PLoS ONE (Jan 2021)

Effects of additional load at different heights on gait initiation: A statistical parametric mapping of center of pressure and center of mass behavior.

  • Marcus Fraga Vieira,
  • Fábio Barbosa Rodrigues,
  • Alfredo de Oliveira Assis,
  • Eduardo de Mendonça Mesquita,
  • Thiago Santana Lemes,
  • Guilherme Augusto Gomes De Villa,
  • Rafael Reimann Baptista,
  • Adriano de Oliveira Andrade,
  • Paula Hentschel Lobo da Costa

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242892
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 6
p. e0242892

Abstract

Read online

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different vertical positions of an asymmetrical load on the anticipatory postural adjustments phase of gait initiation. Sixty-eight college students (32 males, 36 females; age: 23.65 ± 3.21 years old; weight: 69.98 ± 8.15 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.08 m) were enrolled in the study. Ground reaction forces and moments were collected using two force platforms. The participants completed three trials under each of the following random conditions: no-load (NL), waist uniformly distributed load (WUD), shoulder uniformly distributed load (SUD), waist stance foot load (WST), shoulder stance foot load (SST), waist swing foot load (WSW), and shoulder swing foot load (SSW). The paired Hotelling's T-square test was used to compare the experimental conditions. The center of pressure (COP) time series were significantly different for the SUD vs. NL, SST vs. NL, WST vs. NL, and WSW vs. NL comparisons. Significant differences in COP time series were observed for all comparisons between waist vs. shoulder conditions. Overall, these differences were greater when the load was positioned at the shoulders. For the center of mass (COM) time series, significant differences were found for the WUD vs. NL and WSW vs. NL conditions. However, no differences were observed with the load positioned at the shoulders. In conclusion, only asymmetrical loading at the waist produced significant differences, and the higher the extra load, the greater the effects on COP behavior. By contrast, only minor changes were observed in COM behavior, suggesting that the changes in COP (the controller) behavior are adjustments to maintain the COM (controlled object) unaltered.