Abstract

Humans often traverse real-world environments with a variety of surface irregularities and inconsistencies, which can disrupt steady gait and require additional effort. Such effects have, however, scarcely been demonstrated quantitatively, because few laboratory biomechanical measures apply outdoors. Walking can nevertheless be quantified by other means. In particular, the foot’s trajectory in space can be reconstructed from foot-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs), to yield measures of stride and associated variabilities. But it remains unknown whether such measures are related to metabolic energy expenditure. We therefore quantified the effect of five different outdoor terrains on foot motion (from IMUs) and net metabolic rate (from oxygen consumption) in healthy adults (N = 10; walking at 1.25 m/s). Energy expenditure increased significantly (P < 0.05) in the order Sidewalk, Dirt, Gravel, Grass, and Woodchips, with Woodchips about 27% costlier than Sidewalk. Terrain type also affected measures, particularly stride variability and virtual foot clearance (swing foot’s lowest height above consecutive footfalls). In combination, such measures can also roughly predict metabolic cost (adjusted R2 = 0.52, partial least squares regression), and even discriminate between terrain types (10% reclassification error). Body-worn sensors can characterize how uneven terrain affects gait, gait variability, and metabolic cost in the real world.

Highlights

  • The metabolic energy cost for human walking varies considerably with terrain

  • We report average and root-mean-square (RMS, equivalent to standard deviation) variability of stride parameters, except for average stride width, which was unknown because each inertial measurement units (IMUs) recorded independent data for one foot, with no reference to the other foot

  • We found that multiple stride parameters are terrain-dependent and correlated with energy cost

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The metabolic energy cost for human walking varies considerably with terrain. Loose sand can double the cost compared to a smooth, hard surface [1,2]. Overall energy expenditure is determined by other variables such as carried load, movement speed, and grade or ground slope [3,4,5], each with readily identifiable effects. The effect of terrain could depend on more complex factors such as unevenness of the surface, its compliance and energy absorbing properties, and looseness and instability of the substrate.

Objectives
Methods
Results
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