ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2022
Energy expenditure does not solely explain step length-width choices during walking.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Head kinematic variability is minimal near preferred cadence and independent of the vestibular control of locomotion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of walking with an active ankle exoskeleton on the biomechanical responses of the lumbar spine.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Review
- Energy expenditure does not solely explain step length-width choices during walking.The Journal of experimental biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthy young adults have a most preferred walking speed, step length and step width that are close to energetically optimal. However, people can choose to walk with a multitude of different step lengths and widths, which can vary in both energy expenditure and preference. Here, we further investigated step length-width preferences and their relationship to energy expenditure. In line with a growing body of research, we hypothesized that people's preferred stepping patterns would not be fully explained by metabolic energy expenditure. To test this hypothesis, we used a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. Fifteen participants walked on an oversized treadmill. Each trial, participants performed two prescribed stepping patterns and then chose the pattern they preferred. Over time, we adapted the choices such that there was 50% chance of choosing one pattern over another (equally preferred). If people's preferences are based solely on metabolic energy expenditure, then these equally preferred stepping patterns should have equal energy expenditure. In contrast, we found that energy expenditure differed across equally preferred step length-width patterns (P<0.001). On average, longer steps with higher energy expenditure were preferred over shorter and wider steps with lower energy expenditure (P<0.001). We also asked participants to rank a set of shorter, wider and longer steps from most preferred to least preferred, and from most energy expended to least energy expended. Only 7/15 participants had the same rankings for their preferences and perceived energy expenditure. Our results suggest that energy expenditure is not the only factor influencing a person's conscious gait choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.