ASME 2010 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Volume 1 2010
DOI: 10.1115/dscc2010-4062
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative Characterization of Steady-State Ankle Impedance With Muscle Activation

Abstract: Characterization of multi-variable ankle mechanical impedance is crucial to understanding how the ankle supports lower-extremity function during interaction with the environment. This paper reports quantification of steady-state ankle impedance when muscles were active. Vector field approximation of repetitive measurements of the torque-angle relation in two degrees of freedom (inversion/eversion and dorsiflexion/plantarflexion) enabled assessment of spring-like and non-spring-like components. Experimental res… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The average break frequencies were 9.1Hz and 6.4 Hz for passive and active tests, respectively. This break frequency was consistent with the 90° phase crossing and showed similar behavior as IE and DP impedances [3]. On average, the impedance observed at frequencies below the break frequency for the contraction test was 96% higher with values of 28.6 dB (27 Nm/rad) and 22.8 dB (13.8 Nm/rad) for the active and passive tests, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The average break frequencies were 9.1Hz and 6.4 Hz for passive and active tests, respectively. This break frequency was consistent with the 90° phase crossing and showed similar behavior as IE and DP impedances [3]. On average, the impedance observed at frequencies below the break frequency for the contraction test was 96% higher with values of 28.6 dB (27 Nm/rad) and 22.8 dB (13.8 Nm/rad) for the active and passive tests, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Previous work estimated the multivariable mechanical impedance of ankle in IE and DP, when the muscles connected to the ankle joint were relaxed and in co-contraction [1][2][3]. Ankle impedance during muscle contraction is important since most activities are performed with varying levels of muscle activation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the tests, each actuator received a command voltage with a bandwidth of 100 Hz, equivalent to peak torque perturbations of 23 Nm in DP and 15 Nm in IE (Iqbal and Roy 2009;Lee et al 2010). The sum and difference of the Anklebot actuator forces perturbed the ankle in the DP and IE directions, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when cocontracted muscle activation is not spring-like, it includes nonzero rotational components (Lee et al 2010). If the nonconservative curl is zero while intermuscular feedback is nonzero, then the feedback gains must be exactly balanced; a dorsiplantar flexion torque evoked by an inversion-eversion displacement must be identical to the inversion-eversion torque evoked by a comparable dorsiplantar flexion displacement.…”
Section: Abnormal Joint Stiffness May Also Be a Consequence Of Distormentioning
confidence: 99%