J Physiol Editor in Chief
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Physiology in Press

First published online on November 15, 2002.
Copyright © 2002 by The Physiological Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
545/3/1041    most recent
2002.025049v2
2002.025049v1
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Loram, I. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lakie, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Loram, I. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lakie, M.

Received May 23, 2002
Accepted after revision October 8, 2002

Direct measurement of human ankle stiffness during quiet standing: the intrinsic mechanical stiffness is insufficient for stability

Ian D. Loram1 and M. Lakie2*

1 School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
2 Applied Physiology Research Group, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: m.d.lakie{at}bham.ac.uk.

During quiet standing the human 'inverted pendulum' sways irregularly. In previous work where subjects balanced a real inverted pendulum, we investigated what contribution the intrinsic mechanical ankle stiffness makes to achieve stability. Using the results of a plausible model, we suggested that intrinsic ankle stiffness is inadequate for providing stability. Here, using a piezo-electric translator we applied small, unobtrusive mechanical perturbations to the foot while the subject was standing freely. These short duration perturbations had a similar size and velocity to movements which occur naturally during quiet standing, and they produced no evidence of any stretch reflex response in soleus, or gastrocnemius. Direct measurement confirms our earlier conclusion; intrinsic ankle stiffness is not quite sufficient to stabilise the body or pendulum. On average the directly determined intrinsic stiffness is 91 ± 23 % (mean ± S.D.) of that necessary to provide minimal stabilisation. The stiffness was substantially constant, increasing only slightly with ankle torque. This stiffness cannot be neurally regulated in quiet standing. Thus we attribute this stiffness to the foot, Achilles' tendon and aponeurosis rather than the activated calf muscle fibres. Our measurements suggest that the triceps surae muscles maintain balance via a spring-like element which is itself too compliant to guarantee stability. The implication is that the brain cannot set ankle stiffness and then ignore the control task because additional modulation of torque is required to maintain balance. We suggest that the triceps surae muscles maintain balance by predictively controlling the proximal offset of the spring-like element in a ballistic-like manner.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2002 The Physiological Society.