Lower limb joint work and joint work contribution during downhill and uphill walking at different inclinations

Alexander, Nathalie; Strutzenberger, Gerda; Ameshofer, Lisa Maria; Schwameder, Hermann

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.07.001

Cited by 45 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater total positive joint and leg work with faster speed and steeper uphill slope—as well as the greater magnitude of total negative work absorbed by each joint and the individual leg with steeper downhill slope—are in support of our hypotheses and in line with previously published data [18,19]. We found similar trends (positive work increases with slope and negative work magnitude increases with downhill slope) of positive, negative and net individual leg work as those presented in Franz et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…[6] and Alexander et al . [19]. However, we found higher magnitudes of positive and negative individual leg work (1–20 times higher) than those presented in Franz et al .…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

“…[6] and magnitudes of joint work (up to two times higher) than those presented in Alexander et al . [19]. These differences in magnitude are probably due to different data collection and analysis methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used a dual-belt instrumented treadmill to record GRFs beneath each leg at a constant speed and then used inverse dynamics to determine joint and leg sagittal plane work and power throughout the stance phase. Previous studies have used an over-ground force platform within a ramp [5,19,21] or collected GRF data from a single leg, and then used the individual limbs method to calculate COM work, and assumed symmetry between legs [6]. It is possible that by using data from both legs, averaging over many consecutive steps and using inverse dynamics to sum joint work, our data include simultaneous positive and negative work done at each joint; resulting in comparatively higher positive leg work and lower negative leg work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While joint and individual leg positive, negative and net work were reported for a range of slopes in Alexander et al . [19], subjects walked at one speed on a ramp, which was used to collect data from non-consecutive steps (multiple trials were performed at each inclination). However, each joint's relative contribution to individual leg mechanical positive or negative work or power when walking over a range of speeds on different slopes has not yet been determined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The contributions of ankle, knee and hip joint work to individual leg work change during uphill and downhill walking over a range of speeds

Montgomery

Grabowski

2018

R. Soc. open sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The muscles surrounding the ankle, knee and hip joints provide 42, 16 and 42%, respectively, of the total leg positive power required to walk on level ground at various speeds. However, each joint's contribution to leg work when walking up/downhill at a range of speeds is not known. Determining each biological joint's contribution to leg work over a range of speeds and slopes can inform the design of biomimetic assistive devices (i.e. prostheses). Twenty healthy adults walked 1.00, 1.25 and 1.50 m s−1 on 0°, ±3°, ±6° and ±9° while we collected kinematic and kinetic data. We calculated sagittal plane joint work and individual leg work over the entire stance phase. The ratio of ankle joint to total individual leg positive work (summed ankle, knee and hip joint work) did not change (0.42) with speed or slope, but the ratio of ankle joint to individual leg negative work was 0.38 at −9°, 0.42 at 0° and 0.27 at +9° across all speeds. The ratio of ankle joint to total individual leg negative work was 0.41 at 1.00 m s−1 and 0.32 at 1.50 m s−1 across all slopes. The ratio of knee joint to total individual positive leg work (0.22) did not change with speed or slope. The ratio of knee joint to total individual leg negative work was 0.39 at 1.00 m s−1 and 0.45 at 1.50 m s−1 across all slopes. The ratio of hip joint to total individual leg positive work did not change with speed but was 0.34 at −9°, 0.33 at 0° and 0.37 at +9° across all speeds. The ratio of hip joint to total individual leg negative work was 0.21 at 1.00 m s−1, and 0.24 at 1.50 m s−1 across all slopes and 0.17 at −9°, 0.19 at 0° and 0.29 at +9° across all speeds. The ankle significantly contributes to walking on slopes and this contribution changes during sloped compared with level-ground walking, thus assistive devices that provide biomimetic ankle function must adapt to accommodate walking at different speeds and slopes; whereas assistive biomimetic devices for the knee only need to adapt at different speeds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…[6] and Alexander et al . [19]. However, we found higher magnitudes of positive and negative individual leg work (1–20 times higher) than those presented in Franz et al .…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%