Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Mean (lines) and standard deviation (shaded region) medial, lateral, and total tibiofemoral contact forces for the unloaded, 15 kg, and 30 kg load conditions normalized to a gait cycle.

Data for all loads were aggregated for walking speed. Arrows indicate significant increases in peak contact force with increasing load.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Mean ± 95% confidence intervals of peak tibiofemoral contact forces normalized to body weight (BW) and compared across the different armor types during fast walking while carrying 30 kg of load.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean ± SD contribution of muscles to medial (top row) and lateral (bottom row) compartment tibiofemoral contact force for the no load (solid light blue line), 15 kg (dashed red line), and 30 kg (dotted green line) conditions during moderate (first column) and fast (second column) walking.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Main effects of armor type for medial, lateral, and total tibiofemoral contact forces normalized to body weight (BW).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Mean ± SD percent contribution (%) of all knee-spanning muscles, external load, and quadriceps muscles to medial and lateral compartment tibiofemoral contact force in the stance phase of gait.

All data values have been aggregated for the different load and speed conditions.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 4.

Plots of knee flexion angle versus medial (top) and lateral (bottom) compartment tibiofemoral contact forces across the different load conditions. Both plots have been annotated with time-series plots of knee flexion angle and corresponding tibiofemoral contact forces with peak contact force timing circled red.

More »

Fig 4 Expand