The effect of external lateral stabilization on the control of mediolateral stability in walking and running

, ,
  Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Netherlands
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2
Published
Accepted
Subject Areas
Kinesiology
Keywords
gait stability, balance, running, walking, foot placement strategy, stepping strategy
Copyright
© 2019 Mahaki et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Mahaki M, Bruijn SM, H. van Dieën J. 2019. The effect of external lateral stabilization on the control of mediolateral stability in walking and running. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27244v2

Abstract

It is still unclear how humans control mediolateral (ML) stability in walking and even more so for running. Here, foot placement strategy as a main mechanism to control ML stability was compared between walking and running. Moreover, to verify the role of foot placement as a means to control ML stability in both modes of locomotion, this study investigated the effect of external lateral stabilization on foot placement control. Ten young adults participated in this study. Kinematic data of the trunk (T6) and feet (heels) were recorded during walking and running on a treadmill in normal and stabilized conditions. Correlation between ML trunk CoM state and subsequent ML foot placement, step width, and step width variability were assessed. Paired t-tests (either SPM1d or normal) were used to compare aforementioned parameters between normal walking and running. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs (either SPM1d or normal) were used to test for effects of walking vs. running and of normal vs. stabilized condition. We found a stronger correlation between ML trunk CoM state and ML foot placement and significantly higher step width and step width variability in walking than in running. The correlation between ML trunk CoM state and ML foot placement, step width, and step width variability were significantly decreased by external lateral stabilization in walking and running, and this reduction was stronger in walking than in running. We conclude that ML foot placement is coordinated to ML trunk CoM state to stabilize both walking and running and this coordination is stronger in walking than in running and independent of speed in running.

Author Comment

We have reanalyzed the estimation of subsequent ML foot placement based on preceding ML trunk CoM state within each step, rather than within each cycle.

Supplemental Information

(A) set up. Inset (B) shows the stabilization in more detail. (1) frame (2) springs (3) horizontal rail (4) trolley moving in anterior-posterior direction (5) slider moving in vertical direction (6) vertical rail; and (7) rope

(A) set up. Inset (B) shows the stabilization in more detail. (1) frame (2) springs (3) horizontal rail (4) trolley moving in anterior-posterior direction (5) slider moving in vertical direction (6) vertical rail; and (7) rope.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-2

Flow of data processing adopted in this study

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-3

The % of nonsignificant β2's during normal (solid) and stabilized (dashed) conditions in walking and running trials per each % of swing phase

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-4

The ability of ML trunk CoM state to predict subsequent ML foot placement (R2) during normal (solid) and stabilized (dashed) conditions in walking (blue) and running (green). The shaded regions indicate standard deviation of R2

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-5

The differences of R2 between normal walking and running. The shaded areas indicate significant effects in the corresponding portion of the swing phase (based on the results of SPM paired t-test)

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-6

The effect of lateral stabilization on (A) step width and (B) step width variability. # and * represents the significant differences based on the results of Bonferroni post-hoc tests and paired t-test, respectively

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-7

(A) The effect of lateral stabilization on R2 in walking and running. (B) Differences of R2 between walking and running in both conditions. (C) Differences of lateral stabilization effect on R2 between walking and running

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27244v2/supp-8