↓ Skip to main content

Once-per-step control of ankle-foot prosthesis push-off work reduces effort associated with balance during walking

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Once-per-step control of ankle-foot prosthesis push-off work reduces effort associated with balance during walking
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0027-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myunghee Kim, Steven H Collins

Abstract

Individuals with below-knee amputation have more difficulty balancing during walking, yet few studies have explored balance enhancement through active prosthesis control. We previously used a dynamical model to show that prosthetic ankle push-off work affects both sagittal and frontal plane dynamics, and that appropriate step-by-step control of push-off work can improve stability. We hypothesized that this approach could be applied to a robotic prosthesis to partially fulfill the active balance requirements of human walking, thereby reducing balance-related activity and associated effort for the person using the device. We conducted experiments on human participants (N = 10) with simulated amputation. Prosthetic ankle push-off work was varied on each step in ways expected to either stabilize, destabilize or have no effect on balance. Average ankle push-off work, known to affect effort, was kept constant across conditions. Stabilizing controllers commanded more push-off work on steps when the mediolateral velocity of the center of mass was lower than usual at the moment of contralateral heel strike. Destabilizing controllers enforced the opposite relationship, while a neutral controller maintained constant push-off work regardless of body state. A random disturbance to landing foot angle and a cognitive distraction task were applied, further challenging participants' balance. We measured metabolic rate, foot placement kinematics, center of pressure kinematics, distraction task performance, and user preference in each condition. We expected the stabilizing controller to reduce active control of balance and balance-related effort for the user, improving user preference. The best stabilizing controller lowered metabolic rate by 5.5% (p = 0.003) and 8.5% (p = 0.02), and step width variability by 10.0% (p = 0.009) and 10.7% (p = 0.03) compared to conditions with no control and destabilizing control, respectively. Participants tended to prefer stabilizing controllers. These effects were not due to differences in average push-off work, which was unchanged across conditions, or to average gait mechanics, which were also unchanged. Instead, benefits were derived from step-by-step adjustments to prosthesis behavior in response to variations in mediolateral velocity at heel strike. Once-per-step control of prosthetic ankle push-off work can reduce both active control of foot placement and balance-related metabolic energy use during walking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 26%
Student > Master 31 20%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 19 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 64 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Sports and Recreations 9 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 31 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,134,176
of 6,588,247 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#240
of 426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,127
of 248,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,588,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.