|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online January 30, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 550-565 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.018093
Exploring the mechanical basis for acceleration: pelvic limb locomotor function during accelerations in racing greyhounds (Canis familiaris)
1 Department of Veterinary Preclinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science,
The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
2 Structure and Motion Laboratory, The Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms,
Hertfordshire, UK
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: s.b.williams{at}liverpool.ac.uk)
Accepted 25 November 2008
 |
Summary |
|---|
 TOP Summary INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
Key words: acceleration, greyhound, power, biomechanics, locomotion, effective mechanical advantage
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
), running turkeys
(Roberts and Scales, 2002;
Roberts and Scales, 2004),
wallabies (McGowan et al.,
2005a), humans (Cavagna et
al., 1971; Harland and Steele,
1997; Johnson et al., 2001) and kangaroo rats
(Biewener and Blickhan, 1988),
to date understanding of acceleration in quadrupeds is minimal. It is
difficult to consider factors such as muscle work and power output under
steady-state conditions, as no net mechanical work is performed during running
at steady speed on level ground. Some positive muscle work is performed, as is
negative work during each step, but the net work output on the level is zero.
In addition, passive elastic mechanisms are also present, which can store and
recover mechanical work with each step, reducing the amount of mechanical work
that is performed by muscular contractions [but to an uncertain extent
(Alexander, 1991;
Cavagna et al., 1977)]. During
acceleration, however, work must be performed to increase the kinetic energy
of the body. Passive elastic mechanisms cannot perform net work though they
can modulate the time course of power output of a muscle
(Lichtwark and Wilson, 2005;
Lichtwark and Wilson, 2006),
and thus work must be performed by the contraction of skeletal muscle.
In the racing greyhound, much of the locomotor musculature is located as
hip extensors within the proximal pelvic limb
(Williams et al., 2008). These
muscles have long parallel fibres, an architecture which has been suggested as
suitable for performing large amounts of muscle work; these muscles may
therefore be able to produce substantial amounts of power. Those more distally
located and many in the thoracic limb appear more adapted towards force
production and elastic energy storage and return (due to shorter, pennate
fascicles, which are in some cases associated with substantial tendons).
Tendons in this portion of the limb may also play a role in amplifying the
power produced by these distal muscles. Hence, a regional specialisation
exists in terms of the locomotor musculature of the racing greyhound, as is
seen in many other species (Lieber and
Blevins, 1989; Payne et al.,
2006b; Payne et al.,
2005a; Payne et al.,
2005b; Smith et al.,
2006; Thorpe et al.,
1999; Williams et al.,
2007a; Williams et al.,
2007b), suggesting that the functional roles of different limbs
and joints within a limb may differ. Muscle architecture is not the only
determinant of a muscle's ability to produce mechanical work at a joint:
musculo-skeletal geometry, i.e. the moment arm of a muscle, is also important.
Muscle moment arms have been shown to vary with joint angle [and therefore
with limb posture (e.g. Payne et al.,
2006a; Williams et al.,
2008)]. It is likely therefore that the roles of muscles and
joints may also change during different locomotor tasks.
That the hip extensor muscles in the racing greyhound appear to have so
much potential for power production
(Williams et al., 2008)
suggests that much of the production of the mechanical work which is needed
for acceleration of the centre of mass may occur via the pelvic limb,
specifically at the hip joint, via hip extension. This may then be
transferred by biarticular muscles to other joints. The presence of
substantial distal limb tendons suggests that though the distal limb muscles
possess less potential for producing work, their muscle power output could be
amplified by tendons. The centre of mass acceleration of the animal may
therefore also be affected by distal limb mechanics. The relative contribution
of different hindlimb joints to acceleration thus requires investigation.
Much attention has been given to the mechanical significance of
size-related changes in limb posture in relation to muscle and bone stress. A
more upright posture aligns limb segments and joints more closely with the
resultant ground reaction force vector (GRFr) during stance. This
reduces bending stresses to which the bones in the limb are subjected
(Biewener, 1983) and also
decreases the moments exerted about the limb joints
(Biewener, 1989). This means
that animals with a more upright posture are able to support their body mass
with lower muscle forces. The `effective mechanical advantage' (EMA) of an
animal's limb can be used as an index of limb posture, and here is defined as
the ratio of the muscle moment arm of the extensor muscles (r) of a
joint to the moment arm of the GRF vector (R) acting about that joint
(see Fig. 1A). A scaling
related change in limb EMA with body mass has been demonstrated, with larger
animals having more extended limbs and hence higher limb EMAs
(Biewener, 1989). This acts as
a mechanism by which peak bone and muscle stresses are reduced in larger
species, and thus similar magnitudes for these parameters are seen across the
size range. This effect of changing EMA has mainly been considered in a
quasi-static context. Far less is known about how limb/muscle EMA may change
under different locomotor conditions – i.e. at different gaits or
speeds. A large decrease in knee extensor muscle EMA occurs in humans across
the gait transition from a walk to a run
(Biewener et al., 2004).
However, to date no studies have reported a change in EMA with speed,
acceleration or other locomotor parameters in quadrupeds.
|
;
Payne et al., 2006b;
Smith et al., 2006;
Williams et al., 2007a;
Williams et al., 2007b).
Therefore, during the stride cycle the leverage of muscles must vary as joint
angles are constantly changing. The GRF orientation relative to the limb and
hence the GRF moment arm with respect to each joint centre of rotation also
changes throughout a stance period, and so there is scope for the `gear ratio'
or EMA to alter within and between stance phases during locomotion. This has
been shown to occur in humans; trotting, galloping and jumping dogs; and
accelerating turkeys (Carrier et al.,
1998; Carrier et al.,
1994; Gregersen et al.,
1998; Gregersen and Carrier,
2004; Roberts and Scales,
2004). The changes in gearing that occur in dogs have been
proposed as a mechanism by which performance can be enhanced, because, if
muscles can be arranged to shorten at an appropriate velocity, power
production can be maximised (Gregersen and
Carrier, 2004). The gear ratio of a muscle that shortens at a
constant rate would be predicted to increase with animal speed if the muscle
is to make the maximum contribution to acceleration of the animal. This
mechanism appears to occur at the knee joint in jumping and running dogs
(Gregersen et al., 1998;
Gregersen and Carrier,
2004). Here our aim was to determine patterns of pelvic limb kinematics, GRFs and impulses during varying sub-maximal accelerations. We assessed the production and modulation of mechanical work and power within the limb and considered the contributions of muscles around each hindlimb joint to the variations in work associated with acceleration. The EMA of the limb was also considered with respect to speed and acceleration to investigate the effect of limb posture on muscle power output and acceleration.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
|
GRFs and impulse
Vertical, horizontal and medio-lateral GRFs were recorded for all four
limbs of the animal. Medio-lateral forces were small and so were ignored for
the purposes of this study. GRFs were used to calculate the magnitude and
direction (angle from the vertical) of the resultant GRF vector
(GRFr). GRFs, joint angles and other continuous variables were
normalised to per cent of stance (calculated from GRF traces) and averaged
within groups. Stance time was greater in high acceleration trials
(P<0.0001; Fig. 3)
and, thus, showing GRFs normalised to stance time is not truly representative.
Vertical and horizontal force impulses were therefore calculated (as the
integrals of vertical and horizontal forces, respectively, over each actual
stance time). These provide a clearer means by which to view differences in
GRF data between conditions.
|
|
|
 | (1) |
 | (2) |
Integration of horizontal and vertical accelerations was carried out to
provide instantaneous velocities (vy and
vz) such that:
 | (3) |
 | (4) |
).
Conventionally (e.g. Cavagna et al.,
1977), in studies on steady-state locomotion, the assumptions that
mean forward velocity closely approximates initial horizontal velocity and
that no net change in centre of mass height occurs have proven precise enough
to accurately estimate initial conditions. However, this different approach is
essential here, as during accelerations one, and possibly both, of these
assumptions do not hold true. Mean horizontal velocity and acceleration were
calculated per stride.
Calculation of joint moments, powers and work
The moment arm, R, of the GRF to each joint was calculated
(defined as the perpendicular distance between the joint centre and resultant
GRF vector), along with the joint moment. Note the total joint moment is the
sum of the external [i.e. generated by external forces (e.g. GRF);
Mext], inertial (Minert) and gravitational
(Mgrav) joint moments:
 | (5) |
 | (6) |
In this study, positive values for M represent an extensor muscle moment, and negative values a flexor muscle moment (i.e. positive values represent a moment that is being balanced by extensor musculature). Instantaneous power at each joint was calculated by multiplying the joint moment by the angular velocity at that joint. Total (single) limb power was then derived by summing the instantaneous powers from each joint. The net work delivered by each joint during stance was determined by integrating the power curve for that joint over the stance time. Absolute positive and negative work were calculated as the sum of the positive and negative integrated portions of the power curve, respectively. Total limb work is the sum of work performed at all of the joints in the one limb.
Calculation of EMA
Muscle moment arms (r) for calculation of EMA were taken from a
previous study of greyhound muscle–tendon anatomy and geometry
(Williams et al., 2008). The
moment arm of the muscle group acting about each joint was calculated by using
a weighted mean of all the agonist muscles acting about a joint. Individual
muscle moment arms were weighted according to their force-generating capacity
(PCSA) to give an average moment arm for the total force generation
(Biewener, 1989;
Payne et al., 2006a). The EMA
was then calculated at each individual joint of the limbs as:
 | (7) |
;
Gregersen and Carrier, 2004).
This ratio removes the need to divide by zero at the instant when the GRF
vector moves through the centre of the joint in question.
Statistical analysis
Velocity and acceleration in our data set were found to be related, given
the absence of high accelerations at high initial velocities
(P=0.002). Hence general linear model (GLM) one-way analyses of
covariance (ANCOVA) were used to ascertain relationships between selected
variables and both acceleration and speed, with speed and acceleration as
covariates, and subject identity and lead/trailing limb as random factors.
This accounted for any potentially confounding influence of speed on the
dataset. Linear or multiple regression analysis (as appropriate) followed to
determine the degree of the variance between dependent variables and
acceleration (and speed if necessary). Prior to statistical analysis, data
were checked to ensure that they did not violate the assumptions of normality
and equality of variance of the statistical tests. Data were found not to
violate these assumptions.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
For graphical presentation of GRFs only, two groups were used as opposed to three, as (when normalised to per cent stance) visual differences between groupings were only apparent in this more extreme format. These groups are termed `lowest' accelerations, which range from 0.5 to 1.2 m s–2 (mean 0.8 m s–2; N=11), and `highest' accelerations (range 2.8 to 4.4 m s–2; mean 3.2 m s–2; N=8). These groups, however, were only used for the purposes of figure presentation, and are not continued further in any analysis.
|
).
Larger accelerations had lesser braking forces than low acceleration trials,
often showing almost no braking force at all. In addition, higher acceleration
trials showed increased propulsive forces relative to low accelerations. Hindlimb net horizontal impulses increased with acceleration (R2=0.65; P<0.0001), but did not change with speed (P>0.05). Vertical impulses also increased with acceleration (R2=0.40; P<0.0001; Fig. 5), not speed (P>0.05), but the increase with acceleration was of a lesser degree than that of horizontal impulses. The ratio of vertical to horizontal impulses therefore decreased non-linearly with acceleration, appearing to reach an asymptote between 2 and 4 (Fig. 6). Gallop lead/trailing limb was deemed a significant (P<0.0001) factor in the relationship between hindlimb horizontal impulse and acceleration, with the trailing limb showing a stronger association with acceleration (R2=0.96; P<0.0001) than the lead limb (R2=0.64; P<0.0001). For hindlimb vertical impulse, gallop lead was not significant (P>0.05).
|
|
|
30–40% stance) and
high accelerations (20–40% stance).
Differences were also apparent in the stifle joint angle between
acceleration groups (Fig. 7B).
In low acceleration trials, stifle angle was approximately 130 deg. at the
beginning of stance, and underwent a fairly symmetrical pattern of flexion (to
110 deg.) and extension, returning to a similar angle to that at the
beginning of stance. Initial and minimum stifle angles were lower (110
and 100 deg.) in high accelerations, and the minima occurred earlier in the
stance phase. Joint extension therefore began earlier, continuing to a similar
maximum to that in lower acceleration conditions (meaning, however, that net
change in joint angle was much increased at higher accelerations
(Fig. 8;
P<0.0001).
Greatest differences in joint kinematics were seen at the hock joint
(Fig. 7C). Under low
acceleration conditions, the hock angle was 140 deg. at initial foot contact,
flexing to a minimum of 105 deg. at about 40% stance, and then extending
to reach a maximum extension of 155 deg. as the foot leaves the ground. Under
the highest acceleration conditions, hock angle was much more flexed at the
start of stance (110 deg.) and underwent slightly less flexion to reach a
minimum of 85 deg. at a slightly earlier part of stance (30–35%). The
hock then extended to a similar maximum to that in low accelerations. As a
result, net change in hock angle increased with acceleration
(Fig. 8).
MTP joint angles (Fig. 7D) were measured on the extensor aspect of the joint (i.e. decreases in MTP joint angle represent functional extension of the joint). For clarity, the definitions used at each joint for flexion and extension are illustrated in Fig. 2. Joint angles here were more variable; however, kinematic trends were still similar across subjects. The general trend was for an initial extension of the MTP joint, with maximum (hyper) extension reached at 75% stance. The joint then flexed until the end of stance. As a result of the variation at this joint, differences in net MTP joint angle change were not significantly different between acceleration groups.
Joint moments
Hindlimb joint moments also appeared to differ depending on the
acceleration condition (Fig.
9). Largest peak moments were seen at the hip and hock joints. At
the hip, moments in low acceleration increased to a peak (22 Nm) during the
first 25% stance, decreasing thereafter. The peak hip joint moment was greater
in medium and high acceleration groups.
Stifle joint moment at low accelerations decreased during the first 25% of stance, then increased to a peak at 65% stance and decreased again. Similar joint moment patterns ensued in the higher acceleration trials. The initial decrease in moment was more apparent in the medium and high acceleration trials, with a more negative minimum moment reached in these two groups. In the highest acceleration category, peak stifle joint moments were at their greatest and this peak occurred later in stance, though more variation was apparent in these higher acceleration categories.
Hock joint moment increased, peaking just prior to 50% stance and then decreasing in a similar fashion. This pattern was similar for all three groups, with a trend towards greater peak moments being generated in the higher acceleration trials.
MTP joint moments were negative, reaching minima around mid-stance. Peak moments tended towards being more negative in higher accelerations; however, again, standard deviations were large in this group.
Work and power
Typical patterns of hindlimb joint powers are displayed in
Fig. 10 for an example low,
medium and high acceleration trial. This example is for a lead limb where the
increase in net work with acceleration is much greater than in the trailing
limb (see later and Fig. 12).
Plots for the non-lead limb were similar but less pronounced. Other than this
difference between lead and trailing limbs, trends in the patterns of hindlimb
power were similar within acceleration groups. Total hindlimb power generally
decreased and was negative during the first 30% of stance in steady-state/low
acceleration conditions. It then increased to a peak (8 W
kg–1; all power values are per kilogram total body mass) by
70% stance. In medium/high acceleration trials, the initial decrease in total
hindlimb power was rarely seen, and peaks of a greater magnitude were observed
(13 and 20 W kg–1, respectively). Net hindlimb work
increased with acceleration (R2=0.49;
P<0.0001; Fig.
11A), but not speed (P=0.52). The majority of this
increase in hindlimb work was associated with the lead limb
(R2=0.60; P<0.0001), as when gallop leads were
considered independently, no relationship was apparent for the trailing
hindlimb (R2=0.08; P>0.05). Absolute positive
limb work, however, was seen to increase significantly with acceleration in
both lead (R2=0.30, P=0.009) and trailing
(R2=0.39, P=0.002) limbs
(Fig. 11B).
|
|
|
Under all conditions, hip power was substantial and positive during the first half of stance, falling to zero or slightly negative late in the second half of stance. Peak hip powers were not significantly greater in higher acceleration trials (Fig. 10), but hip power remained at or near its peak for a longer duration during higher accelerations. Net work at the hip joint had no significant association with acceleration for either lead (P=0.069) or trailing (P=0.29) limbs (Fig. 12); however, absolute positive hip work increased with acceleration in both lead (P=0.03) and trailing (P=0.003) limbs (Fig. 13). Absolute negative hip work was variable, as it was at all joints, and therefore showed no significant trend with acceleration at any joint.
|
Stifle joint power remained low throughout stance, reaching a maximum late in stance. Net stifle joint work increased with acceleration (R2=0.23; P=0.014; Fig. 12); however, as with total hindlimb work, the majority of this increase was associated with the lead (R2=0.28; P=0.007) and not trailing (R2=0.042; P>0.05) limb. Absolute positive stifle work also increased with acceleration in lead (R2=0.40; P=0.004) and trailing (R2=0.3; P=0.01) limbs (Fig. 13).
Hock power was consistently negative during the first 40% of stance, increasing to large positive powers for the remainder of stance. Under low acceleration conditions, the magnitudes of negative and positive work at the hock joint were roughly symmetrical, resulting in little/no net work. At higher accelerations the magnitude of the negative portion of the power curve appeared to be more variable; however, the magnitude of the positive peak increased with acceleration. Durations of positive and negative power peaks did not appear to differ between conditions. Net hock work did not show a significant relationship with acceleration (P=0.054; Fig. 12); however, again, when gallop lead was considered, lead hindlimb hock work was significantly associated with acceleration (R2=0.41; P=0.01). Absolute positive hock work increased with acceleration (Fig. 13), particularly so in the lead limb (R2=0.26; P=0.03).
Power at the MTP joint was roughly zero during the first 30% of stance, and remained small throughout. Sometimes, a peak was seen late in stance; however, patterns of MTP power appeared more variable than those at other joints. MTP joint work (both absolute positive and net) was independent of acceleration (P>0.05; Figs 12 and 13).
EMA
EMAvert decreased considerably with acceleration
(R2=0.52; P=0.0001;
Fig. 14A), and did not vary
with speed (P>0.05). Both lead (R2=0.54;
P<0.0001) and trailing (R2=0.53;
P=0.01) hindlimbs showed significant changes in posture with
acceleration, with the lead limb showing a slightly stronger relationship with
acceleration. In addition, EMAhz also decreased significantly with
acceleration (Fig. 14B; lead
R2=0.53, P=0.001; trailing
R2=0.22, P=0.03). Patterns of gear ratio
(EMA–1) over stance are shown in
Fig. 15 for two extreme trials
– a low and a high acceleration trial. Under both conditions, hip muscle
gear ratio decreased throughout stance, as did hock muscle gear ratio. At the
stifle, gear ratio increased throughout stance in both steady-state locomotion
and accelerations. Differences were only apparent in the magnitudes of the
peaks in gear ratio, and not the overall patterns of change throughout stance.
Higher maxima/minima of gear ratio were therefore seen at all joints in early
stance during high accelerations. This resulted in a difference in the
relative timing of when the stifle joint switched from a negative to positive
gear ratio.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
); however, peak vertical force occurred later in the
stance phase in the lead hindlimb of accelerating greyhounds
(60–70% stance; Fig.
4). This `delay' in the development of the vertical GRF has
previously been considered in bipeds as a mechanism by which the animal's
centre of mass can be positioned more anteriorly by the time peak forces are
reached (Harland and Steele,
1997; Roberts and Scales,
2002). This allows the GRF vector to be aligned more closely with
the centre of mass (important for avoiding body pitching and therefore
maintaining balance). Studies in dogs accelerating during a trot have
suggested an alternative mechanism for aligning the GRF vector with the centre
of mass (Lee et al., 1999). A
redistribution of vertical force between forelimbs and hindlimbs was achieved
by applying torques about the hip and shoulder, allowing the centre of
pressure to originate more posteriorly. No such mechanism was clear here in
dogs accelerating at a gallop, and in fact they appear to utilise the former
strategy. In trotting, a front limb and hindlimb are in stance simultaneously
allowing such a redistribution of body weight to take place; however, this
will be more difficult in a canter or gallop when often only hindlimb or
forelimb pairs are in stance at one time, and often this reduces to only
single limbs. Thus in fast accelerations in greyhounds it appears that a
similar mechanism is used to that in bipeds in aligning the body centre of
mass with the GRF vector.
Hindlimb horizontal impulse increased with acceleration more than the
increase in vertical impulse, such that the ratio of the two
(vertical:horizontal) decreased with acceleration. It appears to reach an
asymptote between 2 and 4 (Fig.
6). The ratio of horizontal to vertical impulse must be less than
the coefficient of friction, as maximum shear force
(Fy) is given by the product of the coefficient of
static friction and the normal force (Fz). We do
not know the coefficient of friction for the surface used in this study;
however, many everyday substrates fall around the region of 0.5
(Pardoe et al., 2001;
Phillips and Morris, 2000;
Phillips and Morris, 2001;
Vos and Riebersma, 2007) (and
thus the inverse of this is 2 – close to the beginning of the asymptote
seen in this study). Given that the maximal accelerations we were able to
obtain in the laboratory setting were reached close to this coefficient, this
raises an interesting question: is acceleration grip limited? We were able to
measure higher accelerations in racing greyhounds under field conditions, when
they were maximally motivated. Another factor here, however, was that racing
greyhounds run on a (watered) sand surface, potentially optimal for grip when
compared with carpet used in the laboratory. Higher coefficients of friction
than 1.0 could be achieved via inter-digitation between foot and
substrate so a surface such as sand would be ideal. In addition, greyhounds
have claws on their digits which will enhance grip on soft surfaces (like
`in-built' running spikes). Further work comparing different surfaces under
maximal field conditions might add insight to this question, particularly as
an interesting trade-off is presented here: whilst soft surfaces may be
advantageous for increasing the coefficient of friction, they will also absorb
energy which would be detrimental for running performance. Greyhound racing
surfaces are, however, relatively firm (a tractor can drive on them with
minimal displacement) but the feet are still able to dig in.
Hindlimb mechanical work and power
Patterns of total limb power (Fig.
10) largely followed those of hock joint power. In addition, the
hock joint showed a strong relationship between net joint work and
acceleration (Fig. 12).
Potential exists here, via the presence of a substantial tendon in
the biarticular gastrocnemius muscle, for substantial power transfer and
amplification (e.g. Lichtwark and Wilson,
2005; Lichtwark and Wilson,
2006; Peplowski and Marsh,
1997; Aerts, 1998)
– such a mechanism has been proposed to amplify power by up to 15 times
(Aerts, 1998). Total hindlimb
extensor muscle mass (one limb) equals around 2 kg
(Williams et al., 2008), and
therefore total limb peak powers in this study reach around 300 W
kg–1 of hindlimb extensor muscle mass. This approaches the
top end of published values for potential maximum muscle power output in
mammalian muscle (Weis-Fogh and Alexander,
1977), and as accelerations in this study are only half-maximal,
it would seem that there is scope for much higher peak powers during higher
accelerations. This strongly suggests that power amplification in the tendon
forms a substantial part of the hindlimb contribution to acceleration in this
animal.
Unexpectedly, no significant relationship was seen between net hip joint
work and acceleration (though that for lead hip joint was nearly significant,
P=0.07). Previous studies have suggested that quadrupeds,
particularly racing greyhounds, power locomotion by a torque about the hip
(e.g. Usherwood and Wilson,
2005) and so it was expected that the greatest contribution to
total limb work would be made at the hip joint. An analysis of absolute
positive and negative work at this joint (and others) was therefore conducted,
because the initial period of positive work at the hip is often followed by a
period of negative work. In this situation, negative work cannot `pay' for
subsequent positive work in a physiological sense, unlike when negative work
precedes the positive work (such as in a stretch–shorten cycle). Hence,
during integration of power over stance to calculate net work, some of the
positive work performed at the hip is effectively cancelled out. Absolute
positive hip work increased significantly with acceleration
(Fig. 13) in both hindlimbs,
suggesting that the variable amount of negative work done (not associated with
acceleration, P>0.05) in the latter part of the stance phase
clouds the issue here. Muscles about the hip joint therefore do appear to be
performing large amounts of additional work during accelerations (of around
four times over the range of accelerations seen here).
In both stifle and hock joints, lead limb net work was significantly associated with acceleration, but not trailing limb net work. This is in contrast to absolute positive work, which increased significantly in both limbs (though still more so in the lead limb). This contrast indicates that lead and trailing limbs are likely to have different roles during acceleration. It is possible that this difference can be explained by the relative placement and timing of placement of the two limbs. The trailing hindlimb is the first to contact the ground, followed by the lead limb. A period of overlap exists when both limbs are on the ground, at which point the lead hindlimb is aligned with or in front of the hip joint. With this initial position, joints can undergo a wider range of angular excursions (thus increasing the potential for increasing work). In addition, placing the limb more anteriorly may result in the leg supporting a greater amount of body weight (higher GRFs are certainly apparent for the lead limb during high accelerations; Fig. 4) which will aid grip. This positioning thus may result in greater torques about the lead limb.
Inverse dynamics
Caution must be applied when interpreting the results of any inverse
dynamics analysis. Studies in jumping, sprinting and acceleration
(Aerts, 1998;
Dutto et al., 2004;
Jacobs et al., 1996;
McGowan et al., 2005a) have
shown that whilst proximal muscles such as hip extensors produce most of the
power required for the task, this power is delivered at the ankle joint. The
power is transferred within the limb via biarticular muscles. Joint
power analysis does not consider power transport across adjacent joints
via two-joint muscles, nor that via muscle co-contraction.
Thus power analysis at the joint level often leads to very different results
from those at the muscle level (Neptune
and van den Bogert, 1998). In this study several cases arise where
power transfer may be substantial. Firstly, the back muscles of the greyhound
are substantial, and the spinal column undergoes large amounts of flexion and
extension, especially during high speed galloping
(Alexander et al., 1985). The
possibility exists that power is transferred from the musculature of the back
to both forelimbs and hindlimbs during locomotion
(Gambaryan, 1974). Back
extension during hindlimb stance must aid in applying considerable propulsive
forces. Quantifying the power produced in the spinal column presents a
significant challenge and is beyond the scope of this study but it is likely
that the contribution of the back to locomotion is substantial in the racing
greyhound.
Secondly, within the hindlimb it is likely that much of the power produced
by proximal muscles is transferred distally and delivered at the ankle joint.
Anatomical studies (Williams et al.,
2008) suggest that the maximum instantaneous power-generating
potential of all racing greyhound hock extensor musculature amounts to only 36
W (approximately 1 W kg–1 body mass). However mean hock power
seen in the highest accelerations in this study reaches approximately 1.7 W
kg–1 body mass in a single limb (see
Fig. 10) – nearly double
the estimate for all ankle extensor muscle contraction alone. Given
accelerations in this study were unexceptional (maximally motivated racing
greyhounds reach accelerations of up to 10 m s–2 (S.B.W.,
J.R.U. and A.M.W., unpublished observations) this magnitude of difference will
be even higher for more impressive accelerations. In addition, power profiles
(Fig. 10) also show strong
support for energy transfer. During the highest accelerations, the hip is
generating a large amount of positive power for the first 20% of stance,
whilst the ankle is absorbing energy. The result is that the total limb power
during this period is effectively zero. It seems reasonable that some of this
energy being developed at the hip is being stored at the ankle (and possibly
elsewhere) and is returned at the ankle in late stance. Evidence for such a
mechanism has been seen in cats (Prilutsky
et al., 1996), and jumping and running humans
(Prilutsky and Zatsiorsky,
1994; Jacobs et al.,
1996; Lichtwark and Wilson,
2006); therefore, it should be considered when interpreting any
results of an inverse dynamics analysis.
Other limitations to the inverse dynamics approach should also be
considered. We assume fixed joint centres of rotation which may not be
entirely accurate, particularly for the stifle joint. In addition, small
measurement errors, caused by misalignment of markers with the joint rotation
centres and by skin movement relative to underlying structures (particularly
at proximal joints) may occur. Errors in this study were minimised by careful
marker placement by a single person, using easily identifiable anatomical
reference points. In addition, a small subset of data from the stifle joint
were compared with mathematically derived values as per Dutto et al.
(Dutto et al., 2004) and
McGowan et al. (McGowan et al.,
2005a). Errors were minimal, though this technique relies on
reference markers which themselves may be influenced by soft tissue
movement.
Limb posture and acceleration
The EMA of the hindlimb was shown to decrease substantially with increased
acceleration (Fig. 14). Thus
the hindlimb assumed a more crouched posture at higher accelerations, such
that the limb is generally required to recruit a larger volume of muscle, and
the muscles experience more force relative to the GRF during periods of higher
acceleration. A benefit of this may be to increase the summed length of the
limb segments relative to hip or shoulder height
(Biewener, 1983). This would
allow an animal to exert ground forces over a longer contact period, thus
increasing ground impulses for a given peak force. Finally, an additional
advantage of a decreased EMA during high accelerations exists. Whereas an
upright posture presents a much greater mechanical advantage in producing the
vertical GRFs required to counteract gravity
(Biewener, 1989) it decreases
the mechanical advantage for horizontal ground forces
(Fig. 1A). In contrast, the
much reduced EMA of a greyhound undergoing accelerations will increase the
mechanical advantage for applying horizontal forces and increasing work on the
centre of mass (Fig. 1B)
– as accelerating has a greater requirement for forces generated in the
horizontal direction, this appears to be a simple strategy for increased
acceleration performance. It remains to be seen whether the ability to
decrease EMA is a prerequisite for superior acceleration capability. If this
is the case, as larger animals seem to be constrained to a higher EMA in order
to support their body weight (Biewener,
1989), size may ultimately be detrimental to the ability to
accelerate quickly or undergo other `unsteady' activities.
Changes in individual joint `gear ratio' throughout stance
(Fig. 15) appeared to follow
similar patterns to those during steady speed trotting, galloping and also
jumping (Carrier et al., 1998;
Gregersen and Carrier, 2004).
The general patterns of gear ratio change under low and high acceleration
conditions were similar; however, the magnitudes of the values were different.
At the hock, gear ratio decreased during stance, a mechanism that may be
beneficial in enhancing elastic energy storage and release, especially if limb
forces are lower. This pattern of gear ratio change is typical for a system of
a muscle in series with an elastic element
(Roberts and Marsh, 2003) such
as the gastrocnemius at the hock. A high gear ratio at the beginning of stance
allows muscle force to rise to a significant level before shortening occurs.
During this period, the series elastic element can be stretched by inertial
effect prior to the muscle contracting against the spring. As muscle force is
high throughout shortening and the muscle can contract slowly storing energy
in the spring, muscle work is maximised. This can be released as high power
when the muscle–tendon unit force declines.
At the knee joint, gear ratio increases throughout stance. This is
consistent with the `dynamic gearing' hypothesis that has been proposed
(Carrier et al., 1998;
Carrier et al., 1994;
Gregersen and Carrier, 2004)
to occur during other activities in dogs and humans. This concept suggests
that the total power that can be produced by a muscle during acceleration
could be maximised if muscle fibres were to shorten continuously at their best
possible shortening velocity [as an optimal shortening velocity exists at
which power production is maximised (Hill,
1950)]. With a tendon in the system maximum work in a stroke is
performed when the muscle contracts as slowly as possible. This constant rate
of shortening can only occur and contribute towards the acceleration of the
animal if the gear ratio of the muscle in question increases with speed. Most
interestingly, the magnitude of the increase in gear ratio at the knee in the
accelerating dogs in this study appears greater for high accelerations than
for low accelerations. Dogs undergoing greater changes in speed may hence be
making greater use of this mechanism to enhance muscle power output.
Conclusion
Here we have explored the mechanical basis for acceleration in a galloping
quadruped, the greyhound. Joint kinematics and kinetics were measured under
differing acceleration conditions and inverse dynamics was undertaken to
assess patterns of joint work and power in the hindlimb. Greatest increases in
net joint work and power with acceleration appear at the hock joint,
particularly in the lead limb. Large increases in positive hip work were,
however, apparent with acceleration, suggesting that creating torque about
this joint is essential for accelerating rapidly. Hindlimb EMA decreases
substantially with increased acceleration – a potential strategy to
increase stance time and thus ground impulses for a given peak force. This
mechanism may also increase the mechanical advantage for applying the
necessary horizontal forces for acceleration.
|
APPENDIX |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
)] with our
approach.
A small subset of the four highest acceleration trials was used for this
(where errors are likely to be the largest). As segment inertial properties
were not available for our subjects, we used a geometric model
(Crompton et al., 1996) which
estimates these from external morphological segment measurements, assuming
unvarying segment density. External segment measurements were taken from three
greyhounds and the model was used to determine segment masses, centre of mass
and moment of inertia. It has been shown that segment properties obtained
via this method correlate very well with experimentally measured data
(Isler et al., 2006). However,
we also assessed the potential effect of any error in these inertial values on
calculated joint moments by varying inertial values from 5% to 15% (above and
below) of the model values. Inertial properties calculated as above are given
in Table A1.
|
Justification for using the GRFv approach
Errors associated with neglecting gravitational and inertial moments are
shown in Fig. A1 for each
hindlimb joint. Errors remained small during the majority of stance (below 6%
of peak joint moments) even at the high accelerations we chose to analyse.
This may be because the external joint moment dominated the total moment
throughout most of stance, because the GRFv is forwardly orientated
in accelerations, resulting in large external moments (particularly about the
proximal joints). Calculated errors were greatest at the proximal joints (hip
and stifle) and were negligible at the distal joints (hock and MTP;
Fig. A1). Largest errors
occurred towards the beginning and end of stance, particularly at hip and
stifle joints when the GRF is less influential in determining joint moment and
segment angular accelerations are higher (highest angular accelerations are
seen during the swing phase and so inertial moments will have a greater effect
during this portion of the stride).
|
These findings are in agreement with other studies. For example McGowan and
colleagues (McGowan et al.,
2005a) found that in accelerating wallabies, internal moments were
very small relative to external moments at all joints, except the hip. Even
here, however, the major effect was in early stance, and inertial plus
gravitational moments never exceeded 15% of the peak external moment.
Furthermore, Dutto and colleagues (Dutto
et al., 2004) showed that in jumping horses, inertial moments were
small and clustered around zero for most of stance. We chose to base our
analysis in this paper solely on `external' joint moments. However the (small)
potential errors documented here should be considered when interpreting our
results, particularly in early stance, and when designing future studies.
Accuracy of limb segment inertial properties
Varying segment inertial properties by 5% and 15% had negligible effects on
calculated joint moments. These differences were consistently below 1% of the
total joint moment from our model and therefore the use of modelled inertial
properties in our error analysis appears justified in this instance. However,
experimental measurements are clearly the ideal, especially for unusually
shaped segments [e.g. hands and feet in primates
(Isler et al., 2006;
Crompton et al., 1996)].
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONAPPENDIXReferences |
|---|
Aerts, P. (1998). Vertical jumping in
Galago senegalensis: the quest for an obligate mechanical power
amplifier. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.
353,1607
-1620.
Alexander, R. M. (1991). Energy-saving
mechanisms in walking and running. J. Exp. Biol.
160, 55-69.
Alexander, R. M., Dimery, N. J. and Ker, R. F. (1985). Elastic structures in the back and their role in galloping in some mammals. J. Zool. Lond. A 207,467 -482.
Biewener, A. A. (1983). Allometry of
quadrupedal locomotion: the scaling of duty factor, bone curvature and limb
orientation to body size. J. Exp. Biol.
105,147
-171.
Biewener, A. A. (1989). Scaling body support in
mammals: limb posture and muscle mechanics. Science
245, 45-48.
Biewener, A. A. and Blickhan, R. (1988).
Kangaroo rat locomotion: design for elastic energy storage or acceleration?
J. Exp. Biol. 140,243
-255.
Biewener, A. A., Farley, C. T., Roberts, T. J. and Temaner,
M. (2004). Muscle mechanical advantage of human walking and
running: implications for energy cost. J. Appl.
Physiol. 97,2266
-2274.
Carrier, D. R., Heglund, N. C. and Earls, K. D.
(1994). Variable gearing during locomotion in the human
musculoskeletal system. Science
265,651
-653.
Carrier, D. R., Gregersen, C. S. and Silverton, N. A. (1998). Dynamic gearing in running dogs. J. Exp. Biol. 201,3185 -3195.[Abstract]
Cavagna, G. A., Heglund, N. C. and Taylor, C. R. (1977). Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. Am. J. Physiol. 233,R243 -R261.[Medline]
Cavagna, G. A., Komarek, L. and Mazzoleni, S.
(1971). The mechanics of sprint running. J.
Physiol. 217,709
-721.
Crompton, R. H., Li, Y., Alexander, R. M., Wang, W. and Gunther, M. M. (1996). Segment inertial properties of primates: new techniques for laboratory and field studies of locomotion. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 99,547 -570.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dutto, D. J., Hoyt, D. F., Clayton, H. M., Cogger, E. A. and
Wickler, S. J. (2004). Moments and power generated by the
horse (Equus caballus) hind limb during jumping. J. Exp.
Biol. 207,667
-674.
Gambaryan, P. P. (1974). How Mammals Run: Anatomical Adaptations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gregersen, C. S. and Carrier, D. R. (2004). Gear ratios at the limb joints of jumping dogs. J. Biomech. 37,1011 -1018.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gregersen, C. S., Silverton, N. A. and Carrier, D. R. (1998). External work and potential for elastic storage at the limb joints of running dogs. J. Exp. Biol. 201,3197 -3210.[Abstract]
Harland, M. J. and Steele, J. R. (1997). Biomechanics of the sprint start. Sports Med. 23, 11-20.[Medline]
Hill, A. V. (1950). Mechanics of the contractile element of muscle. Nature 166,415 -419.[CrossRef][Medline]
Isler, K., Payne, R. C., Günther, M. M., Thorpe, S., Li, Y., Savage, R. and Crompton. R. H. (2006). Inertial properties of hominoid limb segments. J. Anat. 209,201 -218.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jacobs, R., Bobbert, M. F. and van Ingan Schenau, G. J. (1996). Mechanical power output from individual muscles during explosive leg extensions: the role of biarticular muscles. J. Biomech. 29,513 -523.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson M. D. and Buckley, J. G. (2001). Muscle power patterns in the mid-acceleration phase of sprinting. J. Sports Sci. 19,263 -272.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lee, D. V., Bertram, J. E. and Todhunter, R. J. (1999). Acceleration and balance in trotting dogs. J. Exp. Biol. 202,3565 -3573.[Abstract]
Lichtwark, G. A. and Wilson, A. M. (2005).
Effects of series elasticity and activation conditions on muscle power output
and efficiency. J. Exp. Biol.
208, 2845.
Lichtwark, G. A. and Wilson, A. M. (2006).
Interactions between the human gastrocnemius muscle and the Achilles tendon
during incline, level and decline locomotion. J. Exp.
Biol. 209,4379
-4388.
Lieber, R. L. and Blevins, F. T. (1989). Skeletal muscle architecture of the rabbit hindlimb: functional implications of muscle design. J. Morphol. 199,93 -101.[CrossRef][Medline]
McGowan, C. P., Baudinette, R. V. and Biewener, A. A.
(2005a). Joint work and power associated with acceleration and
deceleration in tammar wallabies (Macropus eugenii). J.
Exp. Biol. 208,41
-53.
McGowan, C. P., Baudinette, R. V., Usherwood, J. R. and
Biewener, A. A. (2005b). The mechanics of jumping versus
steady hopping in yellow-footed rock wallabies. J. Exp.
Biol. 208,2741
-2751.
Neptune, R. R. and van den Bogert, A. J. (1998). Standard mechanical energy analyses do not correlate with muscle work in cycling. J. Biomech. 31,239 -245.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pardoe, C. H., McGuigan, M. P., Rogers, K. M., Rowe, L. L. and Wilson, A. M. (2001). The effect of shoe material on the kinetics and kinematics of foot slip at impact on concrete. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 70-73.
Payne, R. C., Hutchinson, J. R., Robilliard, J. J., Smith, N. C. and Wilson, A. M. (2005a). Functional specialisation of pelvic limb anatomy in horses (Equus caballus). J. Anat. 206,557 -574.[CrossRef][Medline]
Payne, R. C., Veenman, P. and Wilson, A. M. (2005b). The role of the extrinsic thoracic limb muscles in equine locomotion. J. Anat. 206,193 -204.[CrossRef][Medline]
Payne, R. C., Crompton, R. H., Isler, K., Savage, R., Vereecke, E., Gunther, M., Thorpe, S. and D'Aout, K. (2006a). Morphological analysis of the hindlimb in apes and humans. Part II: moment arms. J. Anat. 208,725 -742.[CrossRef][Medline]
Payne, R. C., Crompton, R. H., Isler, K., Savage, R., Vereecke, E. E., Gunther, M. M., Thorpe, S. K. and D'Aout, K. (2006b). Morphological analysis of the hindlimb in apes and humans. I. Muscle architecture. J. Anat. 208,709 -724.[CrossRef][Medline]
Peplowski, M. M. and Marsh, R. L. (1997). Work and power output in the hindlimb muscles of Cuban tree frogs Osteopilus septentrionalis during jumping. J. Exp. Biol. 200,2861 -2870.[Abstract]
Phillips, C. J. and Morris, I. D. (2000). The locomotion of dairy cows on concrete floors that are dry, wet, or covered with a slurry of excreta. J. Dairy Sci. 83,1767 -1772.[Abstract]
Phillips, C. J. and Morris, I. D. (2001). The locomotion of dairy cows on floor surfaces with different frictional properties. J. Dairy Sci. 84,623 -628.[Abstract]
Prilutsky, B. I. and Zatsiorsky, V. M. (1994). Tendon action of two-joint muscles: transfer of mechanical energy between joints during jumping, landing, and running. J. Biomech. 27,25 -34.[CrossRef][Medline]
Prilutsky, B. I., Herzog, W. and Leonard, T. (1996). Transfer of mechanical energy between ankle and knee joints by gastrocnemius and plantaris muscles during cat locomotion. J. Biomech. 29,391 -403.[CrossRef][Medline]
Roberts, T. J. and Marsh, R. L. (2003). Probing
the limits to muscle-powered accelerations: lessons from jumping bullfrogs.
J. Exp. Biol. 206,2567
-2580.
Roberts, T. J. and Scales, J. A. (2002).
Mechanical power output during running accelerations in wild turkeys.
J. Exp. Biol. 205,1485
-1494.
Roberts, T. J. and Scales, J. A. (2004).
Adjusting muscle function to demand: joint work during acceleration in wild
turkeys. J. Exp. Biol.
207,4165
-4174.
Smith, N. C., Wilson, A. M., Jespers, K. and Payne, R. C. (2006). Muscle architecture and functional anatomy of the pelvic limb of the ostrich (Struthio camelus). J. Anat. 209,765 -780.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thorpe, S. K., Crompton, R. H., Gunther, M. M., Ker, R. F. and McNeill Alexander, R. (1999). Dimensions and moment arms of the hind- and forelimb muscles of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 110,179 -199.[CrossRef][Medline]
Usherwood, J. R. and Wilson, A. M. (2005). Biomechanics: no force limit on greyhound sprint speed. Nature 438,753 -754.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vos, N. and Riebersma, D. (2007). Determination of coefficient of friction between the equine foot and different ground surfaces. Equine Comp. Exerc. Physiol. 3, 191-198.
Walter, R. M. and Carrier, D. R. (2007). Ground
forces applied by galloping dogs. J. Exp. Biol.
210,208
-216.
Weis-Fogh, T. and Alexander, R. M. (1977). The sustained power output from striated muscle. In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion (ed. T. J. Pedley), pp.511 -525. London: Academic Press.
Williams, S. B., Payne, R. C. and Wilson, A. M. (2007a). Functional specialisation of the pelvic limb of the hare (Lepus europeus). J. Anat. 210,472 -490.[CrossRef][Medline]
Williams, S. B., Wilson, A. M. and Payne, R. C. (2007b). Functional specialisation of the thoracic limb of the hare (Lepus europeus). J. Anat. 210,491 -505.[CrossRef][Medline]
Williams, S. B., Wilson, A. M., Rhodes, L., Andrews, J. and Payne, R. C. (2008). Functional anatomy and muscle moment arms of the pelvic limb of an elite sprinting athlete: the racing greyhound (Canis familiaris). J. Anat. 213,361 -372.[CrossRef][Medline]
Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. B. Williams, H. Tan, J. R. Usherwood, and A. M. Wilson Pitch then power: limitations to acceleration in quadrupeds Biol Lett, October 23, 2009; 5(5): 610 - 613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
