Motor Patterns in Human Walking and Running

Abstract

. Despite distinct differences between walking and running, the two types of human locomotion are likely to be controlled by shared pattern-generating networks. However, the differences between their kinematics and kinetics imply that corresponding muscle activations may also be quite different. We examined the differences between walking and running by recording kinematics and electromyographic (EMG) activity in 32 ipsilateral limb and trunk muscles during human locomotion, and compared the effects of speed (3-12 km/h) and gait. We found that the timing of muscle activation was accounted for by five basic temporal activation components during running as we previously found for walking. Each component was loaded on similar sets of leg muscles in both gaits but generally on different sets of upper trunk and shoulder muscles. The major difference between walking and running was that one temporal component, occurring during stance, was shifted to an earlier phase in the step cycle during running. These muscle activation differences between gaits did not simply depend on locomotion speed as shown by recordings during each gait over the same range of speeds (5-9 km/h). The results are consistent with an organization of locomotion motor programs having two parts, one that organizes muscle activation during swing and another during stance and the transition to swing. The timing shift between walking and running reflects therefore the difference in the relative duration of the stance phase in the two gaits.

Neural Control of Unloaded Leg Posture and of Leg Swing in Stick Insect, Cockroach, and Mouse Differs from That in Larger Animals

“…The stick insect, mouse, and cat data differed markedly from the human and horse data, with the smaller animals having swing motor neuron activity that continued throughout swing and the larger ones having swing activity only at swing beginning. Swing motor neuron activity also continues throughout the entirety of swing in guineafowl (Gatesy, 1999), chick (Jacobson and Hollyday, 1982), and newt (Székely et al, 1969) legs and small (ankle) limb segments in humans (Prochazka et al, 1989;Halliday et al, 2003;Cappellini et al, 2006).…”

Heel-strike in walking: Assessment of potential sources of intra- and inter-subject variability in the activation patterns of muscles stabilizing the knee joint

“…The application of PCA to EMG signals has enabled extraction of information concerning neuro-muscular processes (Astephen Wilson et al, 2011;Ivanenko et 64 al., 2004), the nature of the movement"s coordination (Cappellini et al, 2006;Klarner et al, 2010;Sadeghi et al, 2000, von Tscharner, 2002von Tscharner and Goepfert, 2003a), and mechanical efficiency . In the present study, PCA was applied to EMG waveforms of the period from 200 ms before heel-strike to 200 ms 68 after heel-strike, in level walking.…”

Ankle dynamic in stroke patients: Agonist vs. antagonist muscle relations

“…In fact, when the stance phase is divided into a first subphase or initial contact, the TA acts as an agonist (Ayyappa, 1997;Bonell et al, 2007;Cappellini et al, 2006), with SOL in a lengthening position (Orendurff, et al, 2005). In the second sub-phase, also named midstance, the SOL muscle, assisted by the gastrocnemius, controls the rate of dorsiflexion of the ankle, keeping its action during the terminal stance to prepare the impulse of the foot (Ayyappa, 1997;Higginson, et al, 2006;Neptune et al, 2001;Orendurff, et al, 2005).…”