steeper leg angles at touchdown and stiffer legs when compared with cursorial ground birds, swing-leg adaptations (leg angle and leg length kinematics) used by birds and humans while running appear similar across all types of uneven ground. Nevertheless, owing to morphological restrictions, the crouched avian leg has a greater range of leg angle and leg length adaptations when coping with drops and downward steps than the straight human leg. On the other hand, the straight human leg seems to use leg stiffness adaptation when coping with obstacles and upward steps unlike the crouched avian leg posture.

show abstract

Section: Spring -Mass Model For Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human and avian running on uneven ground: a model-based comparison

Müller

Birn-Jeffery

Blum

2016

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Together these hierarchical neural processing modules, dispersed throughout supraspinal and spinal branches of the CNS, sensitively and responsively blend their collective outputs to direct running actions. There are, however, innate limitations to top-down neural control: inherent signal transmission delays in cortical communication and spinal reflex loops, unavoidable mis-estimations of tissue positioning's and capacities, unpredictable changes in surface integrity and impact conditions, and the ever-present sensory noise implicit in dynamic multi-limb, multi-tissue activity (Blickhan et al, 2006 , 2013 ; Haeufle et al, 2012 ).…”

Section: Highly-evolved Top-down Coordinated Control Of Human Runningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uniqueness of Human Running Coordination: The Integration of Modern and Ancient Evolutionary Innovations

Kiely

Collins

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running is a pervasive activity across human cultures and a cornerstone of contemporary health, fitness, and sporting activities. Yet for the overwhelming predominance of human existence running was an essential prerequisite for survival. A means to hunt, and a means to escape when hunted. In a very real sense humans have evolved to run. Yet curiously, perhaps due to running's cultural ubiquity and the natural ease with which we learn to run, we rarely consider the uniqueness of human bipedal running within the animal kingdom. Our unique upright, single stance, bouncing running gait imposes a unique set of coordinative difficulties. Challenges demanding we precariously balance our fragile brains in the very position where they are most vulnerable to falling injury while simultaneously retaining stability, steering direction of travel, and powering the upcoming stride: all within the abbreviated time-frames afforded by short, violent ground contacts separated by long flight times. These running coordination challenges are solved through the tightly-integrated blending of primitive evolutionary legacies, conserved from reptilian and vertebrate lineages, and comparatively modern, more exclusively human, innovations. The integrated unification of these top-down and bottom-up control processes bestows humans with an agile control system, enabling us to readily modulate speeds, change direction, negotiate varied terrains and to instantaneously adapt to changing surface conditions. The seamless integration of these evolutionary processes is facilitated by pervasive, neural and biological, activity-dependent adaptive plasticity. Over time, and with progressive exposure, this adaptive plasticity shapes neural and biological structures to best cope with regularly imposed movement challenges. This pervasive plasticity enables the gradual construction of a robust system of distributed coordinated control, comprised of processes that are so deeply collectively entwined that describing their functionality in isolation obscures their true irrevocably entangled nature. Although other species rely on a similar set of coordinated processes to run, the bouncing bipedal nature of human running presents a specific set of coordination challenges, solved using a customized blend of evolved solutions. A deeper appreciation of the foundations of the running coordination phenomenon promotes conceptual clarity, potentially informing future advances in running training and running-injury rehabilitation interventions.

show abstract

“…Thus, the expenses for lifting the CoM in advance may more than counterbalance the costs which otherwhise would be necessary while to supply the grouched mounting of the hurdle. While the energetic efficiency is one aspect influencing human running (e.g., Alexander, 2002;Miller, Umberger, Hamill, & Caldwell, 2012) other aspects, like safety and comfort contribute as well and may dominate in some situations (e.g., Jansen, Toet, & Werkhoven, 2011;Blickhan, Ernst, Koch, & Müller, 2013;Huber et al, 2014). For example, the safety aspect is affected by the stability of movement and the ground clearance necessary to avoid tripping and injuries.…”

Section: Possible Advantages Of the Selected Com Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%