henhaobio
Sign in

Journal of BiomechanicsBioengineeringPeer-reviewed journal article

Adapting Lateral Stepping Control to Walk on Winding Paths

Anna C. RenderiD, Joseph P. CusumanoiD, Jonathan B. DingwelliD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Most often, gait biomechanics is studied during straight-ahead walking. However, real-life walking imposes various lateral maneuvers people must navigate. Such maneuvers challenge peoples lateral balance and can induce falls. Determining how people regulate their stepping movements during such complex walking tasks is therefore essential. Here, 24 adults (12F/12M; Age 25.8{+/-}3.5yrs) walked on wide or narrow virtual paths that were either straight, slowly-winding, or quickly-winding. From each trial, we computed time series of participants step widths and their lateral body positions relative to their path. We applied our Goal Equivalent Manifold framework - an analysis of how task-level redundancy impacts motor regulation - to quantify how participants adjusted their step width and lateral position from step to step as they walked on these paths. On the narrower paths, participants walked with narrower steps and less lateral position and step width variability. They did so by correcting step-to-step deviations in lateral position more, while correcting step-to-step deviations in step width less. On the winding paths, participants took both narrower and more variable steps. Interestingly, on slowly-winding paths, participants corrected step-to-step deviations in step width more by correcting step-to-step deviations in lateral position less: i.e., they prioritized maintaining step width over position. Conversely, on quickly-winding paths, participants strongly corrected step-to-step deviations in both step width and lateral position: i.e., they prioritized maintaining both approximately equally, consistent with trying to maximize their maneuverability. These findings have important implications for persons with gait impairments who may have elevated fall risk.

Citations
2
FWCI
0.99
Field percentile
top 21%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISDesmet '22Kazanski '23Render '24Dingwell '23Render '26Kulkarni '23
82% semantic matchNeuroscience
David M. Desmet, Joseph P. Cusumano, Jonathan B. Dingwell·PLoS Computational Biology·Nov 14, 2022· 13 citations