An apparent contradiction: increasing variability to achieve greater precision?
Experimental Brain Research, October 2013
Noah J. Rosenblatt, Christopher P. Hurt, Mark L. Latash, Mark D. Grabiner
To understand the relationship between variability of foot placement in the frontal plane and stability of gait patterns, we explored how constraining mediolateral foot placement during walking affects the structure of kinematic variance in the lower-limb configuration space during the swing phase of gait. Ten young subjects walked under three conditions: (1) unconstrained (normal walking), (2) constrained (walking overground with visual guides for foot placement to achieve the measured unconstrained step width) and, (3) beam (walking on elevated beams spaced to achieve the measured unconstrained step width). The uncontrolled manifold analysis of the joint configuration variance was used to quantify two variance components, one that did not affect the mediolateral trajectory of the foot in the frontal plane ("good variance") and one that affected this trajectory ("bad variance"). Based on recent studies, we hypothesized that across conditions (1) the index of the synergy stabilizing the mediolateral trajectory of the foot (the normalized difference between the "good variance" and "bad variance") would systematically increase and (2) the changes in the synergy index would be associated with a disproportionate increase in the "good variance." Both hypotheses were confirmed. We conclude that an increase in the "good variance" component of the joint configuration variance may be an effective method of ensuring high stability of gait patterns during conditions requiring increased control of foot placement, particularly if a postural threat is present. Ultimately, designing interventions that encourage a larger amount of "good variance" may be a promising method of improving stability of gait patterns in populations such as older adults and neurological patients.
|Members of the public||2||33%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Student > Ph. D. Student||23||23%|
|Student > Master||20||20%|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|
|Sports and Recreations||17||17%|
|Medicine and Dentistry||15||15%|