Back

The muscle coordination required for efficient locomotion scales with body size

Latreche, A.; Ross, S. A.; Dick, T. J. M.; Konow, N.; Biewener, A. A.; Wakeling, J. M.

2026-05-03 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.04.30.722018 bioRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWMuscle efficiency decreases with increasing size, largely due to a relative decrease in its mechanical output. Muscle mechanical output depends on its activation, strain, and strain rate and thus varies between different muscles within a limb during locomotion. Distinct muscle coordination patterns are required for efficient cycling, and so we would expect that the coordination patterns for efficient cycling or indeed locomotion would change across animal sizes. We tested whether muscle coordination would change with muscle size using data derived from human cycling: this paradigm allowed for controlled changes in both crank torque and cadence, allowing the multifactorial problem of muscle power output to be decomposed. We used kinematic and pedal data from 12 cyclists undergoing steady pedalling at cadences from 80 to 140 r.p.m. and generated musculoskeletal simulations of their movements. We introduced novel multisegment muscle models in the simulation that incorporated the internal muscle mass and thus accounted for the scaling effects of muscle tissue inertia. We solved the simulations for the muscle activity that was required to minimise the metabolic cost during cycling for each condition. The masses of the muscle models were scaled across five orders of magnitude. The predicted muscle activations were classified by Principal Component analysis to identify whether the coordination of muscle activity was modulated across models with different sized muscles. Analysis of variance revealed significant changes in coordination at the large-scale factors. This study shows how the coordination of muscle activity during locomotion will likely change across a range of body sizes due to the non-linear effects of the inertial mass within the muscle tissues.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.5%
2
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 4%
9.0%
4
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 9%
8.3%
5
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
7
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
8
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.0%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
10
Biological Cybernetics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
11
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.0%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.9%
14
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
16
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
17
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
18
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
Journal of Applied Physiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Integrative And Comparative Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
24
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
25
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 48%
0.6%