Back

Quadriceps-hamstrings muscle co-activation during the swing phase of walking is modulated by task constraints in healthy adults

Van Can, E. A. M.; Houdijk, H.; Buurke, T. J. W.

2024-03-04 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.02.29.582454 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMuscle co-activation, the simultaneous activation of muscles or muscle groups, is a common strategy to enhance the stability of the musculoskeletal system. However, co-activation can also be the consequence of underlying neurological impairments. To better understand and discern functional co-activation during walking, this study explored the difference in quadriceps-hamstrings co-activation during the swing phase of walking and an isolated leg-swinging movement in healthy adults. MethodsTwelve healthy young adults performed walking and isolated leg-swinging at slow (0.6 m/s) and comfortable speed. Isolated leg-swinging was frequency and amplitude matched to the walk conditions. Electromyography signals from m. vastus lateralis, m. rectus femoris, m. biceps femoris, and m. semitendinosus were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson-CI) was calculated as a measure of rate of co-activation. Area under the curve (AUC-CI) was calculated as a measure of co-activation magnitude. Co-activation indices were calculated for both metric across the four muscle pairs and averaged into a single quadriceps-hamstrings CI for each metric. ResultsThe results showed a higher Pearson-CI, but not AUC-CI, during walking compared to isolated leg-swinging, specifically during mid- and terminal-swing at both speeds. AUC-CI, but not Pearson-CI, was significantly higher during slow speed, compared to comfortable speed. ConclusionQuadriceps-hamstrings co-activation towards the end of the swing phase during walking reflects preparation for heel-strike, which is not present in isolated leg-swinging. Therefore, an isolated leg-swinging task could serve as a feasible method to distinguish pathological from functional muscle co-activation during walking.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.