Vertical stiffness and center-of-mass movement in children and adults during single-leg hopping
Introduction
Hopping is a movement characterized by unperturbed vertical rebounding in-place on a single foot. As for other motor tasks of interest, such as running, hopping can be modeled as a spring-mass model (Blickhan, 1989, Cavagna, 1988, Chang et al., 2008, Farley et al., 1991, Farley and Morgenroth, 1999, Hobara et al., 2010). The spring-mass model describes the relationship of center of mass (COM) displacement and storage and release of elastic energy (Farley et al., 1991). Based on the spring-mass model, a preferred hopping frequency exists at 2.0–2.2 Hz in young adults independent of body mass (Auyang et al., 2009, Farley et al., 1991, Granata et al., 2002), but has not been reported in children younger than 11 years.
To hop outside of the preferred frequency, previous studies have demonstrated that adults manipulate vertical stiffness (commonly used as leg stiffness), the ratio between vertical ground reaction force (GRF) and vertical COM displacement (Austin et al., 2003, Granata et al., 2002, Moran et al., 2013). The ability to adjust vertical stiffness is important to change hopping height, running speed and reduce the risk of injury (Butler et al., 2003). In children aged 4–8 years, vertical stiffness separates developmental levels for single-leg forward hopping (Getchell and Roberton, 1989). In boys aged 11–12 years, vertical stiffness increases with hopping frequency during two-legged hopping in-place (Oliver and Smith, 2010). However, it is not known if vertical stiffness during single-leg hopping in-place can be modeled as a spring-mass model in children younger than 11 years.
In contrast to the numerous studies on vertical stiffness during hopping in-place, little has been reported on horizontal COM movement in both children and adults. Differences in COM movement between the anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) directions during the stance phase of hopping may illustrate different balance requirements and body control. Horizontal COM movement has been extensively studied in standing, typically demonstrating greater movement in the AP compared to the ML (Gage et al., 2004, Winter et al., 1996). It is reasonable to assume the COM movement during hopping in-place may have a similar pattern to standing given, in both motor tasks, the COM is high above the floor and controlled over a small base of support. Further, little is known on the horizontal COM position in relation to the base of support, which would provide insight into whole-body orientation strategies necessary for balance control.
Unlike standing, hopping in-place is a dynamic task where the foot may land in different places at each hop. Horizontal movement of the foot could be the result of the spring-mass model inertia property and used as a compensatory strategy to correct COM movement. The inability to quickly correct for horizontal foot displacements could result in a larger hopping area or loss of balance. Auyang and Chang (2013) found similar AP foot placement deviations when constraining adult subjects to hop at one frequency within different hopping areas. However, no study has reported the control of horizontal foot placement during hopping at different frequencies in adults or children.
The purpose of this study was to address two research questions. First, does single-leg hopping in children aged 5–11 years follow the spring-mass model, comparable to adults, where vertical stiffness is manipulated to change hopping frequency? Second, do children demonstrate adult-like patterns of horizontal COM trajectory and foot positioning across a range of frequencies? Accordingly, we hypothesized that (a) hopping in children will follow a spring-mass model, and vertical stiffness will increase with hopping frequency, with children showing higher vertical stiffness normalized by bodyweight, (b) horizontal COM movement during stance phase will be greater in the AP direction than the ML and decrease with increasing frequency, with children demonstrating greater COM movement, (c) with increasing frequency, the COM will be positioned closer to the toe with less ML deviation compared to the AP, but children will show a COM position closer to the toe, and (d) AP toe displacement between hops will be greater than in the ML direction, but will decrease with increasing frequency and children will demonstrate greater toe displacement.
Section snippets
Participants
We recruited 17 children aged 5–11 years and 16 young adults. Subjects had no previous or existing medical conditions that prevented them from single-leg hopping for 20 s. Anthropometric measures were collected including height, body-mass and leg length, measured as the distance from the anterior superior iliac spine to the medial condyle of the femur to the medial malleolus of the ankle. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the hosting university. Informed consents were
Results
Three children subjects (aged 5, 6 and 7), and three adult subjects demonstrated no change in hopping frequency across conditions. As the purpose of this study was to investigate how children and adults coordinate hopping at different frequencies, these subjects were excluded from further analysis. Mean (standard deviation) of age, height, body-mass and leg length of the remaining 14 children subjects (9 males and 5 females) were 8.70 (1.81) yrs, 1.34 (0.08) m, 32.97 (7.95) kg, and 0.71 (0.05) m,
Discussion
This study aimed to compare vertical stiffness, estimated from a spring-mass model, and COM movement and positioning, and foot placement between children aged 5–11 years and adults during single-leg hopping in-place. Our results indicated that children at this age range are able to hop outside of their preferred frequency and, somewhat comparable to adults, manipulate absolute vertical stiffness and horizontal COM movement. However, children showed higher vertical stiffness normalized to their
Conflicts of interest statement
There were no conflicts of interest when completing this study.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the children and their families for their participation in this study. Special thanks are due to Elizabeth Mena, Steven Pham and Huaqing Liang for their assistance in data collection and analysis. There was no writing assistance when we prepared for this manuscript.
References (32)
The spring-mass model for running and hopping
J. Biomech.
(1989)- et al.
Lower extremity stiffness: implications for performance and injury
Clin. Biomech.
(2003) - et al.
Intralimb compensation strategy depends on the nature of joint perturbation in human hopping
J. Biomech.
(2008) - et al.
A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique
Human. Mov. Sci.
(1991) - et al.
Leg stiffness primarily depends on ankle stiffness during human hopping
J. Biomech.
(1999) - et al.
Kinematic and kinetic validity of the inverted pendulum model in quiet standing
Gait Posture
(2004) - et al.
Effects of a trampoline exercise intervention on motor performance and balance ability of children with intellectual disabilities
Res. Dev. Disabil.
(2013) - et al.
Gender differences in active musculoskeletal stiffness. Part I. Quantification in controlled measurements of knee joint dynamics
J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.
(2002) - et al.
Comparison and evaluation of two common methods to measure center of mass displacement in three dimensions during gait
Human. Mov. Sci.
(2006) - et al.
Leg stiffness measures depend on computational method
J. Biomech.
(2014)
The effect of force-controlled biting on human posture control
Human. Mov. Sci.
Leg stiffness adjustment for a range of hopping frequencies in humans
J. Biomech.
Age-related differences in the neural regulation of stretch-shortening cycle activities in male youths during maximal and sub-maximal hopping
J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.
Neural control of leg stiffness during hopping in boys and men
J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.
Frequency domain analysis of ground reaction force in preadolescents with and without Down syndrome
Res. Dev. Disabil.
Effect of added mass on human unipedal hopping
Percept. Mot. skills
Cited by (18)
Dynamic gait stability in children with and without Down syndrome during overground walking
2024, Clinical BiomechanicsHopping skill in individuals with Down syndrome: A qualitative and quantitative assessment
2021, Human Movement ScienceCoordination dynamics of hopping on a mini-trampoline in adults and children
2021, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Additionally, children have different organismic constraints, such as reduced body mass, leg length, and muscle strength. Although children aged 5–11 years demonstrated the capacity to modulate whole-body vertical stiffness during hopping across different frequencies [11], it is unknown if children would adopt adult-like motor behavior under varied surface constraints. Coordination is the process of organizing separate component parts (i.e., limb motions or muscle activations) for an appropriate relationship with one another [12].
Acute effect of whole-body vibration on acceleration transmission and jumping performance in children
2021, Clinical BiomechanicsVertical stiffness and balance control of two-legged hopping in-place in children with and without Down syndrome
2018, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :However, given few studies conducted with children with DS in this regard, the assessment of the preferred hopping frequency between children with and without DS can provide insights to their differences in neuromuscular functioning. Both young adults and TD children aged 7–11 years old have the capacity to modulate hopping frequency when presented an auditory metronome cue [9,13,15]. Specifically, to increase hopping frequency they increase whole-body vertical stiffness by reducing vertical COM displacement, stance time, and horizontal COM movement [9,13].
Comparison of whole-body vertical stiffness and leg stiffness during single-leg hopping in place in children and adults
2017, Journal of BiomechanicsCitation Excerpt :The average range of the COM movement at a preferred hopping frequency was found to be small, 1.19 cm for adults and 1.32 cm for children, compared to that in the vertical direction, 12.15 cm for adults and 7.11 cm for children. Further, an average of 2–4 cm displacement of foot landing positions between two consecutive hops in children and adults indicates a necessity to maintain the horizontal COM movement during continuous hopping (Auyang and Chang, 2013; Beerse and Wu, 2016). This suggests that if hopping were not strictly held in the vertical direction, then whole-body vertical stiffness and leg stiffness would be different.