Responses in knee joint muscle activation patterns to different perturbations during gait in healthy subjects

Journal Article (2021)
Authors

Jim C. Schrijvers (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Josien C. van den Noort (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Martin van der Esch (Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center Reade, Hogeschool van Amsterdam)

J. Harlaar (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, TU Delft - Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control, Erasmus MC)

Research Group
Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control
Copyright
© 2021 Jim C. Schrijvers, Josien C. van den Noort, Martin van der Esch, J. Harlaar
To reference this document use:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2021.102572
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2021
Language
English
Copyright
© 2021 Jim C. Schrijvers, Josien C. van den Noort, Martin van der Esch, J. Harlaar
Research Group
Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control
Volume number
60
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2021.102572
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the responses in knee joint muscle activation patterns to different perturbations during gait in healthy subjects. Scope: Nine healthy participants were subjected to perturbed walking on a split-belt treadmill. Four perturbation types were applied, each at five intensities. The activations of seven muscles surrounding the knee were measured using surface EMG. The responses in muscle activation were expressed by calculating mean, peak, co-contraction (CCI) and perturbation responses (PR) values. PR captures the responses relative to unperturbed gait. Statistical parametric mapping analysis was used to compare the muscle activation patterns between conditions. Results: Perturbations evoked only small responses in muscle activation, though higher perturbation intensities yielded a higher mean activation in five muscles, as well as higher PR. Different types of perturbation led to different responses in the rectus femoris, medial gastrocnemius and lateral gastrocnemius. The participants had lower CCI just before perturbation compared to the same phase of unperturbed gait. Conclusions: Healthy participants respond to different perturbations during gait with small adaptations in their knee joint muscle activation patterns. This study provides insights in how the muscles are activated to stabilize the knee when challenged. Furthermore it could guide future studies in determining aberrant muscle activation in patients with knee disorders.