Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 46, Issue 12, pp 2048–2056 | Cite as

Sex Differences in 2-DOF Human Ankle Stiffness in Relaxed and Contracted Muscles

  • Jessica Trevino
  • Hyunglae LeeEmail author


Ankle stiffness has been known as one of the most important components contributing to the maintenance of lower body stability during postural balance and locomotion. It has been repeatedly shown that women have lower stability and increased risk of injury when compared to men participating in similar sports activities, yet sex differences in neuromuscular control of the ankle, including the modulation of ankle stiffness, and their contribution to stability remain unknown. To identify sex differences in human ankle stiffness, this study quantified multi-dimensional ankle stiffness in 20 young, healthy men and 20 young, healthy women over a range of ankle muscle contractions, from relaxed to 20% of maximum voluntary co-contraction of ankle muscles. A wearable ankle robot and a system identification method were used to reliably quantify ankle stiffness in a 2-dimensional space spanning the sagittal plane and the frontal plane. In all muscle activation levels, significant sex differences in ankle stiffness were identified in both the sagittal and frontal planes. In the given experimental conditions, ankle stiffness in males was higher than females up to 15.1 and 8.3 Nm/rad in the sagittal plane and the frontal plane, respectively. In addition, sex differences in the spatial structure of ankle stiffness were investigated by quantifying three parameters defining the stiffness ellipse of the ankle: area, aspect ratio, and orientation. In all muscle activation levels, a significant sex difference was identified in the area of stiffness ellipse as expected from the sex difference in the sagittal and frontal planes. However, no statistical sex difference was observed in the aspect ratio and orientation, which would be due to little differences in major anatomical configurations of the ankle joint between sexes. This study, in combination with future studies investigating sex differences during dynamic tasks (e.g. postural balance and locomotion) would serve as a basis to develop a risk assessment tool and sex-specific training programs for efficient ankle injury prevention or rehabilitation.


Human ankle Ankle stiffness Ankle injury Gender difference Sex difference 



This study was completed by a support of Virginia G. Piper Foundation, adidas-ASU Global Sport Alliance, and Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at the Arizona State University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study.


  1. 1.
    Almeida, S. A., D. W. Trone, D. M. Leone, R. A. Shaffer, S. L. Patheal, and K. Long. Gender differences in musculoskeletal injury rates: a function of symptom reporting? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31(12):1807–1812, 1999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bendat, J., and A. Piersol. Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Process (4th ed.). New York: Wiley, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beynnon, B. D., I. M. Bernstein, A. Belisle, B. Brattbakk, P. Devanny, R. Risinger, and D. Durant. The effect of estradiol and progesterone on knee and ankle joint laxity. Am. J. Sports Med. 33(9):1298–1304, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beynnon, B. D., P. A. Renstrom, D. M. Alosa, J. F. Baumhauer, and P. M. Vacek. Ankle ligament injury risk factors: a prospective study of college athletes. J. Orthop. Res. 19(2):213–220, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burdet, E., R. Osu, D. W. Franklin, T. E. Milner, and M. Kawato. The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance. Nature 414(6862):446–449, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casadio, M., P. G. Morasso, and V. Sanguineti. Direct measurement of ankle stiffness during quiet standing: implications for control modelling and clinical application. Gait Posture 21(4):410–424, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council, N. R. Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elias, S. R. 10-year trend in USA Cup soccer injuries: 1988-1997. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33(3):359–367, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ficanha, E. M., G. Ribeiro, and M. A. Rastgaar. Design and evaluation of a 2-DOF instrumented platform for estimation of the ankle mechanical impedance in the sagittal and frontal planes. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 21(5):2531–2542, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franklin, D. W., G. Liaw, T. E. Milner, R. Osu, E. Burdet, and M. Kawato. Endpoint stiffness of the arm is directionally tuned to instability in the environment. J. Neurosci. 27(29):7705–7716, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gatev, P., S. Thomas, T. Kepple, and M. Hallett. Feedforward ankle strategy of balance during quiet stance in adults. J. Physiol. 514(Pt 3):915–928, 1999.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glenmark, B., M. Nilsson, H. Gao, J. A. Gustafsson, K. Dahlman-Wright, and H. Westerblad. Difference in skeletal muscle function in males vs. females: role of estrogen receptor-beta. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 287(6):E1125–E1131, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Granata, K. P., D. A. Padua, and S. E. Wilson. Gender differences in active musculoskeletal stiffness. Part II. Quantification of leg stiffness during functional hopping tasks. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 12(2):127–135, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Granata, K. P., S. E. Wilson, and D. A. Padua. Gender differences in active musculoskeletal stiffness. Part I. Quantification in controlled measurements of knee joint dynamics. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 12(2):119–126, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, A. H., D. S. Childress, S. C. Miff, S. A. Gard, and K. P. Mesplay. The human ankle during walking: implications for design of biomimetic ankle prostheses. J. Biomech. 37(10):1467–1474, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heitz, N. A., P. A. Eisenman, C. L. Beck, and J. A. Walker. Hormonal changes throughout the menstrual cycle and increased anterior cruciate ligament laxity in females. J. Athl. Train. 34(2):144–149, 1999.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hewett, T. E. Neuromuscular and hormonal factors associated with knee injuries in female athletes. Strategies for intervention. Sports Med. 29(5):313–327, 2000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill, D. W., and J. C. Smith. Gender difference in anaerobic capacity: role of aerobic contribution. Br. J. Sports Med. 27(1):45–48, 1993.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hogan, N. Adaptive-control of mechanical impedance by coactivation of antagonist muscles. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 29(8):681–690, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hosea, T. M., C. C. Carey, and M. F. Harrer. The gender issue: epidemiology of ankle injuries in athletes who participate in basketball. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 372:45–49, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunter, I. W., and R. E. Kearney. Dynamics of human ankle stiffness—variation with mean ankle torque. J. Biomech. 15(10):747–752, 1982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huston, L. J., and E. M. Wojtys. Neuromuscular performance characteristics in elite female athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 24(4):427–436, 1996.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janssen, I., S. B. Heymsfield, Z. M. Wang, and R. Ross. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 89(1):81–88, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kearney, R. E., R. B. Stein, and L. Parameswaran. Identification of intrinsic and reflex contributions to human ankle stiffness dynamics. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 44(6):493–504, 1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kent-Braun, J. A., and A. V. Ng. Specific strength and voluntary muscle activation in young and elderly women and men. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 87(1):22–29, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerrigan, D., M. Todd, and C. U. Della. Gender differences in joint biomechanics during walking: normative study in young adults. Am. J. Med. Rehabil. 77(1):2–7, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kubo, K., H. Kanehisa, and T. Fukunaga. Gender differences in the viscoelastic properties of tendon structures. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 88(6):520–526, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Latash, M. L., and V. M. Zatsiorsky. Joint stiffness—myth or reality. Human Mov. Sci. 12(6):653–692, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee, H., P. Ho, M. Rastgaar, H. I. Krebs, and N. Hogan. Multivariable static ankle mechanical impedance with active muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22(1):44–52, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, H., and N. Hogan. Time-varying ankle mechanical impedance during human locomotion. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23(5):755–764, 2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee, H., H. I. Krebs, and N. Hogan. Multivariable dynamic ankle mechanical impedance with active muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. 22(5):971–981, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee, H., H. I. Krebs, and N. Hogan. Multivariable dynamic ankle mechanical impedance with relaxed muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22(6):1104–1114, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee, H., E. Rouse, and H. I. Krebs. Summary of human ankle mechanical impedance during walking. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med. 4:1–7, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loram, I. D., and M. Lakie. Direct measurement of human ankle stiffness during quiet standing: the intrinsic mechanical stiffness is insufficient for stability. J. Physiol. Lond. 545(3):1041–1053, 2002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miller, A. E., J. D. MacDougall, M. A. Tarnopolsky, and D. G. Sale. Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 66(3):254–262, 1993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mirbagheri, M. M., H. Barbeau, and R. E. Kearney. Intrinsic and reflex contributions to human ankle stiffness: variation with activation level and position. Exp. Brain Res. 135(4):423–436, 2000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Montgomery, J., and D. Avers. Daniels and Worthingham’s Muscle Testing: Techniques of Manual Examination (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders, 2007.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nalam, V., H. Lee. Design and validation of a multi-axis robotic platform for the characterization of ankle neuromechanics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2017 (ICRA 2017); Singapore.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nalam, V., H. Lee. A new robotic approach to characterize mechanical impedance and energetic passivity of the human ankle during standing. Paper presented at: In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual International Conference of IEEE Engineering Medicine and Biology Society, South Korea, 2017.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Neptune, R. R., S. A. Kautz, and F. E. Zajac. Contributions of the individual ankle plantar flexors to support, forward progression and swing initiation during walking. J. Biomech. 34(11):1387–1398, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perry, J. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathologic Functions. New Jersey: Slack Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Quatman, C. E., K. R. Ford, G. D. Myer, M. V. Paterno, and T. E. Hewett. The effects of gender and pubertal status on generalized joint laxity in young athletes. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 11(3):257–263, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ristolainen, L., A. Heinonen, B. Waller, U. M. Kujala, and J. A. Kettunen. Gender differences in sport injury risk and types of inju-ries: a retrospective twelve-month study on cross-country skiers, swimmers, long-distance runners and soccer players. J. Sports Sci. Med. 8(3):443–451, 2009.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Robertson, D. G., and D. A. Winter. Mechanical energy generation, absorption and transfer amongst segments during walking. J. Biomech. 13(10):845–854, 1980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rouse, E. J., R. D. Gregg, L. J. Hargrove, and J. W. Sensinger. The difference between stiffness and quasi-stiffness in the context of biomechanical modeling. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 60(2):562–568, 2013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rouse, E. J., L. J. Hargrove, E. J. Perreault, and T. A. Kuiken. Estimation of human ankle impedance during the stance phase of walking. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22(4):870–878, 2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shamaei, K., G. S. Sawicki, and A. M. Dollar. Estimation of quasi-stiffness and propulsive work of the human ankle in the stance phase of walking. PLoS ONE 8(3):e59935, 2013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Slauterbeck, J., C. Clevenger, W. Lundberg, and D. M. Burchfield. Estrogen level alters the failure load of the rabbit anterior cruciate ligament. J. Orthop. Res. 17(3):405–408, 1999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stefanyshyn, D. J., and B. M. Nigg. Dynamic angular stiffness of the ankle joint during running and sprinting. J. Appl. Biomech. 14(3):292–299, 1998.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilkerson, R. D., and M. A. Mason. Differences in men’s and women’s mean ankle ligamentous laxity. Iowa Orthop. J. 20:46–48, 2000.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Winter, D. A. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture 3:193–214, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Winter, D. A., A. E. Patla, S. Rietdyk, and M. G. Ishac. Ankle muscle stiffness in the control of balance during quiet standing. J. Neurophysiol. 85(6):2630–2633, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zeller, B. L., J. L. McCrory, W. B. Kibler, and T. L. Uhl. Differences in kinematics and electromyographic activity between men and women during the single-legged squat. Am. J. Sports Med. 31(3):449–456, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological and Health Systems EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School for Engineering of Matter, Transport, and EnergyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations