Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 91, Issue 4, pp 212–220 | Cite as

Mechanical model of the recovery from stumbling

  • A. Forner Cordero
  • H. J. F. M. Koopman
  • F. C. T. van der Helm
Article

Abstract

Several strategies have been described as a reaction to a stumble during gait. The elevating strategy, which tries to proceed with the perturbed step, was executed as a response to a perturbation during early swing. The lowering strategy, bringing the perturbed leg to the ground and overtaking the obstacle with the contralateral limb, was executed more frequently when the perturbation appeared at mid or late swing. The goal of this paper is to analyze which mechanical factors determine the most advantageous strategy. In order to determine these factors, a mechanical model of the recovery was developed and used to analyze a series of perturbation experiments. It was assumed that the goal of the recovery reaction was to control the trunk as an inverted pendulum during the double-stance phase. In order to be able to control the trunk angle, one foot should be up front and one foot should be behind the hips; otherwise it would be impossible to generate the required trunk torques. The trunk dynamics were expressed in terms of the ground reaction forces and their application point. A larger step (elevation strategy) gives the opportunity to dissolve the perturbation in one step. A small step (lowering strategy) necessarily results in a second quick step, after which the perturbation energy can be dissipated in the second double-stance phase. If a recovery step is too slow, it becomes impossible to counteract the forward flexion of the trunk. It is suggested that a measure of the ability to recover from a stumble could be based on the ability to perform quick steps.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dietz V, Quintern J, Boos G, Berger W (1986) Obstruction of the swing phase during gait: phase-dependent bilateral leg muscle coordination. Brain Res 384(1):166–169Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz V, Quintern J, Sillem M (1987) Stumbling reactions in man: significance of proprioceptive and pre-programmed mechanisms. J Physiol 386:149–163Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donelan JM, Kram R, Kuo AD (2002) Simultaneous positive and negative external mechanical work in human walking. J Biomech 35(1):117–124Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eils E, Behrens S, Mers O, Thorwesten L, Volker K, Rosenbaum D (2004) Reduced plantar sensation causes a cautious walking pattern. Gait Posture 20(1):54–60Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eng JJ, Winter DA, Patla AE (1994) Strategies for recovery from a trip in early and late swing during human walking. Exp Brain Res 102(2):339–349Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forner Cordero A, Koopman, B, van der Helm FCT (2003) Multiple-step strategies to recover from stumbling perturbations. Gait Posture 18(1):47–59Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forner Cordero A, Koopman HJFM, van der Helm FCT (2004) Use of pressure insoles to calculate the complete ground reaction forces. J Biomech 37(9):1427–1432Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forner Cordero A, Koopman B, van der Helm FCT (2004) Energy analysis of human stumbling: the limitations of recovery. Gait Posture (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grabiner MD, Kasprisin JE (1994) Paraspinal precontraction does not enhance isokinetic trunk extension performance. Spine 19(17):1950–1955Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grabiner MD, Koh TJ, Lundin TM, Jahnigen DW (1993) Kinematics of recovery from a stumble. J Gerontol 48(3):M97–M102Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koopman B, Grootenboer HJ, de Jongh HJ (1995) An inverse dynamics model for the analysis, reconstruction and prediction of bipedal walking. J Biomech 28(11):1369–1376Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuo AD (2002) Energetics of actively powered locomotion using the simplest walking model. J Biomech Eng 124(1):113–120Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Owings TM, Pavol MJ, Grabiner MD (2001) Mechanisms of failed recovery following postural perturbations on a motorized treadmill mimic those associated with an actual forward trip. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16(9):813–819Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pavol MJ, Owings TM, Foley KT, Grabiner MD (2001) Mechanisms leading to a fall from an induced trip in healthy older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56(7):M428–M437Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perry SD, Santos LC, Patla AE (2001) Contribution of vision and cutaneous sensation to the control of centre of mass (COM) during gait termination. Brain Res 913:27–34Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schillings AM, Van Wezel BM, Duysens J (1996) Mechanically induced stumbling during human treadmill walking. J Neurosci Methods 67(1):11–17Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schillings AM, van Wezel BM, Mulder T, Duysens J (2000) Muscular responses and movement strategies during stumbling over obstacles. J Neurophysiol 83(4):2093–2102Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smeesters C, Hayes WC, McMahon TA (2001) The threshold trip duration for which recovery is no longer possible is associated with strength and reaction time. J Biomech 34(5): 589–595Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van den Bogert AJ, Pavol MJ, Grabiner MD (2002) Response time is more important than walking speed for the ability of older adults to avoid a fall after a trip. J Biomech 35(2): 199–205Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winter DA (1990) Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winter DA (1995) Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture 3(4):193–214Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Forner Cordero
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. J. F. M. Koopman
    • 1
  • F. C. T. van der Helm
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical Technology (BMTI)Biomedische Werktuigbouwkunde, CTW Gebouw, Universiteit TwenteAE EnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Motor Control LaboratoryDepartment of Kinesiology, Group Biomedical SciencesLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations