Table 1.
Participant characteristics (N = 38).
Fig 1.
Experimental set-up for GI with 34 reflective markers and 6 force plates.
Fig 2.
Illustration of the MoS calculation at foot off.
The black circle indicates the location of Xcom while the white circles indicate key markers of the BoS boundary in the mediolateral direction. %MoS was calculated as the ratio of the distance (%) from the BoS boundary to Xcom, with the distance from the 5th MP to the medial malleolus being 100%. Abbreviations: 5th MP, fifth metatarsal-phalangeal joint; ω0, the eigenfrequency of the inverted pendulum model; CoM, center of mass; g, gravity; l, length of the leg; MoS, margin of stability; Vcom, velocity of the CoM; Xcom, extrapolated center of mass.
Fig 3.
Differences in the average %MoS between tasks performed using paretic and non-paretic leading limbs (n = 38).
The solid line indicates the task performed using the non-paretic leading limb. The dotted line indicates the task performed using the paretic leading limb. Dashed lines around the dotted line for the paretic leg and fine solid lines for the non-paretic leg indicate the standard deviation. The trajectories were obtained for the averaged trial of each subject with GI begun as quickly as possible from a static standing position. The horizontal axis is time (%), which is normalized to 100% each from onset to first foot off and from first foot off to first initial contact. The vertical axis is the distance (%) from the lateral boundary of the BoS to Xcom. The illustration of the foot is an image of the mediolateral position of the first stance foot. Mediolateral BoS (5th MP to medial malleolus) is normalized to 100, with negative values indicating instability in the lateral direction. Abbreviations: 5th MP, fifth metatarsal-phalangeal joint; BoS, base of support; CoM, center of mass; FO, foot off; IC, initial contact; MoS, margin of stability; Xcom, extrapolated center of mass.
Table 2.
Differences between use of the paretic and non-paretic leg as the leading limb (N = 38).