Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
Legs of sprawled-posture, quadrupedal trotting geckos posture quadrupeds. The pattern of leg ground reaction
(Hemidactylus garnotii) each functioned differently during forces observed may provide passive, dynamic stability
constant average-speed locomotion. The center of mass while minimizing joint moments, yet allow high
decelerated in the first half of a step and accelerated in the maneuverability. Integrating limb dynamics with whole
second half, as if geckos were bouncing in foreaft and body dynamics is required to resolve the trade-offs, if any,
side-to-side directions. Forelegs decelerated the center of that result from stable sprawled-posture running with
mass only in the foreaft direction. Hindlegs provided all differential leg function.
the acceleration in the latter half of the step. Lateral
ground reaction forces were always directed toward the
midline and exceeded the magnitude of foreaft forces. Key words: biomechanics, locomotion, dynamics, leg function,
The differential leg function of sprawled-posture geckos mechanical stability, running, quadruped, gecko, Hemidactylus
resembled sprawled-posture hexapods more than upright- garnotii.
A Similar leg function B Differential leg function C Similar leg function D Differential leg function
upright posture sprawled posture sprawled posture sprawled posture (actual)
t3
t2
t1
Fig.1. Horizontal plane GRFs in upright- and sprawled-posture trotters during a step when running at a constant average speed. (A) Upright-
posture quadruped running with similar leg function. Fore- and hindlegs first (t1) both generate decelerating foreaft forces (arrows) followed
by an accelerating force later in the step (t3). No lateral GRFs are present. (B) Sprawled-posture hexapod running with differential leg function.
Fore- and middle legs first (t1) both generate decelerating forces, while the hindleg generates an accelerating force (Full et al., 1991). All legs
develop large lateral forces directed toward the midline. At midstep (t2) forelegs continue to generate decelerating forces and the hindleg an
accelerating force. The middle leg only develops a lateral force. At the end of the step (t3), the foreleg generates a decelerating force. Hind-
and middle legs both generate accelerating forces. (C) Hypothetical sprawled-posture quadruped running with similar leg function resulting
from adding opposing lateral forces to the upright posture pattern in A. Fore- and hindlegs first (t1) both generate decelerating forces followed
by an accelerating force later in the step (t3). Lateral GRFs were added assuming sprawled-posture animals tend to produce them. Horizontal
forces sum to produce a clockwise yaw throughout the step. (D) Sprawled-posture quadruped running with differential leg function. GRFs
approximate those measured in the present study on geckos. The foreleg first (t1) generates the majority of foreaft decelerating force. At midstep
(t2), fore- and hindlegs only generate lateral forces directed toward the midline. Later in the step (t3) hindlegs generate all of the foreaft
accelerating force. The major decelerating force by the foreleg (t1) and accelerating force by the hindleg (t3) are directed to the animals COM,
reducing yaw, and are aligned axially along the leg, reducing joint moments.
forelegs (Lee et al., 1999). When slowing down, forelegs foreaft direction during each step. Alternatively, sprawled-
generate the majority of the deceleration. During constant posture quadrupeds could exhibit differential leg function with
average speed trotting, both fore- and hindlegs of dogs large lateral and opposing leg GRFs, like arthropods. If legs
generate decelerations and accelerations, but the mean leg function differently, then we predict that forelegs will generate
force can be deceleratory for the foreleg and acceleratory for decelerations of the COM, hindlegs will produce accelerations
the hindleg, demonstrating differential leg function in the and all legs will create large, opposing lateral forces during a
sagittal plane (Lee et al., 2004). Simulations suggest that step.
directionally compliant legs result in a foreaft force bias that Sprawled-posture, trotting lizards produce spring-mass
passively reduces pitch (Lee and Meek, 2005). dynamics of the COM typical of other legged runners (Farley
To determine the mechanical implications of posture and leg and Ko, 1997; Ritter, 1996). However, whole body GRF data
number, we measured leg function during trotting in a gecko, are insufficient to make conclusions about single leg function
a sprawled-posture quadruped. We tested the hypothesis that if more than one leg is in contact with the ground
sprawled-posture quadrupeds use fore- and hindlegs similarly simultaneously. The hindleg of lizards has been hypothesized
to decelerate and subsequently accelerate the COM in the to be the primary propulsor (Irschick and Jayne, 1999; Jayne
Statistical analysis 1
We used a nested analysis of variance model (NANOVA)
to account for the effects of measuring individuals more than 0.8
once. We used NANOVA instead of repeated-measures 0.6
Phase
Fore B
occurred in the six trials. Nine trials with more variable
ft
Le
Hind
Foot contact footfall phases showed more than one lateral GRF peak
Toes down per step. To make a general conclusion about the lateral
Fore
GRF pattern, we examined additional data serving as a
t
gh
Hind
Ri
0.02 Body weight in Fig.5C. Peak magnitudes of the summed lateral force
were one-half the peak normal force.
0
0.02 + Velocity and energy changes of the center of mass
+
Velocity in the foreaft direction fluctuated as the
0.52 D
velocity (m s1)
Foreaft
0.49
Fig.4. Gait, lateral bending, force, velocity and energy of the
0.46 COM over one stride (two steps) of a 2.3g (0.023N)
0.43 Hemidactylus garnotii running on the level at 0.50ms1. (A)
Tracing of gecko running where a solid black foot represents a
0.4 foot in contact with the substrate. Minimum lateral trunk
bending occurred at midstep. (B) Footfall patterns indicated a
0.0004 trotting gait where a fore- and hindleg couplet hit the ground
E
0.0003 Foreaft kinetic energy simultaneously followed by the opposite fore- and hindleg
Energy (J)
0.0003
energy (J)
Energy phase
0.02 0.2
0
0
0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.06 B 0.4
0.04 Foreaft 0.6
Force (N)
0.02 0.8
Velocity (m s1)
1
0
Fig.6. Phase shift between peak gravitation potential energy and
0.02 foreaft kinetic energy vs velocity. A phase shift of zero means the
fluctuations are in phase, whereas phase shifts of 0.5 shows that
0.06 fluctuations are in antiphase.
C
0.04 Lateral
specific, lateral mechanical power increased linearly with
0.02 speed (Elat=0.042+2.36v; r2=0.26) and was on average
8514% of Ecm.
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Single leg forces
0.02
Phase Measuring single leg forces at the beginning and end of a
run when only one leg was in contact with the force platform
Fig.5. Whole body peak GRF magnitudes and phases. Values are demonstrated that geckos have differential leg functions. Right
means 1 s.e.m. One phase is equal to one complete stride or two and left, and fore- and hindlegs generated different GRF
steps. (A) Normal force peaked at approximately twice body weight
patterns (Fig.7; Table1).
(broken line). (B) Peak foreaft forces decelerated and then
Normal. Peak normal GRFs were evenly distributed among
accelerated the COM at each step with forces about 40% of the normal
forces. (C) Lateral force accelerated the COM to the right followed fore- and hindlegs during trotting (Table1; Fig.7). Individual
by an acceleration to the left. legs did not generate measurable detachment forces, shown by
the absence of negative normal forces.
Foreaft. Fore- and hindlegs summed to produce the COM
COM decelerated and accelerated (Fig.4D). Foreaft kinetic pattern where a deceleration was followed by an acceleration
energy and gravitational potential energy of the COM in the foreaft direction, but each leg functioned differently.
fluctuated in phase (Figs4E, 6). Total mechanical energy of Forelegs only produced decelerating forces early in the step at
the COM fluctuated as the sum of foreaft kinetic energy and phase 0.200.01 (Table1; Fig.7A,C). Hindlegs produced both
gravitational potential energy (Fig.4F). The mass-specific, decelerating and accelerating forces in the foreaft direction.
mechanical power (Ecm) used to lift and accelerate the COM Accelerating forces of the hindleg occurred late in the step
increased linearly with speed and was not significantly affected (0.690.02) and were twice the magnitude of the decelerating
by individual (ANOVA; Ecm= 0.24+1.89v; r2=0.50). Mass- forces.
Table1. Peak single leg ground reaction force magnitudes and phases during a step
Normal Foreaft Lateral
Leg Phase Force (mN) Phase Force (mN) Phase Force (mN)
Fore- 0.370.04 (10) 27.73.06 (10) 0.200.01 (10) 15.01.50 (10) 0.340.04 (10) 15.72.77 (10)
Hind- 0.460.02 (14) 28.72.42 (14) 0.200.03 (13) 6.971.28 (13) 0.450.03 (13) 21.71.89 (13)
0.690.02 (14) 14.01.40 (14)
Right 0.400.03 (8) 20.02.50 (8)
Left 0.420.04 (16) 16.72.20 (16)
0.05 Fig.7. Single leg peak GRFs of one step measured when
0.05 only one foot was on the force platform. Red lines and bars
0.05 B 0.04
D represent normal forces, whereas blue lines and bars
0.03 Hind 0.03 Hind represent foreaft forces. Values are means s.e.m. (A)
0.01 0.02 Forefoot GRF tracing from a single individual. (B)
0.01 Hindfoot GRF tracing from a single individual. (C) Mean
0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0 peak forefoot GRF magnitudes and phases (N=10). (D)
0.03 0.01 0.5 1 Mean peak hindfoot GRF magnitudes and phases (N=14).
0.05 0.02 Fore- and hindfeet both produce positive normal forces,
Time of one step (s) Phase of one step showing geckos did not exert any detachment force.
Lateral. Whole body lateral forces showed that the geckos 1997; Blickhan and Full, 1993; Farley et al., 1993; McMahon
COM oscillated from side to side each step as it ran forward. and Cheng, 1990; Raibert et al., 1986; Figs4, 5, 8A). Forelegs
Single leg forces revealed that lateral GRFs always pointed only decelerated the COM in the foreaft direction (Fig.7;
toward the midline of the body (Table1). Hindleg lateral forces Table1). Hindlegs provided all the acceleration in the latter
exceeded those measured in the forelegs. The peak magnitude half of the step. Lateral GRFs were always directed toward the
of single leg lateral forces was equal to or greater than the peak midline and exceeded the magnitude of foreaft forces. Thus,
foreaft forces. the differential leg function of sprawled-posture geckos
GRF vector orientation. All peak single leg GRFs were resembled sprawled-posture hexapods more than upright-
directed axially along the leg toward the COM (Table2). In posture quadrupeds (Fig.1A,B,D). The advantages and
Table2, we compare the single leg force vector orientation disadvantages of differential leg function as it relates to whole
with the position of the joints for fore- and hindlegs. The angles body stability, maneuverability and energetics remain to be
of the force vectors represented in Table2 are shown in Fig.8. explained.
There were no differences for left vs right sides.
Sprawled posture increases pitch and roll stability
Pitch
Discussion Differential leg function in upright-posture quadrupeds has
Legs of sprawled-posture, quadrupedal trotting geckos been hypothesized to assist in the control of a bodys pitch (Herr
each functioned differently during constant average speed et al., 2002; Lee et al., 1999). The body axis tends to pitch nose-
locomotion on the level (Fig.1D). Whole body dynamics were down in the sagittal plane when the COM is decelerated and
typical of a spring-loaded, inverted pendulum template nose-up during accelerations. Trotting labradors and
(Alexander, 2003; Blickhan, 1989; Schwind and Koditschek, greyhounds redistribute vertical impulses of their fore- and
Table2. Angles of individual leg ground reaction force and joint position vectors
View (degrees)
Anterior Lateral Dorsal
Shoulder/ Elbow/ Shoulder/ Shoulder/
Leg Force vector hip joint knee joint Force vector hip joint Force vector hip joint
Fore- (N=10) 63.8 16.3 40.212.1 37.310.8 53.99.3 30.911.1 54.613.0 36.510.7
(A) (LF) (DF)
Hind- (N=14) 50.912.6 31.08.7 31.011.3 50.711.3 23.66.5 62.015.8 38.512.1
(A) (LH) (DH)
All 57.315.6 35.611.3 34.211.2 52.310.2 27.39.6 58.314.5 37.511.1
hindlegs to stabilize the pitch moments created by foreaft long bodies and a tail, overturning in the sagittal plane is less
accelerating and decelerating forces (Lee et al., 1999). Both likely than in upright-posture quadrupeds (Walter and Carrier,
fore- and hindlegs generate decelerations followed by 2002). In gecko locomotion, deceleration of the COM by the
accelerations during trotting. However, the mean individual leg foreleg early in the step that resulted in nose-down pitch
forces do not sum to zero. When slowing the body down, the appears to be easily corrected by the hindleg acceleration later
dogs forelegs produce the majority of the decelerating force. in the step (Fig.8A).
When speeding up, hindlegs generate the bulk of the
accelerating force. Even during constant average-speed trotting, Roll
the mean leg force is deceleratory for the foreleg and Stability in roll or lateral stability has received less
acceleratory for the hindleg (Lee et al., 2004). Similar forehind attention than pitch, except in human posture and locomotion
patterns have been reported during trotting in sheep (Jayes and focusing on aging and disease (Zettel et al., 2002). Long
Alexander, 1978). Lee et al. (2004) successfully manipulated bodies and a tail provide little resistance to roll. If a
antero-posterior mass distribution in dogs by adding loads to pedestrians COM is low, then at least two options are
the limb girdles. Added load to the pelvic girdle resulted in a available for rapid running. Short legs must operate at high
greater foreleg braking bias and a lesser hindleg propulsive bias, frequencies or legs can produce longer stride lengths by
in addition to an increase in the relative contact time of the projecting laterally. Laterally projecting legs decrease roll
experimentally loaded limb. Lee et al. (2004) predicted that overturning moments. In cockroaches, peak rolling moments
lizards, which support more weight on their hindlegs, would during unperturbed running can spin the body by more than
show smaller hindleg propulsion biases and greater hindleg 360 in the time it takes to complete one step (Ting et al.,
duty factors relative to the forelegs. In fact, this appears to be 1994). These moments cause the cockroachs body to roll
exactly what we observe in the present study on geckos. toward the middle leg of the tripod at the end of each step.
Sprawled-posture locomotors can actively reduce pitching. Moments generating roll to one side in one step are balanced
Sideways-moving rock crabs increase their stance length in by the opposite moment in the next step, maintaining
water relative to air, thereby increasing stability against dynamic stability over each stride.
overturning by hydrodynamic forces (Martinez et al., 1998). Trotting quadrupeds do not have the advantage of a
As velocity increases, trotting cockroaches reduce the hexapods statically stable tripod, nor can they roll to a side
destabilizing effects of increased momentum by moving their where two legs have an opportunity for a foothold (Ting et al.,
COM posteriorly within the triangle of support (Ting et al., 1994). Still, we found that on ideal terrain, the laterally
1994). This shift makes cockroaches less likely to tumble by projecting legs in geckos dynamically balanced roll moments
being carried forwards and out of the base of support by over the stride. Normal fore- and hindleg GRFs were equal to
inertial forces, should they stop abruptly. Although active the animals body weight (Fig.7; Table1). Should the gecko
adjustments have been observed, sprawled-posture animals mis-step (i.e. significantly reduce foot GRF), substantial
appear to be far more passively stable than upright posture normal forces could produce significant roll moments if
animals with respect to overturning moments in vertical unbalanced. However, as in sprawled-posture cockroaches,
planes. The low height of the COM of sprawled-posture geckos also generated large lateral forces directed toward their
runners increases stabilizing moments, while their long midline as they bounced from side to side (Table1). If legs
and wide support base decreases overturning moments function as springs rather than struts (Fig.8B), unrecoverable
(Alexander, 1971; Martinez et al., 1998; Ting et al., 1994). roll from a missed foot contact may be delayed or avoided. If
Because geckos such as H. garnotii have a very low COM, geckos are rolling toward the side maintaining foot contact,