Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38699182›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

A comprehensive dataset on biomechanics and motor control during human walking with discrete mechanical perturbations.

Dana L Lorenz, Antonie J van den Bogert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dana L LorenzDepartment of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States.
Antonie J van den BogertDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3791-3749

Funding

Faculty Research Development grant from Cleveland State University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Humans have a remarkable capability to maintain balance while walking. There is, however, a lack of publicly available research data on reactive responses to destabilizing perturbations during gait. Methods: Here, we share a comprehensive dataset collected from 10 participants who experienced random perturbations while walking on an instrumented treadmill. Each participant performed six 5-min walking trials at a rate of 1.2 m/s, during which rapid belt speed perturbations could occur during the participant's stance phase. Each gait cycle had a 17% probability of being perturbed. The perturbations consisted of an increase of belt speed by 0.75 m/s, delivered with equal probability at 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, or 80% of the stance phase. Data were recorded using motion capture with 25 markers, eight inertial measurement units (IMUs), and electromyography (EMG) from the tibialis anterior (TA), soleus (SOL), lateral gastrocnemius (LG), rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), biceps femoris (BF), and gluteus maximus (GM). The full protocol is described in detail. Results: We provide marker trajectories, force plate data, EMG data, and belt speed information for all trials and participants. IMU data is provided for most participants. This data can be useful for identifying neural feedback control in human gait, biologically inspired control systems for robots, and the development of clinical applications.

Indexed as

ElectromyographyGaitWalkingAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalPostural BalanceYoung AdultBiomechanicsElectromyographyGaitMotor controlReflexes

Identifiers

PMID38699182
PMCPMC11064863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.