2017
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160627
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Walking with wider steps changes foot placement control, increases kinematic variability and does not improve linear stability

Abstract: Walking humans respond to pulls or pushes on their upper body by changing where they place their foot on the next step. Usually, they place their foot further along the direction of the upper body perturbation. Here, we examine how this foot placement response is affected by the average step width during walking. We performed experiments with humans walking on a treadmill, both normally and at five different prescribed step widths. We prescribed step widths by requiring subjects to step on lines drawn on the t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

12
91
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(104 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
12
91
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Instead, the perturbation experiments have only been used to obtain insights into limited aspects of walking control such as foot placement or centre of pressure modulation [5,7,[15][16][17][18], ankle impedance [12,19], impulse response functions for some muscles [14,15] or some aspect of body motion [9]. Other authors have considered natural step-to-step variability in unperturbed steady-state locomotion [10,[20][21][22][23][24] to obtain information about stability and control of walking and running, but again, we do not know of a complete synthesis of a walking controller from such measurements. Similarly, there have been many stable bipedal walking simulations [25][26][27][28], stable two-legged walking robots [29,30], and robotic prostheses and exoskeletons [31,32], but none of these simulations, robots or assistive devices have controllers that are quantitatively derived from human walking response to perturbations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, the perturbation experiments have only been used to obtain insights into limited aspects of walking control such as foot placement or centre of pressure modulation [5,7,[15][16][17][18], ankle impedance [12,19], impulse response functions for some muscles [14,15] or some aspect of body motion [9]. Other authors have considered natural step-to-step variability in unperturbed steady-state locomotion [10,[20][21][22][23][24] to obtain information about stability and control of walking and running, but again, we do not know of a complete synthesis of a walking controller from such measurements. Similarly, there have been many stable bipedal walking simulations [25][26][27][28], stable two-legged walking robots [29,30], and robotic prostheses and exoskeletons [31,32], but none of these simulations, robots or assistive devices have controllers that are quantitatively derived from human walking response to perturbations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CNS actively stabilizes frontal plane motion by predicting future centre of mass position and altering foot placement to preserve a sufficient medial-lateral margin of stability 24 , 26 – 28 . The introduction of an additional degree-of-freedom, through the oscillation of a carried mass, could alter the body’s ability to predict centre of mass state; where the centre of mass state has been shown to be a predictor of step placement during locomotion 29 , 30 . In addition, humans are particularly sensitive to the application of non-steady state, random, perturbations during gait in the medial-lateral direction, as opposed to the fore-aft direction 31 , 32 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In all of the above-mentioned studies, the manipulability was not investigated by looking at the real human behavior. Given the recent interest in foot placement based stability analysis [30,39], it seems that an experimental analysis of manipulability of human walking could be of great interest for those studying human and humanoids gait stability. However, as discussed above, little is still known about the following: (a) variation of the manipulability of the swing limbs of human during walking, (b) the effect walking speed on the manipulability of swing foot, (c) variation of the manipulability of CoM and its correlation with stability, and (d) relation between the manipulability and local and orbital stability of walking.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%