Abstract
The motor system has the flexibility to update motor plans according to systematic changes in the environment or the body. This capacity is studied in the laboratory through sensorimotor adaptation paradigms imposing sustained and predictable motor demands specific to the task at hand. However, these studies are tied to the laboratory setting. Thus, we asked if a portable device could be used to elicit locomotor adaptation outside the laboratory. To this end, we tested the extent to which a pair of motorized shoes could induce similar locomotor adaptation to split-belt walking, which is a well-established sensorimotor adaptation paradigm in locomotion. We specifically compared the adaptation effects (i.e. after-effects) between two groups of young, healthy participants walking with the legs moving at different speeds by either a split-belt treadmill or a pair of motorized shoes. The speeds at which the legs moved in the split-belt group was set by the belt speed under each foot, whereas in the motorized shoes group were set by the combined effect of the actuated shoes and the belts’ moving at the same speed. We found that the adaptation of joint motions and measures of spatial and temporal asymmetry, which are commonly used to quantify sensorimotor adaptation in locomotion, were indistinguishable between groups. We only found small differences in the joint angle kinematics during baseline walking between the groups – potentially due to the weight and height of the motorized shoes. Our results indicate that robust sensorimotor adaptation in walking can be induced with a paired of motorized shoes, opening the exciting possibility to study sensorimotor adaptation during more realistic situations outside the laboratory.
Highlights
The motor system has the flexibility to update motor plans according to systematic changes in the environment or the body
We investigated if a pair of motorized shoes could induce splitlike locomotor adaptation
We found that the adaptation effects induced by the motorized shoes moving at different speeds were as robust as those observed with a split-belt treadmill
Summary
The motor system has the flexibility to update motor plans according to systematic changes in the environment or the body. We constrain movements by for example making people walk at a constant speed (Dietz et al, 1994), or repeatedly reach to a certain direction (Krakauer et al, 2000) This is done to simplify the control variables affecting the studied behavior, and at the extreme, this could yield to the study of unnatural behaviors, whose underlying mechanisms might not apply to realistic situations. A byproduct from taskconstraints is the context-specificity of motor patterns learned in the laboratory that is movements adapted with the device only partially carry over to movements without the training device (Kluzik et al, 2008; Torres-Oviedo and Bastian, 2010) This is detrimental because it limits our capacity for studying the generalization of motor learning across distinct situations, and because it limits the possibility for using laboratory-based tasks for motor rehabilitation. There could be more generalization of laboratory-based knowledge to realistic situations when the tasks studied in the laboratory are more similar to those observed under naturalistic conditions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
