Abstract

BackgroundMyoelectric control of upper extremity powered prostheses has been used clinically for many years, however this approach has not been fully developed for lower extremity prosthetic devices. With the advent of powered lower extremity prosthetic components, the potential role of myoelectric control systems is of increasing importance. An understanding of muscle activation patterns and their relationship to functional ambulation is a vital step in the future development of myoelectric control. Unusual knee muscle co-contractions have been reported in both limbs of trans-tibial amputees. It is currently unknown what differences exist in co-contraction between trans-tibial amputees and controls. This study compares the activation and co-contraction patterns of the ankle and knee musculature of trans-tibial amputees (intact and residual limbs), and able-bodied control subjects during three speeds of gait. It was hypothesized that residual limbs would have greater ankle muscle co-contraction than intact and able-bodied control limbs and that knee muscle co-contraction would be different among all limbs. Lastly it was hypothesized that the extent of muscle co-contraction would increase with walking speed.MethodsNine unilateral traumatic trans-tibial amputees and five matched controls participated. Surface electromyography recorded activation from the Tibialis Anterior, Medial Gastrocnemius, Vastus Lateralis and Biceps Femoris of the residual, intact and control limbs. A series of filters were applied to the signal to obtain a linear envelope of the activation patterns. A co-contraction area (ratio of the integrated agonist and antagonist activity) was calculated during specific phases of gait.ResultsCo-contraction of the ankle muscles was greater in the residual limb than in the intact and control limbs during all phases of gait. Knee muscle co-contraction was greater in the residual limb than in the control limb during all phases of gait.ConclusionCo-contractions may represent a limb stiffening strategy to enhance stability during phases of initial foot-contact and single limb support. These strategies may be functionally necessary for amputee gait; however, the presence of co-contractions could confound future development of myoelectric controls and should thus be accounted for.

Highlights

  • Myoelectric control of upper extremity powered prostheses has been used clinically for many years, this approach has not been fully developed for lower extremity prosthetic devices

  • It is apparent that cocontraction patterns in the knee musculature of trans-tibial amputees differ from controls; the exact mechanism or reason for that difference is not well understood

  • The second hypothesis was partially supported by the observation that knee muscle co-contractions in the residual limb were significantly different than the control limb during early-midstance (0-20%), Figure 5 All limbs knee muscle activation patterns across one selfselected walking speed (SSWS) gait cycle

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Myoelectric control of upper extremity powered prostheses has been used clinically for many years, this approach has not been fully developed for lower extremity prosthetic devices. This study compares the activation and co-contraction patterns of the ankle and knee musculature of trans-tibial amputees (intact and residual limbs), and able-bodied control subjects during three speeds of gait. Residual limb knee extensors have been reported to demonstrate increased activation and duration through heel strike, but not to the same extent as the knee flexor group [7,8,10,12] These reports indicate that increased co-contraction may exist in the knee musculature of trans-tibial amputees, other studies have reported a lack of knee muscle co-contraction in trans-tibial amputees [13,14]. It is apparent that cocontraction patterns in the knee musculature of trans-tibial amputees differ from controls; the exact mechanism or reason for that difference is not well understood

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call