Dataset Information

Step-to-step variations in human running reveal how humans run without falling.

ABSTRACT: Humans can run without falling down, usually despite uneven terrain or occasional pushes. Even without such external perturbations, intrinsic sources like sensorimotor noise perturb the running motion incessantly, making each step variable. Here, using simple and generalizable models, we show that even such small step-to-step variability contains considerable information about strategies used to run stably. Deviations in the center of mass motion predict the corrective strategies during the next stance, well in advance of foot touchdown. Horizontal motion is stabilized by total leg impulse modulations, whereas the vertical motion is stabilized by differentially modulating the impulse within stance. We implement these human-derived control strategies on a simple computational biped, showing that it runs stably for hundreds of steps despite incessant noise-like perturbations or larger discrete perturbations. This running controller derived from natural variability echoes behaviors observed in previous animal and robot studies.

SUBMITTER: Seethapathi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6424559 | biostudies-other | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Step-to-step variations in human running reveal how humans run without falling.

Seethapathi Nidhi N Srinivasan Manoj M

eLife 20190319

Humans can run without falling down, usually despite uneven terrain or occasional pushes. Even without such external perturbations, intrinsic sources like sensorimotor noise perturb the running motion incessantly, making each step variable. Here, using simple and generalizable models, we show that even such small step-to-step variability contains considerable information about strategies used to run stably. Deviations in the center of mass motion predict the corrective strategies during the next ...[more]

PMID: 30888320

Similar Datasets

Project description:Injury incidence and prevalence in running populations have been investigated and documented in several studies. However, knowledge about injury etiology and prevention is needed. Training errors in running are modifiable risk factors and people engaged in recreational running need evidence-based running schedules to minimize the risk of injury. The existing literature on running volume and running intensity and the development of injuries show conflicting results. This may be related to previously applied study designs, methods used to quantify the performed running and the statistical analysis of the collected data. The aim of the Run Clever trial is to investigate if a focus on running intensity compared with a focus on running volume in a running schedule influences the overall injury risk differently.The Run Clever trial is a randomized trial with a 24-week follow-up. Healthy recreational runners between 18 and 65 years and with an average of 1-3 running sessions per week the past 6 months are included. Participants are randomized into two intervention groups: Running schedule-I and Schedule-V. Schedule-I emphasizes a progression in running intensity by increasing the weekly volume of running at a hard pace, while Schedule-V emphasizes a progression in running volume, by increasing the weekly overall volume. Data on the running performed is collected by GPS. Participants who sustain running-related injuries are diagnosed by a diagnostic team of physiotherapists using standardized diagnostic criteria. The members of the diagnostic team are blinded. The study design, procedures and informed consent were approved by the Ethics Committee Northern Denmark Region (N-20140069).The Run Clever trial will provide insight into possible differences in injury risk between running schedules emphasizing either running intensity or running volume. The risk of sustaining volume- and intensity-related injuries will be compared in the two intervention groups using a competing risks approach. The trial will hopefully result in a better understanding of the relationship between the running performed and possible differences in running-related injury risk and the injuries developed.Clinical Trials NCT02349373 - January 23, 2015.

Project description:Background and aimThe reciprocal relation between falling and concern about falling is complex and not well understood. We aimed to determine whether concern about falling increases after a fall and whether concern about falling increases the odds of future falls in community-dwelling older adults without a recent fall history.MethodsWe selected 118 community-dwelling older adults (mean age: 71.4 (SD: 5.3) years) without a self-reported history of falling, one year prior to baseline assessment, from the one-year VIBE cohort for analyses. On a monthly basis, we recorded concern about falling (using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International, FES-I), as well as the occurrence of falls (through questionnaires and telephone calls). We determined 1) whether falling predicts an increase in concern about falling and 2) whether a high concern about falling is predictive of falling. Standard linear (fixed-effects) regression and mixed effects regression analyses were performed over long-term, i.e. one year, and short-term, i.e. one-month, intervals, respectively and were adjusted for gender, age and physical activity (quantified as the average total walking duration per day). Analyses were performed separately for all reported falls and for injurious falls only.ResultsHigh concern about falling at baseline did not predict falls over the course of one year, nor over the course of one month. Furthermore, falls in between baseline assessment and one year thereafter did not predict increased concern about falling from baseline to one year later, independent of whether all falls or only injurious falls were considered. However, falls, either all or injurious only, happening somewhere over the course of a one-month interval, significantly predicted small increases in concern about falling (1.49 FES-I points, 95% CI [0.74, 2.25], p<0.001 for all falls; 2.60 FES-I points, 95% CI [1.55, 3.64], p<0.001 for injurious falls) from the start to the end of that one-month interval.ConclusionOlder adults without a recent history of falling seem to be resilient against developing concern about falling after having fallen, resulting in a short-term temporary effect of falling on concern about falling. Furthermore, we found no evidence that a high concern about falling predicts future falls over a one-month or a one-year follow-up period, suggesting that concern is not a primary cause for falls in older adults without a recent history of falling.

Dataset Information

Step-to-step variations in human running reveal how humans run without falling.

Publications

Step-to-step variations in human running reveal how humans run without falling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets