 |
Previous Article | Next Article 
The Journal of Neuroscience, July 1, 2002, 22(13):5734-5740
Sensory Gating for the Initiation of the Swing Phase in Different
Directions of Human Infant Stepping
Marco Y. C.
Pang1 and
Jaynie F.
Yang1, 2
1 Centre for Neuroscience and 2 Department
of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada T6G 2G4
 |
ABSTRACT |
Humans can make smooth, continuous transitions in walking direction
from forward to backward. Thus, the processing of sensory input must
allow a similar continuum of possibilities. Hip extension and reduced
load are two important conditions that control the transition from the
stance to swing phase during forward stepping in human infants. The
purpose of this study was to determine whether the same factors also
regulate the initiation of the swing phase in other directions of
stepping. Thirty-seven infants between the ages of 5 and 13 months were
studied during supported forward and sideways stepping on a treadmill.
Disturbances were elicited by placing a piece of cardboard under the
foot and pulling the cardboard in different directions. In this way,
the leg was displaced in a particular direction and simultaneously
unloaded. We observed whether the swing phase was immediately initiated
after the application of disturbances in various directions.
Electromyography, vertical ground reaction forces, and hip motion in
frontal and sagittal planes were recorded. The results showed that the
most potent sensory input to initiate the swing phase depends on the
direction of stepping. Although low load was always necessary to
initiate swing for all directions of walking, the preferred hip
position was always one directly opposite the direction of walking. The results indicated the presence of selective gating of sensory input
from the legs as a function of the direction of stepping.
Key words:
human; infants; locomotion; proprioceptive input; sensorimotor control; sensory gating
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Pattern-generating networks are
tremendously flexible, capable of producing different motor behaviors
(for review, see Marder and Calabrese, 1996 ; Marder, 2000 ). A variety
of neuromodulators and input from peripheral and supraspinal sources
can modify the neural network to produce different motor patterns
(Grillner, 1981 ; Marder, 1988 , 1991 ; Dickinson, 1989 ; Getting, 1989 ;
Harris-Warrick, 1991 ). The same concept has been proposed for the
control of locomotion (Grillner, 1981 ; Clarac, 1984 ; Pearson, 1993 ).
Direct evidence from the lamprey supports the idea that the same
central pattern generator can produce different directions of swimming
(Matsushima and Grillner, 1992 ). Indirect evidence from intact cats
suggest that different forms of walking (walk, trot, gallop, upslope, downslope, forward, and backward) might be produced by slight alterations of the same pattern generator (Miller et al., 1975a ,b ; English, 1979 ; Buford and Smith, 1990 ; Buford et al., 1990 , 1993 ; Perell et al., 1993 ; Carlson-Kuhta et al., 1998 ). Studies in human infants (Lamb and Yang, 2000 ) and adults (Thorstensson, 1986 ; Winter et
al., 1989 ; Earhart et al., 2001 ) also provided indirect evidence that
the same neural circuitry controls different directions of walking.
Sensory input during rhythmic movements are important for controlling
phase transitions, such as the transition from stance to swing in
walking (for review, see Rossignol, 1996 ). In different directions of
walking, however, these sensory signals can be very different at the
same phase in the movement. For example, in forward walking, hip
extension and reduced load are important sensory signals that promote
the initiation of the swing phase (Grillner and Rossignol, 1978 ;
Duysens and Pearson, 1980 ; Whelan et al., 1995 ; Hiebert et al., 1996 ;
Whelan and Pearson, 1997 ; Pang and Yang, 2000 , 2001 ). In backward
walking, however, swing phase is initiated when the hip is flexed. How
does the pattern generator regulate the stance to swing transition in
different directions of walking? In both human infants (Lamb and Yang,
2000 ) and adults (Stein et al., 1986 ), there is a continuum of
walking directions from forward to backward walking. Smooth transitions
between different directions of walking are easily performed (Lamb and
Yang, 2000 ). Hence, the processing of sensory inputs must allow for the
infinite number of walking directions and the possibility for smooth
transitions between them.
In this study, we focus on how different limb orientations that stretch
hip muscles and reduce load affect the initiation of the swing phase in
forward and sideways stepping in human infants. We use young infants,
because they are much less likely to intervene volitionally with the
stepping movements compared with adults. Indeed, their stepping is most
likely controlled by circuitry in the spinal cord and brainstem
(Forssberg, 1985 ). Our data show that the direction of the limb
motion-orientation that most powerfully promotes the stance to
swing transition changes with the direction of walking (i.e., hip
extension for forward walking, hip adduction in the leading limb, and
hip abduction in the trailing limb for sideways walking). We propose a
conceptual model for selective gating of sensory input as a function of
walking direction.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Subjects. The infants in this study were recruited
through the Public Health Division, Capital Health Authority (Edmonton, Alberta). All of the infants were born at term. Ethical approval was
obtained through the Health Research Ethics Board, University of
Alberta and the Capital Health Authority (Edmonton, Alberta). Thirty-seven infants aged from 5 to 13 months (mean, 8.4 months) were
studied. None of the infants could walk independently. The infant's
stepping ability was discussed with a parent. Only those infants who
showed 10 consecutive steps at a time, as reported by a parent, were
brought in for the experiment. The parent was instructed to practice
stepping with the infants for 1-2 min daily for ~1-2 weeks before
the experiment. Previous work has shown practice improves our chances
of obtaining good stepping (Yang et al., 1998 ). Informed and written
consent was obtained from a parent before the infant participated in
the study. The experiments were conducted in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki for experiments on human subjects.
Recording procedures. Kendall SOFT-E pediatric (Ag/AgCl)
electrodes were applied over tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius-soleus muscles on each leg after the skin was cleaned with alcohol swabs. A
twin-axis electrogoniometer (Penny & Giles Computer Products, Biometrics, Blackwood Gwent, UK) was placed over the hip joint of the
right leg (for 22 infants), the left leg (for 2 infants), or both legs
(for 13 infants) to measure hip motion in the sagittal plane
(flexion-extension) and the frontal plane (abduction-adduction). The
leg recorded from was dependent on the focus of the particular experiment. For example, some experiments focused on comparing the
response of the right limb during forward and sideways walking. Others
focused on comparing the response of the right and left limb during
sideways walking (for details, see Hip disturbances). This was
important because infants have a limited tolerance for walking, and
only select protocols can be effectively studied in each experiment.
The goniometer was placed so that one arm was aligned with the
midaxillary line of the trunk, and the other was along the longitudinal
axis of the femur. A video camera (PV-950; Panasonic, Secaucus,
NJ) was used to record the left view (for forward walking) or
front view (for sideways walking) of the infant. The video record was
used qualitatively for identifying good walking sequences.
A Gaitway treadmill system (Kistler Instrument, Amherst, NY) was used
for all experiments. Two force plates located beneath the treadmill
belt, one in front of the other, were used to measure vertical ground
reaction forces during walking. The infant was held under the arms by
one of the researchers, with one hand on each side of the infant's
upper trunk, allowing the infant to support its own weight as much as
possible. The infant was placed on the treadmill at the junction of the
two force plates to allow for accurate measurement of load on each leg
during stepping. The speed of the treadmill belt was adjusted to obtain
optimal stepping in different directions. If possible, several trials of forward and sideways stepping were conducted for each infant. Each
trial was typically 1-3 min in length. The whole experimental session
took ~1 hr. At the end of the session, the weight of the infant was
obtained by sitting the infant on the front force plate. Electromyography (EMG), force plate, and electrogoniometer signals were
amplified and recorded on VHS tape with a pulse code modulation encoder
(A. R. Vetter, Redersburg, PA). All walking trials were videotaped. The video and analog signals were synchronized by a digital
counter at a rate of 1 Hz.
Hip disturbances. All of the disturbances were applied
manually by a different researcher than the one supporting the infant. The disturbances were intended to stretch a group of hip muscles while
simultaneously unloading the leg. A stiff cardboard was placed on the
treadmill belt during the swing phase of the limb to be disturbed.
After the foot made contact with the cardboard, the leg was dragged in
different directions by pulling the cardboard. This allowed us to slide
the foot in a direction different from the movement of the treadmill
belt. The sliding motion of the cardboard was done as quickly as
possible in each direction. The infants were always distracted with
toys and games throughout the walking trials. Most infants did not seem
to notice the application of the disturbances.
In forward stepping, all perturbations were applied to the right leg.
Normally, the hip is extended at swing phase initiation in forward
walking. We wanted to test whether stretching the hip in the opposite
direction (flexion) or a direction orthogonal to the direction of
progression (abduction or adduction) would promote or hamper the
initiation of the swing phase. Therefore, the right hip was perturbed
in four different directions in forward stepping: flexion, extension,
abduction, and adduction. In each case, the limb was unloaded by the disturbance.
In sideways stepping, the right leg was always the leading leg in these
experiments. The hip of the leading leg is normally adducted at the
time swing phase is initiated. We were interested in determining
whether hip movement in the opposite direction (abduction) would be
less effective in initiating the swing phase. In addition, we wanted to
determine whether hip extension, the powerful trigger to initiate swing
phase in forward stepping, was also effective in sideways stepping.
Therefore, three different directions of disturbances were applied to
the leading limb: extension, abduction, and adduction. Again, the limb
was unloaded by the disturbance.
In contrast to the leading limb, the trailing (left) limb normally
initiates its swing phase when the hip is abducted during sideways
walking. Because hip movements of the leading and trailing limbs are
opposite, abduction and adduction disturbances were also applied to the
trailing limb to determine whether the leading and trailing limb
reacted differently to the two directions of disturbances.
The disturbances described so far involved stretching a group of hip
muscles together with unloading the stance leg. We also wanted to study
the reactions of the leg when the load was high and the hip angle was
in a neutral position. Therefore, during both forward and sideways
walking, another type of disturbance was used, in which the right hip
was kept in a neutral position by holding the cardboard stationary once
the limb reached the midstance phase (called mid-disturbances). In
other words, we prevented the normal hip extension (forward walking) or
hip adduction (sideways walking, leading limb) from occurring. Again,
we observed whether the swing phase was initiated after the application
of these disturbances.
Data analysis. The data were analyzed off-line. The EMG data
were high-pass filtered at 10 Hz, full-wave rectified, and low-pass filtered at 30 Hz. The force plate and the electrogoniometer signals were also low-pass filtered at 30 Hz. All of the signals were then
analog-to-digitally converted at 250 Hz (Axoscope 7; Axon Instruments, Foster City, CA).
The video data were reviewed to identify good sequences of walking and
successful disturbances (for definition, see below). The corresponding
analog data were then identified. The stance and swing phase durations
were estimated by the time of right foot contact and toe off,
respectively, using the force plate signals in conjunction with the
video image. All of the undisturbed steps were selected and averaged
using a customized software program.
The EMG, force plate, and goniometer signals from undisturbed steps
were aligned at the time of foot-ground contact. Average profiles were
produced for a cycle of stepping. The mean force value over the
averaged step cycle gave us an estimate of the amount of weight the
infant was bearing during stepping.
The time at which swing phase was initiated was determined by the
reversal of the hip goniometer signal from extension to flexion for
both directions of stepping. This is reasonable, because, when swing
phase was initiated in sideways stepping, the reversal of hip motion
from adduction to abduction (leading limb) and from abduction to
adduction (trailing limb) corresponded well to the reversal from
extension to flexion. The corresponding load at the time swing phase
was initiated was estimated by the force plate signal.
For all types of disturbances (except mid-disturbances), the beginning
of the disturbance was indicated by a sudden change in the goniometer
signal in the intended direction. The end of the disturbance was
defined as the time when the goniometer signal reached a peak in the
intended direction. The angular velocity of hip movement during the
perturbation and the duration of the disturbance could thus be
computed. The disturbance was considered successful if (1) it was
preceded and followed by a complete step, (2) the hip angle between the
beginning and the end of the disturbance had a difference of >10°,
and (3) the angular speed of the hip motion was higher than 30°/sec
in the intended direction.
For each type of disturbance, the disturbed leg would react by (1)
initiating the swing phase or (2) continuing its stance phase and not
initiating the swing phase until much later. The latency for the
initiation of the swing phase was defined as the time period from the
beginning of the disturbance to the beginning of the hip flexion
movement associated with the swing phase. Because the duration of the
majority of disturbances ranged from 200 to 500 msec, the swing phase
was considered to be successfully initiated if it occurred within 700 msec after the onset of the perturbation. The percentage of trials in
which the swing phase was successfully initiated was determined for
each type of disturbance. This value was then compared across different
groups of disturbances.
Statistical analysis. For each type of disturbance, paired
t tests were used to compare the hip angle and load at swing
initiation for the predisturbed step and those at the end of the
disturbance. This was done to make sure that the disturbances applied
were effective in changing the hip angle in the intended direction and
reducing the load (or increasing the load for mid-disturbances). For
comparison of data (i.e., hip angle, load, and hip angular velocity of
disturbances) between more than two types of disturbances in a given
direction of walking or in a given limb in sideways walking, one-way
ANOVAs were used. Bonferroni's t tests were
conducted to compare the data post hoc. To compare the data
between two types of disturbances, independent sample t
tests were used. All statistical tests were conducted with mean values
from each subject (i.e., averaged across all successful trials). In
addition, to compare the proportion of successful trials in eliciting
swing phase among different categories of disturbances,
2 test of association was used. A
probability level of 0.05 for type I error was set for all statistical
tests. For post hoc t tests, the probability
level was adjusted depending on the number of comparisons so as to
reduce the probability of making a type I error (Glass and
Hopkins, 1996 ).
 |
RESULTS |
Of the 37 subjects, 22 subjects participated in both directions of
walking. Seven and eight subjects participated only in forward or
sideways walking, respectively. For all trials, the speed of the
treadmill ranged from 0.23 to 0.27 msec 1. In forward walking, the amount of
weight borne by the infants during stepping ranged from 28 to 57% of
their own body weight (BW) (mean, 48% BW). In sideways walking, the
amount of weight borne by the infants ranged from 16 to 53% BW (mean,
31% BW). For those subjects who participated in both directions of
walking, the amount of weight borne during forward walking was
significantly greater than that during sideways walking.
Statistical analysis revealed that all types of disturbances were
effective in causing a significant deviation of the hip angle in the
intended direction when compared with the predisturbed steps (Fig.
1). Moreover, the deviation in the hip
angle for each type of disturbance was significantly different from
each other in the intended direction. For example, in forward walking,
the hip angle was significantly more flexed after flexion disturbances than that after the other three types of disturbances (Fig.
1A). Note that infants adopt a more flexed posture
than adults, and the hip rarely extends past the neutral position. In
sideways walking, disturbances to the leading and trailing limbs are
shown in Figure 1, B and C, respectively.
Disturbances in the extension direction included some abduction,
because it was important to elicit the extension before the leading
limb met the trailing limb at midline.

View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1.
Pooled data: hip angle at the end of disturbances.
The final hip angle achieved at the end of disturbances is shown for
forward walking (A), the leading limb in sideways
walking (B), and the trailing limb in sideways
walking (C). The horizontal axis
represents the hip abduction-adduction angle, and the vertical
axis represents hip flexion-extension angle. The
label beside each data point represents
the direction of the disturbance: Flex, flexion;
Ext, extension; Abd, abduction;
Add, adduction. The error bar represents one SE.
The shaded box labeled Pre represents one
SE for the normal steps preceding the disturbance. The data show that
we were successful in altering the hip angle in the intended
directions.
|
|
After the application of different disturbances, there were two types
of responses: (1) the limb initiated the swing phase immediately, or
(2) the limb continued its stance phase and did not initiate the swing
phase until much later. The distribution of latencies for the
initiation of the swing phase is shown in Figure
2. The swing phase was successfully
initiated in 197 of 373 trials. For each direction of disturbance, the
characteristics of the disturbances (i.e., hip angle, load, and speed)
were compared between the two types of response. No significant
difference was found. Therefore, the data for each type of disturbance
were pooled regardless of the response and then analyzed.

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2.
Latencies for the initiation of the swing phase.
The open bars represent those trials in which the swing
phase was successfully initiated by the disturbance (within 700 msec
after onset of the perturbation). The black bars
represent those trials in which the disturbed leg continued with its
stance phase after the disturbance and did not initiate its swing phase
until much later.
|
|
The most powerful input to initiate swing phase changes with
direction of walking
The most potent sensory input to promote swing phase initiation
was a function of the direction of walking (Fig.
3). In forward walking, the most powerful
sensory input to trigger the onset of the swing phase was hip
extension. Stretching the hip in the opposite direction (i.e., flexion)
or in a direction orthogonal to that of progression (i.e., abduction
and adduction) resulted in a significantly lower success rate of
initiating the swing phase when compared with hip extension (Fig. 3,
open bars). The results thus indicated that, as long as the
hip was kept from reaching an extended position during forward
stepping, adding an abduction-adduction component did not
significantly increase the probability of initiating the swing
phase.

View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3.
Success rate of initiating the swing phase. In
forward walking, hip extension was the most powerful sensory input to
initiate the swing phase. In sideways walking, hip adduction and hip
abduction became the most potent input to induce the onset of the swing
phase in the leading limb and trailing limb, respectively.
Asterisks represent a statistically significant
difference from the other types of disturbances in the same direction
of walking or in the same limb (for sideways walking).
|
|
An example of an adduction disturbance in forward walking is shown in
Figure 4. In all figures, positive
numbers in the joint angles represent flexion and abduction. The right
hip was adducted to 33°. The limb did not initiate the swing phase
until much later when it reached an extended position [see
arrow in right tibialis anterior (R TA) EMG
signal and the corresponding goniometer signal].

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4.
Example of an adduction disturbance in forward
walking. Surface electromyography from the right tibialis anterior,
goniometer measures of the right hip, and step cycles of both legs are
shown for a single subject (LG). The thick line between
the second and the third traces
represents the duration of the disturbance. The black
bars at the bottom of the graph represent stance
phase, whereas the space between the bars
represents swing phase. In this particular example, the right hip was
adducted to 33° by the disturbance. Swing phase was not initiated
until much later, when the hip reached an extended position (see
arrow in R TA signal and the
corresponding hip flexion seen in the goniometer signal). The right
stance phase was prolonged as a result. TA, Tibialis
anterior; SC, step cycle; R, right;
L, left; Flex, flexion;
Ext, extension; Abd, abduction;
Add, adduction.
|
|
Interestingly, hip extension, which was the most powerful sensory input
to initiate the swing phase in forward walking, became relatively
ineffective in inducing swing phase in sideways walking. Hip adduction
became the most effective input to promote swing phase initiation in
the leading limb (Fig. 3, solid bars). Similar to the
situation in forward walking, adding an orthogonal component (extension) to the leading limb did not increase the likelihood of
initiating the swing phase, provided that the hip was not able to
attain adduction. An example of an adduction disturbance to the leading
limb in sideways walking is shown in Figure
5A. The hip was adducted to
13°. The leg reacted to the disturbance by initiating the swing
phase [see early onset of EMG burst in the right tibialis anterior
muscle after the disturbance (Fig. 5A, arrow in
top trace)].

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5.
Example of abduction and adduction disturbance to
the leading and trailing limbs in sideways walking. Data in both parts
of the figure are from the same infant (subject EO). The convention of
this figure is the same as Figure 4. A, Response of the
leading leg to a disturbance that adducted the hip to 13°. The
swing phase was initiated early (see arrow in R
TA signal). B, Response of the trailing leg to a
disturbance that adducted the hip to 32°. In this case, swing phase
was delayed. TA, Tibialis anterior; SC,
step cycle; R, right; L, left;
Flex, flexion; Ext, extension;
Abd, abduction; Add, adduction.
|
|
Sideways walking is different from forward walking in that the hip
motion of the two legs are opposite in the same phase of the walking
cycle. For example, during stance phase, the hip adducts in the leading
limb, whereas the hip abducts in the trailing limb. Interestingly, the
leading and the trailing leg also showed opposite responses to the
different directions of disturbances. Adduction disturbances in the
trailing limb typically did not lead to the immediate initiation of
swing phase. Figure 5B shows an example of such a
disturbance in the same infant as that shown in Figure 5A.
The hip is adducted more ( 32°) in the trial shown in Figure 5B compared with Figure 5A. Despite that,
initiation of the swing phase was delayed. Group data shown in Figure 3
(cross-hatched bars) indicates that abduction disturbances
were far more likely to initiate swing phase than adduction
disturbances in the trailing limb.
Could the effects described above be explained by the difference in the
amount of unloading and speed of disturbance among different types of
disturbances? Our results showed that this possibility was very
unlikely. Pooled data for the load at the end of disturbances and the
angular speed of hip motion during the disturbances are shown in Figure
6. There was no significant difference in
load and speed among the different types of disturbances in a given
direction of walking or in a given limb (for sideways walking).
Therefore, the results could not be explained by systematic differences
in the amount of unloading or the speed of disturbances.

View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6.
Pooled data: load at the end of disturbances and
speed of disturbances. A, Load at the end of
disturbances. B, The angular speed of the hip motion
during the disturbances. There was no statistically significant
difference in load and speed among the different types of disturbances
in a given direction of walking or in a given limb (for sideways
walking).
|
|
Responses to mid-disturbances
All of the results reported so far concerned different directions
of hip motion coupled with unloading. We reported previously that,
during forward walking, if the limb was kept in a midstance position,
with a neutral hip angle and high load on the limb, swing phase was
held off indefinitely (Pang and Yang, 2000 ). The same was found in
sideways walking (Fig. 7). During the
course of the disturbance, the leading limb was maintained in a
slightly abducted position. The disturbed limb remained in the stance
phase while the contralateral leg continued to step (reflected in the ongoing rhythmic activity in left tibialis anterior signal).

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7.
An example of a mid-disturbance in sideways
walking. Responses from a single subject (ML). Convention of the figure
is the same as Figure 4. The hip was kept in a slightly abducted
position (mean, 4°), and the load was high (mean, 28 N; data not
shown). As a result, the stance phase was prolonged. The normal
alternating activity of the right tibialis anterior was terminated. In
contrast, the left leg continued to step (see ongoing alternating
activity in the left tibialis anterior). TA, Tibialis
anterior; SC, step cycle; R, right;
L, left; Flex, flexion;
Ext, extension; Abd, abduction;
Add, adduction.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The response to various directions of disturbances was highly
dependent on the direction of walking. The most effective sensory input
to promote swing phase initiation for a given direction of walking was
leg motion in a direction opposite to that of progression. Interestingly, this meant that, in sideways walking, the reactions in
the leading limb were opposite to the trailing limb. Although the
powerful effects of hip extension to initiate the swing phase in
forward walking are well established in both animal (Grillner and
Rossignol, 1978 ; Hiebert et al.,1996 ) and human infant (Pang and Yang,
2000 , 2001 ) studies, the different reactions of the leading and the
trailing legs during sideways walking are now shown for the first time.
Methodological considerations
All of the disturbances in this study were applied manually.
Variability between disturbances was thus unavoidable. The data showed,
however, that we were successful in inducing hip angle changes in the
intended direction in all cases, with limited variation (Fig. 1).
Moreover, other variables that might have affected the success rate for
swing phase initiation, such as load on the limb and the angular
speed of hip movement, were not significantly different for the
different directions of disturbances (Fig. 6).
The disturbances displaced the whole lower limb in a particular
direction. The induced movements were not confined to the hip, and many
types of sensory afferents could have been activated. The limb position
at the end of the disturbances, however, were generally very similar
for all directions of disturbances (knee extended and ankle
plantarflexed), except for the position of the hip. Thus, we feel it is
likely that afferents signaling hip position would reflect the
different directions of disturbances most. For simplicity in the
discussion, we will refer to hip motion when discussing different
directions of disturbances. In reality, the results could be explained
equally well by a convergence of signals that reflect the limb
orientation (Bosco and Poppele, 2001 ).
The amount of weight borne by the infants during sideways walking was
36% less than that during forward walking. These differences in weight
bearing do not interfere with our interpretation, because the
comparisons we made were confined to the relative ease with which swing
phase was initiated in each direction of walking. We do not compare the
unloading necessary for swing initiation in different directions of walking.
Central pattern generators for different directions of walking
Before discussing the nature of sensory gating during different
directions of walking, we must first consider whether the same pattern
generator controls the different directions of walking. This question
has been addressed indirectly in the human adult. Based on comparisons
of the muscle activation patterns and the movement patterns, some have
suggested that there is sufficient similarity in the patterns to
suggest that the same pattern generator is involved (Thorstensson,
1986 ; Winter et al., 1989 ; Grasso et al., 1998 ). More recently, Earhart
et al. (2001) showed that, after walking on the perimeter of a rotating
disk, the curved locomotor trajectories of forward and backward walking
over stationary ground were very similar. This transfer of learning to
both directions of walking supports the idea that forward and backward
walking are controlled by similar neural circuitry.
Adult humans, however, can volitionally intervene with the stepping
movements, making it difficult to determine the contributions of the
lower brain centers to the control of different directions of walking.
Because young infant have far less descending control (Forssberg, 1985 ;
Yang et al., 1998 ), their stepping provides more direct information
about the pattern generator. Recent results from our laboratory support
the idea that the same pattern generator controls different directions
of stepping in young infants (Lamb and Yang, 2000 ). We showed that the
majority of infants can step in all directions from the time forward
stepping is expressed. Moreover, changes to the stance and swing phase
durations vary in the same way for all directions of walking, and
infants can change their stepping in a continuous way from forward to backward.
Selective gating of sensory input
Our current results show that the same sensory input produces a
very different response that is a function of the walking direction.
Thus, there must be gating of sensory input that is a function of the
walking direction. Based on the assumption that the same locomotor
pattern generator controls all directions of walking, the experimental
evidence presented in this paper predicts that there is a large
convergence of sensory input to the pattern generator. Afferents that
signal various hip positions (or limb orientations), for example,
should all have access to the pattern generator. Depending on the
direction of walking, the gains in these pathways are selectively altered.
Using the half-center model for locomotion (Brown, 1911 , 1914 ;
Lundberg, 1980 ), we propose a conceptual model in which there is
convergence of sensory input from the legs to the flexor and extensor
half-center. Our data suggest that load always influences the decision
to initiate swing phase, regardless of the direction of walking.
Afferents signaling hip position (or limb orientation) are selectively
gated as a function of the walking direction. For example, in forward
walking, gains in reflex pathways from stretch-sensitive afferents in
hip flexor muscles are higher than those from other hip muscles. During
sideways walking, the reflex gains from stretch-sensitive afferents in
hip abductors to the pattern generator are higher in the leading limb,
whereas those from hip adductors are higher in the trailing limb. We
further predict that, with walking directions intermediate between
forward and sideways, the reflex gains from stretch-sensitive afferents in hip flexors and abductors of the leading limb would be higher than
those from other hip muscles. Thus, the most effective stretch to
initiate the swing phase in this case would be a combined hip extension
and adduction (i.e., directly opposite to the direction of walking).
Previous studies have shown that transmission in reflex pathways is
highly dependent on the form of the task (for review, see Rossignol,
1996 ). For example, the phase-dependent responses to cutaneous
stimulation of the leg in forward walking are different from those in
backward walking (Buford and Smith, 1993 ; Duysens et al., 1996 ). Based
on the pattern of reflex modulation, Duysens et al. (1996) suggested
that their results from backward walking could be explained by a
reversal of the motor program that produces forward walking. No details
were given regarding how this might be achieved. Our current results
suggest that we must consider the changes in reflex gain from forward
to backward walking as a continuum, which must account for all
directions of walking in-between. With this in mind, the models
proposed must also reflect the continuum of walking directions.
Together, these results lend support to the idea that the human nervous
system uses sensory input in a probabilistic way to make motor
decisions. The relative weighting of many different sensory inputs are
used in the final decision (Bassler, 1993 ; Prochazka, 1996a ,b ;
Prochazka and Yakovenko, 2001 ). In this way, sensory input related to
different directions of hip motion all contribute to the motor decision
of whether or not to initiate the swing phase. Indeed, swing phase can
still be initiated when the hip position was not optimal (Fig. 3) but
at a reduced probability.
To our knowledge, this is the first report to show that different
sensory signals control the stance to swing transition for different
directions of walking in humans. The results indicate the presence of
selective gating of sensory input as the direction of walking changes.
We further predict that the mechanism for selecting the sensory signals
must form a continuum to account for the continuum of walking
directions possible in humans.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
Received Jan. 22, 2002; revised March 28, 2002; accepted April 15, 2002.
This work was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research and the Canadian Neurotrauma Research Program to
J.F.Y. M.Y.C.P. was supported by a scholarship from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. We thank C. Wolstenholme, F. Lim, and A. t'Hart for technical assistance. We thank Drs. J. Duysens
and A. Prochazka for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jaynie F. Yang, 2-50 Corbett Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G4.
E-mail: jaynie.yang{at}ualberta.ca.
 |
REFERENCES |
-
Bassler U
(1993)
The femur-tibia control system of stick insects
a model system for the study of the neural basis of joint control.
Brain Res Rev
18:207-226[Medline]. -
Bosco G,
Poppele RE
(2001)
Proprioception from a spinocerebellar perspective.
Physiol Rev
81:539-568[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Brown TG
(1911)
The intrinsic factors in the cat of progression in the mammal.
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
84:308-319.
-
Brown TG
(1914)
On the nature of the fundamental activity of the nervous centres; together with an analysis of the conditioning of rhythmic activity in progression, and a theory of the evolution of function in the nervous system.
J Physiol (Lond)
48:18-46[Free Full Text].
-
Buford JA,
Smith JL
(1990)
Adaptive control of backward quadrupedal walking. II. Hindlimb muscle synergies.
J Neurophysiol
64:756-766[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Buford JA,
Smith JL
(1993)
Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. III. Stumbling corrective reactions and cutaneous reflex sensitivity.
J Neurophysiol
70:1102-1114[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Buford JA,
Zernicke RF,
Smith JL
(1990)
Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. I. Posture and hindlimb kinematics.
J Neurophysiol
64:745-755[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Carlson-Kuhta P,
Trank TV,
Smith JL
(1998)
Forms of forward quadrupedal locomotion. II. A comparison of posture, hindlimb kinematics, and motor patterns for upslope and level walking.
J Neurophysiol
79:1687-1701[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Clarac F
(1984)
Spatial and temporal co-ordination during walking in Crustacea.
Trends Neurosci
7:3293-3298.
-
Dickinson P
(1989)
Modulation of simple motor patterns.
Semin Neurosci
1:15-24.
-
Duysens J,
Pearson KG
(1980)
Inhibition of flexor burst generation by loading ankle extensor muscles in walking cats.
Brain Res
187:321-332[ISI][Medline].
-
Duysens J,
Tax AAM,
Murrer L,
Dietz V
(1996)
Backward and forward walking use different patterns of phase-dependent modulation of cutaneous reflexes in humans.
J Neurophysiol
76:301-310[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Earhart GM,
Melvill Jones G,
Horak FB,
Block EW,
Weber KD,
Fletcher WA
(2001)
Forward versus backward walking: transfer of podokinetic adaptation.
J Neurophysiol
86:1666-1670[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
English AW
(1979)
Interlimb coordination during stepping in the cat: an electromyographic analysis.
J Neurophysiol
42:229-243[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Forssberg H
(1985)
Ontogeny of human locomotor control. I. Infant stepping, supported locomotion and transition to independent locomotion.
Exp Brain Res
57:480-493[ISI][Medline].
-
Getting PA
(1989)
Emerging principles governing the operation of neural networks.
Annu Rev Neurosci
12:185-204[ISI][Medline].
-
Glass GV,
Hopkins KD
(1996)
In: Statistical methods in education and psychology, Ed 3. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
-
Grasso R,
Bianchi L,
Lacquaniti F
(1998)
Motor patterns for human gait: backward versus forward locomotion.
J Neurophysiol
80:1868-1885[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Grillner S
(1981)
Control of locomotion in bipeds, tetrapods, and fish.
In: Handbook of physiology, Sec 1, The nervous system, Vol II (Brookhart JM,
Mountcastle VB,
eds), pp 1179-1236. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society.
-
Grillner S,
Rossignol S
(1978)
On the initiation of the swing phase of locomotion in chronic spinal cats.
Brain Res
146:269-277[ISI][Medline].
-
Harris-Warrick RM
(1991)
Modulation of neural networks for behavior.
Annu Rev Neurosci
14:39-57[ISI][Medline].
-
Hiebert GW,
Whelan PJ,
Prochazka A,
Pearson KG
(1996)
Contribution of hindlimb flexor muscle afferents to the timing of phase transitions in the cat step cycle.
J Neurophysiol
81:758-770[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Lamb T,
Yang JF
(2000)
Could different directions of infant stepping be controlled by the same locomotor central pattern generator?
J Neurophysiol
83:2814-2824[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Lundberg A
(1980)
Half-centres revisited.
In: Advanced physiological science, Vol 1, Regulatory functions of the CNS. Motion and organization principles (Szentagothai J,
Palkovitis M,
Hamori J,
eds), pp 155-167. New York: Pergamon.
-
Marder E
(1988)
Modulating a neural network.
Nature
335:296-297[Medline].
-
Marder E
(1991)
Modifiability of pattern generation.
Curr Opin Neurobiol
1:571-576[Medline].
-
Marder E
(2000)
Motor pattern generation.
Curr Opin Neurobiol
10:691-698[ISI][Medline].
-
Marder E,
Calabrese RL
(1996)
Principles of rhythmic motor pattern generation.
Physiol Rev
76:687-717[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Matsushima T,
Grillner S
(1992)
Neural mechanisms of intersegmental coordination in lamprey: local excitability changes modify the phase coupling along the spinal cord.
J Neurophysiol
67:373-388[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Miller S,
Van Der Burg J,
Van Der Meche FGA
(1975a)
Coordination of movements of the hindlimbs and forelimbs in different forms of locomotion in normal and decerebrate cats.
Brain Res
91:217-237[ISI][Medline].
-
Miller S,
Van Der Burg J,
Van Der Meche FGA
(1975b)
Locomotion in the cat: basic programmes of movement.
Brain Res
91:239-253[ISI][Medline].
-
Pang MYC,
Yang JF
(2000)
The initiation of the swing phase in human infant stepping: importance of hip position and leg loading.
J Physiol (Lond)
528:389-404[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Pang MYC,
Yang JF
(2001)
Interlimb coordination in human infant stepping.
J Physiol (Lond)
533:617-625[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Pearson KG
(1993)
Common principles of motor control in vertebrates and invertebrates.
Annu Rev Neurosci
16:265-297[ISI][Medline].
-
Perell KI,
Gregor RJ,
Buford JA,
Smith JL
(1993)
Adaptive control for backward quadrupedal walking. IV. Hindlimb kinetics during stance and swing.
J Neurophysiol
70:2226-2240[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Prochazka A
(1996a)
Proprioceptive feedback and movement regulation.
In: Handbook of physiology, Sec 12, Exercise: regulation and integration of multiple systems (Rowell L,
Sheperd JT,
eds), pp 89-127. New York: Oxford UP.
-
Prochazka A
(1996b)
The fuzzy logic of visuomotor control.
Can J Physiol Pharmacol
74:456-462[ISI][Medline].
-
Prochazka A,
Yakovenko S
(2001)
Locomotor control: from spring-like reactions of muscles to neural prediction.
In: The somatosensory system: deciphering the brain's own body image (Nelson R,
ed), pp 141-181. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
-
Rossignol S
(1996)
Neural control of stereotypic limb movements.
In: Handbook of physiology, Sec 12, Exercise: regulation and integration of multiple systems (Rowell L,
Sheperd JT,
eds), pp 173-216. New York: Oxford UP.
-
Stein PSG,
Mortin LI,
Robertson GA
(1986)
The forms of a task and their blends.
In: Neurobiology of vertebrate locomotion, pp 201-216 London: Macmillan.
-
Thorstensson A
(1986)
How is the normal locomotor pattern modified to produce backward walking?
Exp Brain Res
61:664-668[ISI][Medline].
-
Whelan PJ,
Pearson KG
(1997)
Comparison of the effects of stimulating extensor group I afferents on cycle period during walking in conscious and decerebrate cats.
Exp Brain Res
117:444-452[ISI][Medline].
-
Whelan PJ,
Hiebert GW,
Pearson KG
(1995)
Stimulation of the group I extensor afferents prolongs the stance phase in walking cats.
Exp Brain Res
103:20-30[ISI][Medline].
-
Winter DA,
Pluck N,
Yang JF
(1989)
Backward walking: a simple reversal of forward walking?
J Mot Behav
21:291-305[ISI][Medline].
-
Yang JF,
Stephens MJ,
Vishram R
(1998)
Infant stepping: a method to study the sensory control of human walking.
J Physiol (Lond)
507:927-937[Abstract/Free Full Text].
Copyright © 2002 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/02/22135734-07$05.00/0
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Rossignol, R. Dubuc, and J.-P. Gossard
Dynamic Sensorimotor Interactions in Locomotion
Physiol Rev,
January 1, 2006;
86(1):
89 - 154.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
O. Ekeberg and K. Pearson
Computer Simulation of Stepping in the Hind Legs of the Cat: An Examination of Mechanisms Regulating the Stance-to-Swing Transition
J Neurophysiol,
December 1, 2005;
94(6):
4256 - 4268.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. F. Yang, E. V. Lamont, and M. Y. C. Pang
Split-Belt Treadmill Stepping in Infants Suggests Autonomous Pattern Generators for the Left and Right Leg in Humans
J. Neurosci.,
July 20, 2005;
25(29):
6869 - 6876.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. P. Zehr and S. R. Hundza
Forward and Backward Arm Cycling Are Regulated by Equivalent Neural Mechanisms
J Neurophysiol,
January 1, 2005;
93(1):
633 - 640.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. P. Zehr and J. Duysens
Regulation of Arm and Leg Movement during Human Locomotion
Neuroscientist,
August 1, 2004;
10(4):
347 - 361.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|