Close

Humans optimally anticipate and compensate for an uneven step during walking

Osman Darici, Arthur D. Kuo

Posted on: 29 January 2021

Preprint posted on 5 January 2021

Article now published in eLife at http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65402

Maintaining constant speed when walking on an uneven terrain may be possible by minimizing mechanical work. This is observed in a tri-phasic trajectory of speed adjustments by anticipating and using a feedforward approach to the step.

Selected by Jonaz Moreno

Background

 Human locomotion is associated with the minimization or maximization of different performance criteria. This concept is also referred as optimization of human locomotion and it is well established that when walking under preferred conditions, humans minimize their energy consumption. However, most of the studies have only tested this idea under even terrains like on a treadmill. Alternatively, it has been proposed that humans can plan ahead (feedforward) to preserve speed (momentum). Previous studies of an optimal control model of walking driven by a minimization of total push-off mechanical work can replicate human-like-walking patterns while maintaining the same speed. This is achieved by anticipating for the loss in time when taking a step up (Darici et al., 2018, 2020). So, the purpose of this study was to perform an experiment on humans to confirm whether minimization of total push-off work is a possible criterion to use when uneven terrain is present while walking.

Key findings

Based on the previous optimal control model of walking (Darici et al., 2020), the overall response was to speed up during the mid-stance of walking as soon as 2 steps before the approach to the step; an opposite response was observed when the model had to step-down (Figure 1). This model was driven by the walking dynamics while enforcing a steady, nominal speed. They ran the model with a nominal (no anticipation) and with an anticipatory strategy. The model showed a significant loss of speed during the nominal simulation (Figure 1a) compared to the compensatory approach (Figure 1b, 1c). The overall behavior of the model was consistent despite the changes in walking speed (faster and slower, Figure 1f).

 

Figure 1. Model predictions for walking on a surface that has a 7.5 cm up-step. (a) Walking speed fluctuations vs time of the model when it does not compensate for the up-step (constant push off). Speed is sampled at mid-stance of each step (prior to step-to-step transition) and denoted with filled symbols. (b) speed fluctuation for optimal up-step compensation that minimizes push-off work. Model anticipates the perturbation with feedforward adjustment to speed up ahead of time, loses momentum atop the perturbation, and then regains speed thereafter. (c) Speed fluctuation for optimal down-step compensation is nearly opposite sign to the up-step compensation. (d) Optimal control inputs are sequence of push-off work, shown for up- and down-step. Up-step requires more work, while down-step is the opposite (less work) to walk same distance in same time. (e) Cumulative time gained for Up and Down-step compensations. (f) Self-similarity of Up-step compensation for three different nominal speeds and two different step lengths (adopted from Darici & Kuo, 2021).

 

Results from the previous study using the model are the reference to confirm (or refute) whether humans have a similar approach to the step-up and step-down approach. A total of 12 healthy subjects were recruited for this study; they were encouraged to walk at consistent phase without providing any type of feedback. The intension was to mimic the unconstrained nature of daily living. Also, the model did not depend on a particular speed (Darici et al., 2021). Walking speed was measured using IMUs on each foot. The primary outcomes of this study were walking speed (Figure 2), step time, and step length. The average IMU speed measurements were then compared to the overall behavior of the model (Figure 3).

 

Figure 2. The graphs are organized by rows representing the nominal condition (no step, control), up-step, and down-step. The columns represent another grouping: the first column (left) Illustrates individual trials from three out of 12 subjects. The tick lines represent the average data from each of the three participants with the standard deviation (shaded regions ± 1 s.d.). The middle column is the average data of each individual subject (12 subjects, each different color). The right column Illustrates the average between subjects (all subjects) with the standard deviation of across all subjects (light shaded region), and standard deviation ignoring subject-dependent speed (darker shaded region) (adopted from Darici & Kuo, 2021).

 

Figure 3. Comparison of model and human walking speed fluctuations vs. time corresponding for the up-step (left column), and the down-steps (right column). The top row is the model speed fluctuations predicted to minimize push-off mechanical work, while the bottom row is the experimentally measured compensation strategies for humans showing average speed pattern across subjects (shaded regions denoted ± 1 s.d. after eliminating variations in average speed). The vertical dashed line denotes the first up-step (left column) and down-step (right column). The horizontal dashed line denotes the average walking speed (adopted from Darici & Kuo, 2021).

 

Their conclusion was that the normal response to changes in terrain are associated with an anticipatory approach. Humans increase their speed at about 2 steps before the observed change in the landscape to maintain the overall same speed. From the optimal control model of previous studies, this response is coupled with the minimization of push-off work, as the overall shape of speed curve of the model and human responses are very similar to each other. The authors concluded that this compensatory response was a systematic, tri-phasic pattern in walking speed fluctuation that may be related to the use of the central nervous system control with feedback and feedforward (anticipatory) components.

 

What I liked about this preprint

The area of human movement optimization has been around for very long time. The most predominant concept is that humans optimize energy consumption when walking under preferred conditions (i.e., preferred walking speed or stride frequency). One of the limitations to this area of research is that we are still unable to really understand how humans can behave under an optimal control framework. Continuing to test out whether optimal control theory is crucial for natural human walking patterns and can provide valuable information that can potentially lead to improving assistive devices, or have a new insight to develop new and different rehabilitation practices that can improve recovery on special populations that deviate from this optimal control framework.

Open Questions

  1. You have mentioned that one of the ways people can gather information to anticipate and provide a feedforward control is through Would it be possible to make changes in the visual system (i.e., make our vision blurry) and run this study again to see if we are only relying on the visual information? Any thoughts on the role of the vestibular system and its link to the visual system?
  2. Would you expect to see similar responses to different step heights?
  3. One of the main limitations around the optimal control theory is that the conclusions are typically drawn from laboratory experiments. I like the fact that you implemented IMUs to get your dependent variables. Do you intend to build upon this and maybe have people walk outside the laboratory?

References

Darici, O., Temeltas, H., & Kuo, A. D. (2018). Optimal regulation of bipedal walking speed despite an unexpected bump in the road. PLoS ONE, 13(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204205

Darici, O., Temeltas, H., & Kuo, A. D. (2020). Anticipatory Control of Momentum for Bipedal Walking on Uneven Terrain. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57156-6

 

Tags: natural behavior, step walking

doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/prelights.27200

Read preprint (No Ratings Yet)

Have your say

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up to customise the site to your preferences and to receive alerts

Register here

Also in the bioengineering category:

Scalable and efficient generation of mouse primordial germ cell-like cells

Xinbao Ding, Liangdao Li, Jingyi Gao, et al.

Selected by 05 March 2024

Carly Guiltinan

Cell Biology

Generalized Biomolecular Modeling and Design with RoseTTAFold All-Atom

Rohith Krishna, Jue Wang, Woody Ahern, et al.

Selected by 24 January 2024

Saanjbati Adhikari

Bioengineering

Multi-pass, single-molecule nanopore reading of long protein strands with single-amino acid sensitivity

Keisuke Motone, Daphne Kontogiorgos-Heintz, Jasmine Wee, et al.

Selected by 04 December 2023

Benjamin Dominik Maier, Samantha Seah

Molecular Biology

Also in the biophysics category:

Topology changes of the regenerating Hydra define actin nematic defects as mechanical organizers of morphogenesis

Yamini Ravichandran, Matthias Vogg, Karsten Kruse, et al.

Selected by 08 May 2024

Rachel Mckeown

Developmental Biology

Structural basis of respiratory complexes adaptation to cold temperatures

Young-Cheul Shin, Pedro Latorre-Muro, Amina Djurabekova, et al.

Selected by 10 April 2024

Pamela Ornelas

Biophysics

Actin polymerization drives lumen formation in a human epiblast model

Dhiraj Indana, Andrei Zakharov, Youngbin Lim, et al.

Selected by 05 April 2024

Megane Rayer, Rivka Shapiro

Biophysics

Also in the neuroscience category:

Fetal brain response to maternal inflammation requires microglia

Bridget Elaine LaMonica Ostrem, Nuria Dominguez Iturza, Jeffrey Stogsdill, et al.

Selected by 24 April 2024

Manuel Lessi

Neuroscience

Transcriptional profiling of human brain cortex identifies novel lncRNA-mediated networks dysregulated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Alessandro Palma, Monica Ballarino

Selected by 16 April 2024

Julio Molina Pineda

Genomics

RIPK3 coordinates RHIM domain-dependent inflammatory transcription in neurons

Sigal B. Kofman, Lan H. Chu, Joshua M. Ames, et al.

Selected by 08 April 2024

Zoie Magri

Immunology

Also in the neuroscience category:

‘In preprints’ from Development 2022-2023

A list of the preprints featured in Development's 'In preprints' articles between 2022-2023

 



List by Alex Eve, Katherine Brown

CSHL 87th Symposium: Stem Cells

Preprints mentioned by speakers at the #CSHLsymp23

 



List by Alex Eve

Journal of Cell Science meeting ‘Imaging Cell Dynamics’

This preList highlights the preprints discussed at the JCS meeting 'Imaging Cell Dynamics'. The meeting was held from 14 - 17 May 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal and was organised by Erika Holzbaur, Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz, Rob Parton and Michael Way.

 



List by Helen Zenner

FENS 2020

A collection of preprints presented during the virtual meeting of the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENS) in 2020

 



List by Ana Dorrego-Rivas

ASCB EMBO Annual Meeting 2019

A collection of preprints presented at the 2019 ASCB EMBO Meeting in Washington, DC (December 7-11)

 



List by Madhuja Samaddar et al.

SDB 78th Annual Meeting 2019

A curation of the preprints presented at the SDB meeting in Boston, July 26-30 2019. The preList will be updated throughout the duration of the meeting.

 



List by Alex Eve

Autophagy

Preprints on autophagy and lysosomal degradation and its role in neurodegeneration and disease. Includes molecular mechanisms, upstream signalling and regulation as well as studies on pharmaceutical interventions to upregulate the process.

 



List by Sandra Malmgren Hill

Young Embryologist Network Conference 2019

Preprints presented at the Young Embryologist Network 2019 conference, 13 May, The Francis Crick Institute, London

 



List by Alex Eve
Close