Different stabilizing mechanisms but a common task-level aim in standing and walking
- 1Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Intrinsic mechanisms and feedback control act together to stabilize the body in upright tasks. In unperturbed standing and walking, their combined effects can be captured by lumped stabilization models, relating delayed center of mass position and velocity information to current ground reaction forces. If and how lumped stabilization parameters change across these tasks is unclear. We applied a stabilization model to estimate and compare stabilization between unperturbed standing and walking. Fifteen healthy young participants (21 ± 4 yrs, 63 ± 9 kg, 1.70 ± 0.10 m, 13 females, 2 males) walked at 1.25 m/s for 5 minutes, and performed 3 different standing tasks: normal standing, unipedal standing, and step posture for 1 minute, repeated 5 times. Whole-body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected and used to fit the stabilization model and estimate the effective delay and lumped gains. Only small differences were found between standing tasks. Model fits were significantly higher in standing than in walking. ML effective delays were significantly longer in walking than in standing, whereas AP delays were comparable. The stabilization gains varied significantly across tasks and directions. The lumped position gains in most tasks exceeded critical stiffness, except for the mean values in walking, which were lower than the critical stiffness. Lumped velocity gains were all at under-damped level. The ratio of lumped position to velocity gains in standing were consistently close to human body’s eigenfrequency (gl) as predicted by the extrapolated center of mass concept. In walking, the ratio was close to the eigenfrequency during phases in which stabilization was significant. Our findings suggest that stabilization is organized at the task level, with lumped effects of all stabilizing mechanisms acting to preserve a consistent weighting between position and velocity contributions across tasks, effectively regulating the CoM motion to follow a pendulum-like trajectory.
Related
- Editorial: Cancer and cardiovascular diseases: common mechanisms and strategies of prevention
- Long-term clinical experience with a 3-step combined technique for involutional lower eyelid entropion and ectropion based on common pathophysiologic mechanisms
- Pre and postoperative perfusion MRI in degenerative cervical myelopathy suggest different patterns of pathophysiological compensatory mechanisms
- Stabilizing the CHI3L1-Gal3BP complex remodels the glioblastoma immune microenvironment and synergizes with PD-1 blockade
- Serine-threonine kinase 38 exerts a cancer-promoting role in hepatocellular carcinoma by stabilizing the Notch intracellular domain
BibTeX
@article{geng2026different,
title = {{Different stabilizing mechanisms but a common task-level aim in standing and walking}},
author = {Yang Geng and Jaap H. van Dieën and Sjoerd M. Bruijn},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0355849},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355849},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Different stabilizing mechanisms but a common task-level aim in standing and walking
AU - Yang Geng
AU - Jaap H. van Dieën
AU - Sjoerd M. Bruijn
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/09
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0355849
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0355849
AB - Intrinsic mechanisms and feedback control act together to stabilize the body in upright tasks. In unperturbed standing and walking, their combined effects can be captured by lumped stabilization models, relating delayed center of mass position and velocity information to current ground reaction forces. If and how lumped stabilization parameters change across these tasks is unclear. We applied a stabilization model to estimate and compare stabilization between unperturbed standing and walking. Fifteen healthy young participants (21 ± 4 yrs, 63 ± 9 kg, 1.70 ± 0.10 m, 13 females, 2 males) walked at 1.25 m/s for 5 minutes, and performed 3 different standing tasks: normal standing, unipedal standing, and step posture for 1 minute, repeated 5 times. Whole-body kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected and used to fit the stabilization model and estimate the effective delay and lumped gains. Only small differences were found between standing tasks. Model fits were significantly higher in standing than in walking. ML effective delays were significantly longer in walking than in standing, whereas AP delays were comparable. The stabilization gains varied significantly across tasks and directions. The lumped position gains in most tasks exceeded critical stiffness, except for the mean values in walking, which were lower than the critical stiffness. Lumped velocity gains were all at under-damped level. The ratio of lumped position to velocity gains in standing were consistently close to human body’s eigenfrequency (gl) as predicted by the extrapolated center of mass concept. In walking, the ratio was close to the eigenfrequency during phases in which stabilization was significant. Our findings suggest that stabilization is organized at the task level, with lumped effects of all stabilizing mechanisms acting to preserve a consistent weighting between position and velocity contributions across tasks, effectively regulating the CoM motion to follow a pendulum-like trajectory.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -