Biomechanical Response To Unexpected Ankle Perturbation During Walking.
Saved in:
| Title: | Biomechanical Response To Unexpected Ankle Perturbation During Walking. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Schempp, Emilia G.1, Jagodinsky, Adam E.1, Carroll, Erin M.1, Fassett, Zach L.1, Krause, Jennifer L.1, Stanek, Justin M.1 |
| Source: | Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2021 Supplement, Vol. 53 Issue 8S, p136-136. 1/4p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Conferences & conventions, Skeletal muscle physiology, Gait in humans, Ankle, Leg, Walking, Diagnosis, Biomechanics, Joint hypermobility |
| Abstract: | INTRODUCTION: The neuromuscular system assists with ankle stabilization during unexpected perturbation of the ankle. However, few studies have investigated the neuromuscular response to sudden ankle perturbation during gait. A deeper understanding of the neuromuscular response to dynamic ankle perturbations could provide insight into ankle sprain injury avoidance strategies. PURPOSE: To compare lower extremity muscle activity across perturbed and normal walking gait conditions. METHODS: 11 healthy volunteers walked along a walkway embedded with two trapdoors that elicit sudden inversion, or inversion and plantarflexion. Participants performed trials of walking gait during normal walking (NW), inversion (INV), and inversion/plantarflexion (PF) conditions. EMG was collected on the dominant peroneus longus, tibialis anterior, soleus, gluteus medius, and contralateral gluteus medius. Peak EMG (pEMG) was calculated in the 200ms after heel strike of the dominant limb. Data were normalized to the maximal voluntary contraction for each muscle. Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed differences in peak activation of each muscle across conditions. RESULTS: No significant differences in pEMG were found across conditions for any of the muscles [Peroneus Longus: NW(.71±.64), INV(1.03±.44), PF(.62±.49); Tibialis Anterior: NW(.95±.60), INV(.84±.49), PF(.89±.53); Soleus: NW(1.39±1.80), INV(1.19±.92), PF(1.00±.80); Ipsilateral Gluteus Medius: NW(.64±.65), INV(.71±.74), PF(.73±.65); Contralateral Gluteus Medius: NW(.13±.09), INV(.16±.12), PF(.19±.24)]. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of significant differences across conditions may be explained by the high variability in pEMG for each muscle. Additionally, the window of analysis may have excluded muscle activity that contributes to the perturbation response beyond 200ms post heel strike. Future studies should consider including analysis of thigh musculature and using other methodological approaches to detail the systemic neuromuscular response to unexpected ankle perturbations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
Be the first to leave a comment!
