Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25889201›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2015

The influence of push-off timing in a robotic ankle-foot prosthesis on the energetics and mechanics of walking.

Philippe Malcolm, Roberto E Quesada, Joshua M Caputo, Steven H Collins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. User preference in the personalized control of an ankle prosthesis: a case study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Improving Sit/Stand Loading Symmetry and Timing Through Unified Variable Impedance Control of a Powered Knee-Ankle Prosthesis.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Philippe MalcolmDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. philippe.malcolm@ugent.be.
Roberto E QuesadaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. roberto.quesada@gmail.com.
Joshua M CaputoDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. joshua.m.caputo@gmail.com.
Steven H CollinsDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. stevecollins@cmu.edu.
Carnegie Mellon University · USGhent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic ankle-foot prostheses that provide net positive push-off work can reduce the metabolic rate of walking for individuals with amputation, but benefits might be sensitive to push-off timing. Simple walking models suggest that preemptive push-off reduces center-of-mass work, possibly reducing metabolic rate. Studies with bilateral exoskeletons have found that push-off beginning before leading leg contact minimizes metabolic rate, but timing was not varied independently from push-off work, and the effects of push-off timing on biomechanics were not measured. Most lower-limb amputations are unilateral, which could also affect optimal timing. The goal of this study was to vary the timing of positive prosthesis push-off work in isolation and measure the effects on energetics, mechanics and muscle activity.

methodsWe tested 10 able-bodied participants walking on a treadmill at 1.25 m · s(-1). Participants wore a tethered ankle-foot prosthesis emulator on one leg using a rigid boot adapter. We programmed the prosthesis to apply torque bursts that began between 46% and 56% of stride in different conditions. We iteratively adjusted torque magnitude to maintain constant net positive push-off work.

resultsWhen push-off began at or after leading leg contact, metabolic rate was about 10% lower than in a condition with Spring-like prosthesis behavior. When push-off began before leading leg contact, metabolic rate was not different from the Spring-like condition. Early push-off led to increased prosthesis-side vastus medialis and biceps femoris activity during push-off and increased variability in step length and prosthesis loading during push-off. Prosthesis push-off timing had no influence on intact-side leg center-of-mass collision work.

conclusionsProsthesis push-off timing, isolated from push-off work, strongly affected metabolic rate, with optimal timing at or after intact-side heel contact. Increased thigh muscle activation and increased human variability appear to have caused the lack of reduction in metabolic rate when push-off was provided too early. Optimal timing with respect to opposite heel contact was not different from normal walking, but the trends in metabolic rate and center-of-mass mechanics were not consistent with simple model predictions. Optimal push-off timing should also be characterized for individuals with amputation, since meaningful benefits might be realized with improved timing.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsRoboticsAlgorithmsAnkleBiomechanical PhenomenaBionicsElectromyographyEnergy MetabolismFemaleFootGaitHumansMaleMechanical PhenomenaMuscle, SkeletalProsthesis Design

Identifiers

PMID25889201
PMCPMC4404655
OpenAlexW2163531103

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.