Comparison of walking overground and in a Computer Assisted Rehabilitation Environment (CAREN) in individuals with and without transtibial amputation

BackgroundDue to increased interest in treadmill gait training, recent research has focused on the similarities and differences between treadmill and overground walking. Most of these studies have tested healthy, young subjects rather than impaired populations that might benefit from such training. These studies also do not include optic flow, which may change how the individuals integrate sensory information when walking on a treadmill. This study compared overground walking to treadmill walking in a computer assisted virtual reality environment (CAREN) in individuals with and without transtibial amputations (TTA).MethodsSeven individuals with traumatic TTA and 27 unimpaired controls participated. Subjects walked overground and on a treadmill in a CAREN at a normalized speed. The CAREN applied optic flow at the same speed that the subject walked. Temporal-spatial parameters, full body kinematics, and kinematic variability were collected during all trials.ResultsBoth subject groups decreased step time and control subjects decreased step length when walking in the CAREN. Differences in lower extremity kinematics were small (< 2.5○) and did not exceed the minimal detectable change values for these measures. Control subjects exhibited decreased transverse and frontal plane range of motion of the pelvis and trunk when walking in the CAREN, while patients with TTA did not. Both groups exhibited increased step width variability during treadmill walking in the CAREN, but only minor changes in kinematic variability.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that treadmill training in a virtual environment should be similar enough to overground that changes should carry over. Caution should be made when comparing step width variability and step time results from studies utilizing a treadmill to those overground.

[1]  D A Winter,et al.  Treadmill versus walkway locomotion in humans: an EMG study. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[2]  Laura F. Fox,et al.  Self-motion perception during locomotor recalibration: more than meets the eye. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  F. Prince,et al.  Symmetry and limb dominance in able-bodied gait: a review. , 2000, Gait & posture.

[4]  C. Vaughan,et al.  Froude and the contribution of naval architecture to our understanding of bipedal locomotion. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[5]  J. Fung,et al.  Modulation of walking speed by changing optic flow in persons with stroke , 2006, 2006 International Workshop on Virtual Rehabilitation.

[6]  W. Berger,et al.  Visual influence on human locomotion , 1997 .

[7]  Nicholas F Taylor,et al.  Familiarisation to treadmill walking in unimpaired older people. , 2005, Gait & posture.

[8]  Gerald V. Smith,et al.  Hemiparetic Gait Parameters in Overground Versus Treadmill Walking , 2001, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[9]  W. Berger,et al.  Visual influence on human locomotion Modulation to changes in optic flow , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  J. Wilken,et al.  Reliability and Minimal Detectible Change values for gait kinematics and kinetics in healthy adults. , 2012, Gait & posture.

[11]  Noah J Rosenblatt,et al.  Measures of frontal plane stability during treadmill and overground walking. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[12]  Keith Davids,et al.  Comparison of below-knee amputee gait performed overground and on a motorized treadmill. , 2010, Adapted physical activity quarterly : APAQ.

[13]  A. Young,et al.  Treadmill Walking in Old Age May Not Reproduce the Real Life Situation , 1993, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[14]  Natalie Vanicek,et al.  Lower Limb Kinematic and Kinetic Differences between Transtibial Amputee Fallers and Non-Fallers , 2010, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[15]  Brenda Brouwer,et al.  Kinematic, kinetic and metabolic parameters of treadmill versus overground walking in healthy older adults. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[16]  N Taylor,et al.  Knee joint kinematics from familiarised treadmill walking can be generalised to overground walking in young unimpaired subjects. , 2000, Gait & posture.

[17]  Hartmut Witte,et al.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[18]  G. Deuschl,et al.  Gait analysis during treadmill and overground locomotion in children and adults. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[19]  Dieter Rosenbaum,et al.  on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion — part I : ankle , hip , and spine , 2002 .

[20]  D. Sternad,et al.  Local dynamic stability versus kinematic variability of continuous overground and treadmill walking. , 2001, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[21]  J. Pailhous,et al.  Unintentional modulations of human gait by optical flow , 1990, Behavioural Brain Research.

[22]  J S Higginson,et al.  Two simple methods for determining gait events during treadmill and overground walking using kinematic data. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[23]  Timothy D. Lee,et al.  Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis , 1982 .

[24]  Savelberg,et al.  Intra-stride belt-speed variation affects treadmill locomotion. , 1998, Gait & posture.

[25]  U. Croce,et al.  A kinematic and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill walking in healthy subjects. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[26]  Jill Whitall,et al.  Improved Hemiparetic Muscle Activation in Treadmill versus Overground Walking , 2004, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[27]  E. Chao,et al.  Changes in knee function associated with treadmill ambulation. , 1983, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  M. Pearce,et al.  Energy cost of treadmill and floor walking at self-selected paces , 2004, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[29]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The Utility of a Virtual Reality Locomotion Interface for Studying Gait Behavior , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[30]  Jason M Wilken,et al.  Gait Training With Virtual Reality–Based Real-Time Feedback: Improving Gait Performance Following Transfemoral Amputation , 2011, Physical Therapy.

[31]  G. J. van Ingen Schenau,et al.  Some fundamental aspects of the biomechanics of overground versus treadmill locomotion. , 1980, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[32]  J. Steiner,et al.  Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 2006 .

[33]  Patricia M McAndrew,et al.  Walking Variability during Continuous Pseudo-random Oscillations of the Support Surface and Visual Field , 2022 .

[34]  J. Dingwell,et al.  Kinematic variability and local dynamic stability of upper body motions when walking at different speeds. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[35]  Bryan Buchholz,et al.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[36]  R. Waters,et al.  The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. , 1999, Gait & posture.

[37]  H J Yack,et al.  Comparison of vertical ground reaction forces during overground and treadmill walking. , 1998, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[38]  P J Holliday,et al.  Postural sway in amputees and normal subjects. , 1978, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[39]  Thomas D. Collins,et al.  A six degrees-of-freedom marker set for gait analysis: repeatability and comparison with a modified Helen Hayes set. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[40]  Stefano Brunelli,et al.  Energy cost of walking measurements in subjects with lower limb amputations: a comparison study between floor and treadmill test. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[41]  Philippe Terrier,et al.  Kinematic variability, fractal dynamics and local dynamic stability of treadmill walking , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.