Back

Center-of-Mass Work Organization Supplements Walking Speed: a Biomechanical Characterization of Hemiparetic Gait

Hosseini-Yazdi, S.-S.; Fitzsimons, K.; Bertram, J.

2026-03-16 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2026.03.12.26348298 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and PurposeWalking speed is the dominant clinical metric used to classify post-stroke hemiparetic gait severity. However, speed does not describe how mechanical energy is generated and redistributed. We tested whether whole-body center-of-mass (COM) work patterns provide a biomechanically grounded supplement to speed-based severity classification. MethodsLimb-specific COM power and work were computed from ground reaction forces using the individual-limbs method across five walking speeds (0.2-0.7 m/s). We quantified net COM work index of asymmetry (IA_Wnet), positive COM work asymmetry (IA_Wpos), and the Propulsion-Support Ratio (PSR = impFy/impFz). Piecewise and quadratic regressions were used to assess speed-dependent trends. ResultsIA_Wnet remained elevated across speeds and showed no significant high-speed association. IA_Wpos demonstrated a significant quadratic relationship with speed (p=0.023, R{superscript 2}=0.23), decreasing near 0.5 m/s before rising again. Paretic limb PSR remained constrained and exhibited a quadratic association (p=0.012, R{superscript 2}=0.14), while unaffected limb PSR declined significantly at higher speeds (p=0.019, R{superscript 2}=0.38). Below 0.5 m/s, COM power profiles collapsed to a two-phase pattern without paretic limb push-off; at [≥]0.5 m/s, a four-phase structure emerged. ConclusionIncreasing walking speed did not normalize interlimb mechanical imbalance. COM work organization revealed a biomechanical transition near 0.5 m/s and distinguished compensation from recovery-based restoration. Supplementing speed with COM work and propulsion-support metrics may refine severity stratification and guide mechanism-targeted rehabilitation.

Matching journals

The top 5 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.