Influence of Leg Muscle Vibration on Human Walking

Abstract

We studied the effect of vibratory stimulation of different leg muscles [bilateral quadriceps (Q), hamstring (HS) muscles, triceps surae (TS), and tibialis anterior (TA)] in seven normal subjects during 1) quiet standing, 2) stepping in place movements, and 3) walking on the treadmill. The experiments were performed in a dimly illuminated room, and the subjects were given the instruction not to resist the applied perturbation. In one condition the velocity of the treadmill was controlled by a feedback from the subject's current position. In normal standing, TA vibration elicited a prominent forward body tilt, whereas HS and TS vibration elicited backward trunk or whole body inclination, respectively. Q vibration had little effect. During stepping in place, continuous HS vibration produced an involuntary forward stepping at about 0.3 m s(-1) without modifying the stepping frequency. When the subjects (with eyes closed) kept a hand contact with an external still object, they did not move forward but perceived an illusory forward leg flexion relative to the trunk. Q, TS, and TA vibration did not cause any systematic body translation nor illusory changes in body configuration. In treadmill locomotion, HS vibration produced an involuntary steplike increase of walking speed (by 0.1-0.6 m.s(-1)). Continuous vibration elicited larger speed increments than phasic stimulation during swing or stance phase. For phasic stimulation, HS vibration tended to be more effective when applied during swing than during stance phase. Q, TA, and TS vibration had little if any effect. Vibration of thigh muscles altered the walking speed depending on the direction of progression. During backward locomotion, the walking speed tended to decrease after HS vibration, whereas it significantly increased after Q vibration. Thus the influence of leg muscle vibration on stepping in place and locomotion differed significantly from that on normal posture. We suggest that the proprioceptive input from thigh muscles may convey information about the velocity of the foot movement relative to the trunk.

A novel approach to mechanical foot stimulation during human locomotion under body weight support

“…This servo-system provided an efficient and stable control of the treadmill speed. The feedback constant (G = 3.8) was selected so as to make participants feel comfortable when they changed their walking speed on the treadmill (Ivanenko et al, 2000).…”

“…However, the particular contribution by each type of receptor is still a matter of debate. Moreover, the ability of any single input to entrain or affect the locomotor rhythm is much reduced when competing with the input from other afferents and descending pathways (Ivanenko, Grasso, & Lacquaniti, 2000;Stephens & Yang, 1999;Whelan & Pearson, 1997). A current view on the role of different mechanoreceptors considers task-and context-dependent contribution of sensory inputs (Pearson, 2004), as well as its maturation in early development (Dominici, Ivanenko, & Lacquaniti, 2007;Musselman & Yang, 2007).…”

Supraspinal Control Predicts Locomotor Function and Forecasts Responsiveness to Training after Spinal Cord Injury

“…112 These responses are thought to be attributed to activation of the spinal pattern generating circuits. [111][112][113] Based on evidence for the influence of vibration on circuitry related to locomotor behavior, whole body vibration has been used as an intervention to improve walking in participants with motor-incomplete SCI. 114 Moreover, in a proof of concept study, time-organized vibration to multiple lower extremity muscles has been shown to be capable of inducing small amplitude, gait-like movements in one non-disabled participant and one participant with SCI.…”

Changes in the Limb Kinematics and Walking-Distance Estimation After Shank Elongation: Evidence for a Locomotor Body Schema?

“…This implies dissociation between actual disproportional body schema and proportional dynamic body image. It is worth noting that usage of proprioception may differ significantly in static and dynamic conditions, since in the dynamic conditions the control system applies some rules that are context dependent (Bullen and Brunt 1986;Capaday and Cooke 1981;Cordo et al 1995;Inglis et al 1991;Ivanenko et al 1999Ivanenko et al , 2000. For instance, stimulation of proprioceptors of the hamstring muscle may evoke illusory changes in the foot-on-trunk orientation during stepping but not during standing (Ivanenko et al 2000).…”