QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online January 17, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 533-540 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02647

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Usherwood, J. R. Articles by Wilson, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Usherwood, J. R. Articles by Wilson, A. M.

Mechanics of dog walking compared with a passive, stiff-limbed, 4-bar linkage model, and their collisional implications

James R. Usherwood^*, Sarah B. Williams and Alan M. Wilson

The Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts, AL9 7TA, UK

^* Author for correspondence (e-mail: jusherwood{at}rvc.ac.uk)

Accepted 13 November 2006

Here, we present a simple stiff-limbed passive model of quadrupedal walking, compare mechanics predicted from the model with those observed from forceplate measurements of walking dogs and consider the implications of deviation from model predictions, especially with reference to collision mechanics. The model is based on the geometry of a 4-bar linkage consisting of a stiff hindleg, back, foreleg and the ground between the hind and front feet. It uses empirical morphological and kinematic inputs to determine the fluctuations in potential and kinetic energy, vertical and horizontal forces and energy losses associated with inelastic collisions at each foot placement. Using forceplate measurements to calculate centre of mass motions of walking dogs, we find that (1) dogs may, but are not required to, spend periods of double support (one hind- and one forefoot) agreeing with the passive model; (2) legs are somewhat compliant, and mechanical energy fluctuates during triple support, with mechanical energy being lost directly after hindfoot placement and replaced following forefoot placement. Footfall timings and timing of mechanical energy fluctuations are consistent with strategies to reduce collisional forces, analogous to the suggested role of ankle extension as an efficient powering mechanism in human walking.

Key words: collision, inverted pendulum, walk, quadruped