1991
DOI: 10.1127/zma/78/1991/315
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Elastic mechanisms in primate locomotion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, muscles acting to adduct the hip joint are comparably massive (~30% of muscle mass at the hip joint) in sloths, orangutans, and howler monkeys, as well as in the pelvic limb of other suspensory taxa (Liu et al, 2016), which suggests the ability of this functional group to facilitate grasping/clinging otherwise expected by universally strong digital flexors. It is further likely that the well‐developed limb adductors with four heads of the m. adductor in sloths also contributes to medial SRF and should act to maintain the horizontal position of CoM by more precise joint position control at the hip joint, all while preventing energy‐wasting by not oscillating the substrate (Alexander, 1991). This hypothesis needs to be verified with future analyses of SRF and muscle architectural properties in Bradypus .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, muscles acting to adduct the hip joint are comparably massive (~30% of muscle mass at the hip joint) in sloths, orangutans, and howler monkeys, as well as in the pelvic limb of other suspensory taxa (Liu et al, 2016), which suggests the ability of this functional group to facilitate grasping/clinging otherwise expected by universally strong digital flexors. It is further likely that the well‐developed limb adductors with four heads of the m. adductor in sloths also contributes to medial SRF and should act to maintain the horizontal position of CoM by more precise joint position control at the hip joint, all while preventing energy‐wasting by not oscillating the substrate (Alexander, 1991). This hypothesis needs to be verified with future analyses of SRF and muscle architectural properties in Bradypus .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Arboreal habitats are challenging because the discontinuity, variability, compliance (i.e., branch flexibility and deflection), and instability of the substrates inherently perturb the basic requirements of legged locomotion, that is, propulsion, balance, and path stability. For instance, the ability to generate mechanical work for propulsion may be reduced, as a substantial part of it is lost in deforming the substrate (Alexander, 1991a; Channon et al, 2011; Coward & Halsey, 2014; Demes et al, 1995; Lejeune et al, 1998), making high‐speed movement and acceleration difficult. As a result, the speed of progression and acceleration can hold functional significance in serving as proxies for the effectiveness in negotiating discontinuous and compliant substrates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Arboreal substrates are often discontinuous, and gaps must be crossed between trees while traveling (Graham & Socha, 2020). Such gaps typically lie between narrow and compliant terminal branches and may be of particular concern for arboreal leapers, given the need for high push‐off forces (Alexander, 1991; Bonser, 1999; Crompton et al, 1993). Most studies that have investigated the impact of substrate compliance on arboreal leaping have found that compliant supports absorb mechanical energy during push‐off, negatively impacting leaping performance (Crandell et al, 2018; Demes et al, 1995; Gilman et al, 2012; Gilman & Irschick, 2013; Hunt et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%