Motor control of landing from a countermovement jump in simulated microgravity

Biomechanical behavior of the lower limbs and of the joints when landing from different heights

Landing from a jump is a challenging task as the energy accumulated during the aerial phase of the jump must be fully dissipated by the lower limbs during landing; the higher the jump height, the greater the amount of energy to be dissipated. In the present study, we aim to understand (1) how the biomechanical behavior is tuned as a function of the mechanical demand, and (2) the relationship between the self-selected landing strategy and the behavior of the joints. Fourteen subjects were asked to drop off a box of 10 to 60 cm height and land on the ground. The ground reaction forces and the kinematics were recorded using force plates and a motion capture system. A model was used to estimate the properties, i.e. stiffness and damping, of the lower limbs and of the joints. Our results show that, whatever the amount of energy to be dissipated (i.e. height of the jump), the lower limbs and the anke and knee joints behave first as a spring, then as a spring-damper system. However each joint plays a specific role: during the spring phase, the behaviour of the lower limb is associated with the stiffness of the ankle and with the landing constraints (i.e. force peak and loading rate), while during the spring-damper phase, it is associated with the stiffness of the knee and with the amount of energy to be dissipated. Our findings suggest that constraints and performance result from a distinct control of biomechanical parameters at the joints.

A novel computational framework for the estimation of internal musculoskeletal loading and muscle adaptation in hypogravity

Introduction: Spaceflight is associated with substantial and variable musculoskeletal (MSK) adaptations. Characterisation of muscle and joint loading profiles can provide key information to better align exercise prescription to astronaut MSK adaptations upon return-to-Earth. A case-study is presented of single-leg hopping in hypogravity to demonstrate the additional benefit computational MSK modelling has when estimating lower-limb MSK loading. Methods: A single male participant performed single-leg vertical hopping whilst attached to a body weight support system to replicate five gravity conditions (0.17, 0.25, 0.37, 0.50, 1 g). Experimental joint kinematics, joint kinetics and ground reaction forces were tracked in a data-tracking direct collocation simulation framework. Ground reaction forces, sagittal plane hip, knee and ankle net joint moments, quadriceps muscle forces (Rectus Femoris and three Vasti muscles), and hip, knee and ankle joint reaction forces were extracted for analysis. Estimated quadriceps muscle forces were input into a muscle adaptation model to predict a meaningful increase in muscle cross-sectional area, defined in (DeFreitas et al., 2011). Results: Two distinct strategies were observed to cope with the increase in ground reaction forces as gravity increased. Hypogravity was associated with an ankle dominant strategy with increased range of motion and net plantarflexor moment that was not seen at the hip or knee, and the Rectus Femoris being the primary contributor to quadriceps muscle force. At 1 g, all three joints had increased range of motion and net extensor moments relative to 0.50 g, with the Vasti muscles becoming the main muscles contributing to quadriceps muscle force. Additionally, hip joint reaction force did not increase substantially as gravity increased, whereas the other two joints increased monotonically with gravity. The predicted volume of exercise needed to counteract muscle adaptations decreased substantially with gravity. Despite the ankle dominant strategy in hypogravity, the loading on the knee muscles and joint also increased, demonstrating this provided more information about MSK loading. Discussion: This approach, supplemented with muscle-adaptation models, can be used to compare MSK loading between exercises to enhance astronaut exercise prescription.

Motor control of landing in an unsteady environment

BACKGROUND

When landing from a jump or a drop, muscles contract before touchdown to anticipate imminent collision with the ground, soften ground contact and allow to return to a stable standing position without stepping or rebounding.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This study assesses the effect of the unsteadiness of the environment on the motor control of landing. The 'unsteady environment' was induced by asking participants to perform drop landings inside an aircraft that underwent trajectories parallel to Earth's surface. The participants also performed the same task in a 'steady environment' in our laboratory.

METHODS

Ground reaction forces, lower limb joints' movements and the activity of lower limb muscles were recorded. The stability of the landing was assessed by the vertical and anterior-posterior stability indexes, center of pressure measures and by the coefficient of variation of kinetic and kinematic parameters.

RESULTS

On one hand, participants slowdown their joint movements and reduce the knee joint excursion during landing, probably to avoid excessive movements that may induce imbalance. On the other hand, the stability of the landing is reduced while the variability of the movement is increased, illustrating a less stable and less consistent landing. In addition, whatever the environment, landing parameters associated with increased stiffness (i.e., increased impact forces and decreased joint range of motion) are correlated with decreased landing stability.

SIGNIFICANCE

Overall, landings in the'unsteady environment' appear to be more cautious but less stable and less finely tuned. Since the stability of the landing is not directly influenced by the steadiness of the environment, this more cautious behavior could be, at least in part, related to the fear/apprehension induced by sudden acceleration variations of the frame of the aircraft.

Spring-loaded body mass equivalent horizontal reactive countermovement jump ground contact and flight times, but not peak forces, are comparable to vertical jumping

Horizontal (cylinder-based) sledge jumping has been shown to ameliorate multi-system deconditioning induced by long-term bed-rest. However, biomechanics differ from 1 g vertical jumping, in particular prolongation of ground contact times (GCT), reduction of peak force, rate of force development (RFD) (and presumably stretch shortening cycle [SSC] efficacy) and stiffness, whilst also requiring relatively complex equipment. Thus, we sought to determine if horizontal spring-loaded countermovement jumps were more analogous to vertical jumping. 9 healthy (5 female) subjects (27 ± 7yrs; 169.0 ± 5.3 cm; 63.6 ± 2.6 kg) performed 10 reactive countermovement jumps vertically, and horizontally (randomized) when lay on a spring-loaded carriage performed against loading (at lift-off) equivalent (±6%) to their body weight. Jump kinetics, kinematics and lower limb/trunk electromyographic activity were compared between conditions (paired t-tests). Mean flight and GCTs did not differ, however, peak jump height (p = 0.003; d = -0.961) was greater when jumping horizontally. In contrast, ground reaction forces (zGRF) during take-off (p < 0.001; d = 1.645) and landing (p = 0.002; d = 1.309), peak acceleration (p = 0.001; d = 1.988), leg stiffness (p = 0.001; d = 2.371) and RFD (p = 0.023; d = 1.255) were lower horizontally. Mean rectus femoris activity was lower during landing (p = 0.033; d = 0.691) when horizontal, but did not differ during either take-off or land-lift. Mean medial gastrocnemius activity was significantly (p = 0.018; d = 0.317) lower during horizontal take-off. Spring-loading (1 g at take-off) maintained short GCTs and flight times presumably maintaining muscle SSC efficacy in a manner that appears intuitive (in young active subjects), simple, robust and potentially compatible with spaceflight. Whether appropriate jump characteristics can be achieved in older subjects and in μg/hypogravity needs to be determined. However, greater jump height, lower peak zGRF, RFD and leg stiffness along with reduced lower limb and trunk muscle activity suggests that 1 g at take-off is insufficient to replicate vertical jump biomechanics. Thus, further investigation is warranted to optimize, and evaluate spring-loaded jumping as a gravity-independent multi-systems countermeasure on Earth, and in Space.

Neuromuscular Strategies in Stretch-Shortening Exercises with Increasing Drop Heights: The Role of Muscle Coactivation in Leg Stiffness and Power Propulsion

When applying drop jump exercises, knowing the magnitude of the stimulus is fundamental to stabilize the leg joints and to generate movements with the highest power. The effects of different drop heights on leg muscles coactivation, leg stiffness and power propulsion were investigated in fifteen sport science students. Drop jumps from heights of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 cm in a random order were performed on a force platform. During each drop jump, the ground reaction force, knee angle displacement, and synchronized surface-electromyography root-mean-square (sEMG_RMS) activity (vastus lateralis, VL; vastus medialis, VM; rectus femoris, RF; biceps femoris, BF; tibialis anterior, TA and lateral gastrocnemius, LG) were recorded. The coactivation in the pre-contact phase, between VL and BF, VM and BF as well as RF and BF, was dependent on the drop height (p < 0.01; effect size (ES) ranged from 0.45 to 0.90). Leg stiffness was dependent on the drop height (p < 0.001; ES = 0.27-0.28) and was modulated by the coactivation of VM-BF (p = 0.034) and RF-BF (p = 0.046) during the braking phase. Power propulsion was also dependent on the drop height (p < 0.001; ES = 0.34); however, it was primarily modulated by the coactivation of LG-TA during the braking phase (p = 0.002). The coactivation of thigh muscles explains leg stiffness adjustments at different drop heights. On the contrary, the coactivation of shank muscles is mostly responsible for the power propulsion.

Human Locomotion in Hypogravity: From Basic Research to Clinical Applications

We have considerable knowledge about the mechanisms underlying compensation of Earth gravity during locomotion, a knowledge obtained from physiological, biomechanical, modeling, developmental, comparative, and paleoanthropological studies. By contrast, we know much less about locomotion and movement in general under sustained hypogravity. This lack of information poses a serious problem for human space exploration. In a near future humans will walk again on the Moon and for the first time on Mars. It would be important to predict how they will move around, since we know that locomotion and mobility in general may be jeopardized in hypogravity, especially when landing after a prolonged weightlessness of the space flight. The combination of muscle weakness, of wearing a cumbersome spacesuit, and of maladaptive patterns of locomotion in hypogravity significantly increase the risk of falls and injuries. Much of what we currently know about locomotion in hypogravity derives from the video archives of the Apollo missions on the Moon, the experiments performed with parabolic flight or with body weight support on Earth, and the theoretical models. These are the topics of our review, along with the issue of the application of simulated hypogravity in rehabilitation to help patients with deambulation problems. We consider several issues that are common to the field of space science and clinical rehabilitation: the general principles governing locomotion in hypogravity, the methods used to reduce gravity effects on locomotion, the extent to which the resulting behavior is comparable across different methods, the important non-linearities of several locomotor parameters as a function of the gravity reduction, the need to use multiple methods to obtain reliable results, and the need to tailor the methods individually based on the physiology and medical history of each person.

Human motor control of landing from a drop in simulated microgravity

Landing on the ground on one's feet implies that the energy gained during the fall be dissipated. The aim of this study is to assess human motor control of landing in different conditions of fall initiation, simulated gravity, and sensory neural input. Six participants performed drop landings using a trapdoor system and landings from self-initiated counter-movement jumps in microgravity conditions simulated in a weightlessness environment by different pull-down forces of 1-, 0.6-, 0.4-, and 0.2 g External forces applied to the body, orientation of the lower limb segments, and muscular activity of 6 lower limb muscles were recorded synchronously. Our results show that 1) subjects are able to land and stabilize in all experimental conditions; 2) prelanding muscular activity is always present, emphasizing the capacity of the central nervous system to approximate the instant of touchdown; 3) the kinetics and muscular activity are adjusted to the amount of energy gained during the fall; 4) the control of landing seems less finely controlled in drop landings as suggested by higher impact forces and loading rates, plus lower mechanical work done during landing for a given amount of energy to be dissipated. In conclusion, humans seem able to adapt the control of landing according to the amount of energy to be dissipated in an environment where sensory information is altered, even under conditions of non-self-initiated falls.