Stumbling reactions in man: significance of proprioceptive and pre‐programmed mechanisms.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
1. Electromyogram (e.m.g.) responses of the leg musculature and the corresponding joint movements were studied following a perturbation of the limb during walking on a treadmill, produced by a randomly timed treadmill acceleration impulse, either predictable, or unpredictable in its amplitude and rate of acceleration. 2. The rate of rise of ipsilateral gastrocnemius e.m.g. response following a perturbation was dependent on the rate of treadmill acceleration. For a given acceleration rate the amplitude of the e.m.g. response and the timing of its peak was dependent on the amplitude of the impulse and the rate of rise of the gastrocnemius response was the same for impulses of both small and large amplitude. The onset latency was shorter (65 ms) for high accelerations and longer (85 ms) for lower ones. 3. The amplitude of the ipsilateral biceps femoris response was much smaller than the gastrocnemius response but was larger following unpredictable than predictable impulses. 4. The initial gastrocnemius response was followed by a tibialis anterior activation associated with a gastrocnemius depression and sometimes with a second, weak gastrocnemius activation. The gastrocnemius depression ended within a fixed time range relative to the onset of the response. The tibialis anterior activation was most pronounced when unpredictable impulses with high acceleration but a small amplitude were induced. 5. It is concluded that generation of the first gastrocnemius response is obviously under continuous control by muscle proprioceptive information and can be best described in terms of a stretch reflex response. It is suggested that, on the evidence of the diphasic or triphasic e.m.g. pattern, a close interaction occurs between a central programme and muscle proprioceptive input in order to generate the appropriate e.m.g. pattern. 6. On the basis of earlier work (Berger, Dietz and Quintern, 1984a) and on the present results it is suggested that the e.m.g. responses may be mediated mainly by muscle proprioceptive input from group II afferents. This input is modulated and processed by spinal interneuronal circuits, closely connected with spinal locomotor centers. The mode of processing depends on various factors, such as the predictability of the nature of the impulse.