Journal Pre-proofs

Short communication

Biomechanical Mechanism of Peak Braking Force Modulation during In-

creased Walking Speed in Healthy Young Adults

Donald Prible, Nicholas P. Fey, Hao Yuan Hsiao

PII: S0021-9290(22)00352-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111311
Reference: BM 111311

To appear in: Journal of Biomechanics

Received Date: 1 April 2022

Revised Date: 16 August 2022
Accepted Date: 13 September 2022

Please cite this article as: D. Prible, N.P. Fey, H. Yuan Hsiao, Biomechanical Mechanism of Peak Braking Force
Modulation during Increased Walking Speed in Healthy Young Adults, Journal of Biomechanics (2022), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111311

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Biomechanical Mechanism of Peak Braking Force Modulation

during Increased Walking Speed in Healthy Young Adults

Donald Prible, PT, DPT a, Nicholas P. Fey, PhD b, Hao Yuan Hsiao, PhD c

a Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2109 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin,

TX 78712

b Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

c Assistant Professor, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 2109 San

Jacinto Blvd, Austin, TX 78712, hhsiao@austin.utexas.edu, 512-232-1782 (corresponding author)

Word Count: 1,980

The authors confirm that all were fully involved in the study and preparation of the manuscript and that

the material within has not been and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere.

Keywords: Weight Transfer; Braking Force; Gait; APGRF

Abstract
Walking speed is an important indicator of health and function across a variety of populations. Faster
walking requires both larger propulsive and braking forces, though of the two, propulsive force generation
has been far more extensively investigated. This study seeks to develop and validate a quasi-static
biomechanical model of braking force in healthy individuals across self-selected and fast walking speeds.

2
Additionally, the model was used to quantify the relative contribution of knee extension torque versus
leading limb angle (LLA) to changes in braking force across walking speeds. Kinetic and kinematic data
from 44 young healthy participants walking overground at 2 different speeds were analyzed. The model
prediction correlated strongly with actual braking force production at the self-selected speed (r = 0.9; p <
0.01), the fast speed (r = 0.97; p < 0.01) and the change between speeds (r = 0.95, p <0.01). On average,
increases in knee extension torque and the LLA contributed 132% and 12%, respectively, to increases in
peak braking force (PBF). Increases in the external lever arm length operated to reduce predicted braking
force by 56%. The results highlight the importance of rapid eccentric contraction of the knee extensors
during braking force modulation in healthy gait.

Introduction
Walking speed has such a profound relevance to health that it has been dubbed “the sixth vital sign”
(Middleton, Fritz, and Lusardi 2015). Faster walking demands both larger propulsive and braking forces
(Nilsson and Thorstensson 1989; Donelan, Kram, and Kuo 2002; Peterson, Kautz, and Neptune 2011).
Whereas propulsive force generation has been well-studied (Neptune, Kautz, and Zajac 2001; Peterson
et al. 2010) and the target of intervention (Awad et al. 2014; Ishihara et al. 2015; Browne and Franz
2018), braking force has received considerably less attention. However, various clinical populations
exhibit abnormal braking forces including those with chronic hemiparesis (Balasubramanian et al. 2007),
lower-limb amputations (Silverman et al. 2008), and Alzheimer’s disease (Cheng et al. 2020). Excessive
braking force can limit speed increases while insufficient braking force may risk a forward fall.
Understanding how healthy humans modulate braking force across different walking speeds may
highlight potential challenges faced by able-bodied as well as clinical populations when attempting to
walk faster.

Previous studies have identified two key components associated with braking force generation: step
length (Balasubramanian et al. 2007; Martin and Marsh 1992; Wakida et al. 2020) and vastii activity
(modulating the knee extension moment) (Liu et al. 2006; Turns, Neptune, and Kautz 2007; Ellis,
Sumner, and Kram 2014). For any given gait pattern, a more anterior foot placement may orient the
ground reaction force (GRF) more posteriorly, increasing the braking force; a larger knee extension
torque may reduce knee flexion motion that attenuates the GRF. It remains unknown how individuals
modulate these components to achieve the larger Peak Braking Forces (PBFs) associated with faster
walking.

Quasi-static biomechanical models can describe knee joint torques during stance phase while walking
(Wells 1981; Wu and Ladin 1996) and may provide a method for describing the mechanism of PBF
modulation. An advantage of this approach is that it results in a “snapshot” of key parameters that can
be interpreted more easily than comprehensive dynamic modelling. When easily observable variables
such as the limb angle are used to approximate the GRF orientation, interpretability for clinicians can be
further improved, potentially revealing compensatory strategies in clinical populations as has been done
for propulsive force generation in individuals with hemiparesis (Hsiao et al. 2015a; Hsiao et al. 2015b).

Accordingly, the primary purposes of this study were to 1) develop a biomechanical-based model for
predicting PBF at self-selected (SSWS) and fast (FWS) walking speeds in healthy young adults using the
knee extension moment and leading limb foot placement as input parameters, and 2) quantify the
relative contribution from each parameter to increased PBF. We hypothesize that 1) PBF generation can
be accurately predicted by a quasi-static biomechanical model of knee extension and leading limb foot
placement, and that 2) PBF increases will be primarily driven by increases in knee extension moment.

3
Methods
Data Set
Data in this study originated from a publicly available data set provided by Schreiber and Moissenet
(2019). The data collection was approved by the institutional medical ethic committee of the
Rehazenter. All individuals provided informed consent prior to participation. Fifty healthy participants
(24 women and 26 men, 37.0 ± 13.6 years) were fitted with 52 retroreflective markers and walked 10 m
overground within a 10-camera motion capture system sampling at 100 Hz (OQUS4, Qualisys, Sweden).
Two floor-embedded force plates (OR6-5, AMTI, USA) sampled GRF at 1500 Hz. The current study
examined trials at SSWS and FWS. Five trials within each condition were recorded for each participant.
Five participants were excluded due to marker issues. One subject exhibited a knee flexion moment at
peak braking due to knee hyperextension and was also excluded. The remaining 44 participants are
summarized in Table 1.

Data Processing
Butterworth low-pass filters were used to smooth marker trajectories (fourth-order at 6 Hz) and force-
plate data (second-order at 15 Hz). Data were processed within Visual 3D (C-Motion, Germantown, MD,
USA) to obtain PBF for each limb, the internal knee moment at PBF based on inverse dynamics, and the
lower extremity marker positions at PBF. The knee joint center was defined by the midpoint of the
medial and lateral femoral epicondyle markers. Moments and forces were normalized to body weight
(BW). All values were averaged across both sides and all trials for each condition.

Model Development
The quasi-static approach described by Wells (1981) estimates the knee joint moment (𝑀) as the
product of the GRF (𝐹) and the perpendicular distance from the knee joint center to the GRF, the GRF
“lever arm”, (𝑑) (Figure 1):

𝑀 = 𝐹𝑑 (1)

The total force (𝐹) can be expressed as the product of the braking force (𝐹𝐵), and the angle (θ) between
the GRF and vertical:

𝐹𝐵
𝐹 = sin (𝜃) (2)

Substituting (2) into (1) and solving for 𝐹𝐵 yields:

1
𝐹𝐵 = (𝑑)𝑀 sin (𝜃) (3)

Because the GRF typically passes near the hip joint at peak braking (see Figure 1), and to aid in clinical
relevance with foot placement, the leading limb angle (LLA) was used as a proxy of the GRF vector. LLA
was determined as the angle between vertical and the vector joining the greater trochanter and the
center of pressure (COP). The final model for predicting PBF can thus be expressed as:

4
 𝐹𝐵 = (𝑑1)𝑀sin (𝐿𝐿𝐴) (4)

Statistical Analyses
Model fit was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and paired t-tests between actual and
predicted values, as well as normalized root-mean square error (NRMSE).

The model can be rearranged to identify how changes in each parameter manifest as changes in
predicted PBF. The change in PBF from SSWS to FWS can be calculated as:

Δ𝐹𝐵 = 𝐹𝐵𝐹𝑊𝑆 ― 𝐹𝐵𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆 (5)

As previously done (Hsiao et al. 2015b), by substituting equation (4) into equation (5) and rearranging
terms, the relative contribution of each model component to changes in PBF can then be derived as:
1
ΔFB = 𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑠 + Δ𝑑[𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆Δ
sin (𝐿𝐿𝐴) + ΔMsin (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆) + ΔMΔsin (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆) ― ( )𝑀
Δd
𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑠 𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆sin (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑠)] (6)

The above equation represents the relative contributions toward changes in PBF from the change in the
LLA, via changes in the sine of the LLA, (𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆Δsin (𝐿𝐿𝐴)), the change in the knee extensor moment (Δ
𝑀sin (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆)), the interaction of those two changes (ΔMΔsin (𝐿𝐿𝐴)) and the change in the lever arm
(― ( )M
Δd
𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑠 SSWSsin (𝐿𝐿𝐴𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑆))
1
. The factor 𝑑𝑠𝑠𝑤𝑠 + Δ𝑑 can be ignored for this analysis because it scales all
components equally.

The relationships between components were assessed via Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Mean
contribution for each parameter was assessed via t-test to determine if it was significantly different
from zero. Statistical significance was set at an alpha level of 0.05. All statistical analysis was performed
within R.

Results
Model Validation
Predicted PBF correlated strongly with actual PBF in both the SSWS (r = 0.9, p < .01) and FWS (r = 0.97, p
< .01) conditions (Figure 2A). There was no significant difference between the mean predicted and
actual PBFs at either speed (Actual SSWS: 14.8% BW, Predicted SSWS: 13.9% BW; Actual FWS: 22.8%
BW, Predicted FWS:21.8% BW) (Figure 2C).

Similarly, the predicted change in PBF correlated strongly with the actual change in PBF (r = 0.95, p <
.001) (Figure 2B). There was no significant difference between the mean predicted and actual changes in
PBF (Actual: 8.0%BW; Predicted:7.9%BW) (Figure 2D).

The NRMSE of the model prediction was 13.11% at the SSWS and 6.72% at the FWS. The NRMSE of the
predicted change in PBF was 14.64% (Table 2).

5
Change in Model Parameters as a Function of Walking Speed
From self-selected to fast walking speeds, PBF increased by 55.1% (p < 0.01, Table 2). The LLA increased
11.7% (p<0.01), the lever arm, d, increased 37.1% (p<0.01), and the knee extension moment at peak
braking increased 97.8% (p<0.01).

Relative Contribution to Changes in PBF

Contribution from each of the four components to changes in PBF was, on average, different from zero
(p < 0.01), though not all functioned to increase PBF. Increases in the knee extension moment would
individually increase PBF by 132% (Figure 3). Increases in the LLA and the LLA-Knee Extension Moment
interaction each increased PBF by 12%. Increases in the lever arm would have on its own, decreased PBF
by 56% across speed conditions. Knee moment contributions were strongly negatively correlated with
lever arm contributions (r = 0.83, p < 0.01) (Figure 3B). The LLA contribution weakly negatively
correlated with the knee moment contribution (r = -0.34, p = 0.02), though no other pairs of
contributors exhibited a correlation.

Discussion
In this study, we developed a model for predicting Peak Braking Force (PBF) during walking in healthy
adults. Additionally, we quantified the relative contribution of each model component to PBF increases
when walking faster. The results showed that PBF at both speeds, and the change across speeds, were
well-predicted by a quasi-static model based on the knee extension moment, the Leading Limb Angle
(LLA), and the lever arm. Increases in the knee extension moment were responsible for a larger
proportion of the PBF increases than increases in the LLA. In contrast to the propulsive quasi-static
model (Hsiao et al. 2015), the lever arm length emerged as a critical component of PBF modulation.

Our model does not appear to systematically overpredict or underpredict PBF (Figure 2). The model
explains 81% and 94% of the variances in PBF at SSWS and FWS (Figure 2A), respectively, supporting the
analysis of relative contribution. Based on our model, PBF could be increased by increasing the knee
extension moment, increasing the LLA (i.e. placing the foot more anteriorly), or shortening the lever arm
(i.e. reducing the knee flexion angle or anteriorly shifting the COP). Our model aligns well with previous
observations that the vastii play a central role in braking force generation (Liu et al. 2006; Ellis, Sumner,
and Kram 2014), and that step length is associated with braking force in healthy subjects (Martin and
Marsh 1992) and those with hemiparesis (Balasubramanian et al. 2007; Wakida et al. 2020).

These results show that knee extension moment increases are the primary contributor to increases in
PBF during walking. The strong negative correlation between the contributions from knee extension
moment and the lever arm (Figure 3B) suggests that more knee extension moment is needed to
counteract the mechanical disadvantage resulted from a longer external lever arm. Modulating the knee
extension moment may challenge certain populations. Among those with hemiparesis, knee extensor
spasticity has been implicated in altered mechanics during push-off (Campanini, Merlo, and Damiano
2013) and swing phase (Akbas et al. 2020), and may also undermine modulation of eccentric knee
extension moment exhibited in the current study. Among the elderly, age-related declines in knee
extensor strength (Danneskiold-Samsøe et al. 2009; Harbo, Brincks, and Andersen 2012) may contribute
to knee extensor demands during gait approaching peak isometric capacity (Samuel, Rowe, and Nicol
2013), and could be associated with the larger hip moments observed during braking in older adults

6
compared to younger adults (DeVita and Hortobagyi 2000). Future studies that apply this model to
clinical populations could provide insight into potential speed limiting factors, guiding future
rehabilitation strategies.

There are limitations to the current study. In this healthy population, the LLA served as an acceptable
proxy for the GRF vector; this may not be the case in clinical populations. Additionally, quasi-static
models make simplifying assumptions that ignore body segment inertia, introducing a source of error.
Given the strong agreement between actual and predicted forces this simplifying assumption appears to
have had limited impact at PBF.

Conclusion
This study validated a quasi-static model of PBF in young healthy participants based on the knee
extension moment, the Leading Limb Angle (LLA), and the lever arm. Increases in PBF with faster walking
were primarily due to increases in the knee extension moment with smaller contributions from
increases in the LLA. A longer lever arm contributes toward a reduction of PBF that was overcome by
greater knee extensor torque generation. The model highlights the importance of rapid eccentric
contraction of the knee extensors as walking speed increases. This may present a specific challenge to
clinical populations, contributing to gait speed limitations; future investigations into braking force
modulation in these populations may suggest rehabilitation strategies to improve walking ability.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Funding Sources
None.

7
Publication bibliography
Akbas, Tunc, Kyoungsoon Kim, Kathleen Doyle, Kathleen Manella, Robert Lee, Patrick Spicer, Maria
Knikou, and James Sulzer. 2020. “Rectus Femoris Hyperreflexia Contributes to Stiff-Knee Gait
after Stroke.” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 17 (1): 117.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00724-z.
Awad, Louis N., Darcy S. Reisman, Trisha M. Kesar, and Stuart A. Binder-Macleod. 2014. “Targeting
Paretic Propulsion to Improve Poststroke Walking Function: A Preliminary Study.” Archives of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 95 (5): 840–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.12.012.
Balasubramanian, Chitralakshmi K., Mark G. Bowden, Richard R. Neptune, and Steven A. Kautz. 2007.
“Relationship between Step Length Asymmetry and Walking Performance in Subjects with
Chronic Hemiparesis.” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 88 (1): 43–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.004.
Browne, Michael G., and Jason R. Franz. 2018. “More Push from Your Push-off: Joint-Level Modifications
to Modulate Propulsive Forces in Old Age.” Edited by Alena Grabowski. PLOS ONE 13 (8):
e0201407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201407.
Campanini, I., A. Merlo, and B. Damiano. 2013. “A Method to Differentiate the Causes of Stiff-Knee Gait
in Stroke Patients.” Gait & Posture 38 (2): 165–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.05.003.
Cheng, Qianqian, Mengxuan Wu, Yuemin Wu, Yaoyao Hu, William Robert Kwapong, Xiang Shi, Yinying
Fan, Xin Yu, Jincai He, and Zhen Wang. 2020. “Weaker Braking Force, A New Marker of Worse
Gait Stability in Alzheimer Disease.” Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 12 (September): 554168.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.554168.
Danneskiold-Samsøe, B., E. M. Bartels, P. M. Bülow, H. Lund, A. Stockmarr, C. C. Holm, I. Wätjen, M.
Appleyard, and H. Bliddal. 2009. “Isokinetic and Isometric Muscle Strength in a Healthy
Population with Special Reference to Age and Gender.” Acta Physiologica (Oxford, England) 197
Suppl 673 (October): 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.2009.02022.x.
DeVita, Paul, and Tibor Hortobagyi. 2000. “Age Causes a Redistribution of Joint Torques and Powers
during Gait.” Journal of Applied Physiology 88 (5): 1804–11.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.88.5.1804.
Donelan, J. Maxwell, Rodger Kram, and Arthur D. Kuo. 2002. “Simultaneous Positive and Negative
External Mechanical Work in Human Walking.” Journal of Biomechanics 35 (1): 117–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00169-5.
Ellis, Richard G., Bonnie J. Sumner, and Rodger Kram. 2014. “Muscle Contributions to Propulsion and
Braking during Walking and Running: Insight from External Force Perturbations.” Gait & Posture
40 (4): 594–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.07.002.
Harbo, Thomas, John Brincks, and Henning Andersen. 2012. “Maximal Isokinetic and Isometric Muscle
Strength of Major Muscle Groups Related to Age, Body Mass, Height, and Sex in 178 Healthy
Subjects.” European Journal of Applied Physiology 112 (1): 267–75.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-1975-3.
Hsiao, Hao Yuan, Brian A. Knarr, Jill S. Higginson, and Stuart A. Binder-Macleod. 2015. “Mechanisms to
Increase Propulsive Force for Individuals Poststroke.” Journal of Neuroengineering and
Rehabilitation 12 (1): 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0030-8.
Hsiao, HaoYuan, Brian A. Knarr, Jill S. Higginson, and Stuart A. Binder-Macleod. 2015. “The Relative
Contribution of Ankle Moment and Trailing Limb Angle to Propulsive Force during Gait.” Human
Movement Science 39 (February): 212–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.11.008.

8
Ishihara, Misako, Yumi Higuchi, Ryo Yonetsu, and Hiromi Kitajima. 2015. “Plantarflexor Training Affects
Propulsive Force Generation during Gait in Children with Spastic Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy: A
Pilot Study.” Journal of Physical Therapy Science 27 (5): 1283–86.
https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.1283.
Liu, May Q., Frank C. Anderson, Marcus G. Pandy, and Scott L. Delp. 2006. “Muscles That Support the
Body Also Modulate Forward Progression during Walking.” Journal of Biomechanics 39 (14):
2623–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.08.017.
Martin, Philip E., and Anthony P. Marsh. 1992. “Step Length and Frequency Effects on Ground Reaction
Forces during Walking.” Journal of Biomechanics 25 (10): 1237–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(92)90081-B.
Middleton, Addie, Stacy L. Fritz, and Michelle Lusardi. 2015. “Walking Speed: The Functional Vital Sign.”
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 23 (2): 314–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2013-0236.
Neptune, R.R., S.A. Kautz, and F.E. Zajac. 2001. “Contributions of the Individual Ankle Plantar Flexors to
Support, Forward Progression and Swing Initiation during Walking.” Journal of Biomechanics 34
(11): 1387–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00105-1.
Nilsson, J., and A. Thorstensson. 1989. “Ground Reaction Forces at Different Speeds of Human Walking
and Running.” Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 136 (2): 217–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
1716.1989.tb08655.x.
Peterson, Carrie L., Jing Cheng, Steven A. Kautz, and Richard R. Neptune. 2010. “Leg Extension Is an
Important Predictor of Paretic Leg Propulsion in Hemiparetic Walking.” Gait & Posture 32 (4):
451–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.06.014.
Peterson, Carrie L., Steven A. Kautz, and Richard R. Neptune. 2011. “Braking and Propulsive Impulses
Increase with Speed during Accelerated and Decelerated Walking.” Gait & Posture 33 (4): 562–
67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.01.010.
Samuel, Dinesh, Philip Rowe, and Alexander Nicol. 2013. “The Functional Demand (FD) Placed on the
Knee and Hip of Older Adults during Everyday Activities.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
57 (2): 192–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2013.03.003.
Schreiber, Céline, and Florent Moissenet. 2019. “A Multimodal Dataset of Human Gait at Different
Walking Speeds Established on Injury-Free Adult Participants.” Scientific Data 6 (1): 111.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0124-4.
Silverman, Anne K., Nicholas P. Fey, Albert Portillo, Judith G. Walden, Gordon Bosker, and Richard R.
Neptune. 2008. “Compensatory Mechanisms in Below-Knee Amputee Gait in Response to
Increasing Steady-State Walking Speeds.” Gait & Posture 28 (4): 602–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.04.005.
Turns, Lindsey J., Richard R. Neptune, and Steven A. Kautz. 2007. “Relationships between Muscle Activity
and Anteroposterior Ground Reaction Forces in Hemiparetic Walking.” Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation 88 (9): 1127–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.05.027.
Wakida, Masanori, Koji Ohata, Yu Hashiguchi, Kimihiko Mori, Kimitaka Hase, and Shigehito Yamada.
2020. “Immediate Effect on Ground Reaction Forces Induced by Step Training Based on Discrete
Skill during Gait in Poststroke Individuals: A Pilot Study.” Rehabilitation Research and Practice
2020 (May): 2397374. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2397374.
Wells, Richard P. 1981. “The Projection of the Ground Reaction Force as a Predictor of Internal Joint
Moments,” 5.
Wu, G., and Z. Ladin. 1996. “Limitations of Quasi-Static Estimation of Human Joint Loading during
Locomotion.” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 34 (6): 472–76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02523853.

9
Figure 1: Peak Braking Force Model Components

The three components of the quasistatic model are illustrated at the moment of peak braking for a
typical participant. The Leading Limb Angle (LLA) is defined by the line from the greater trochanter to
the center of pressure (COP), and is used as a proxy of the ground reaction force (GRF) vector viewed in
the sagittal plane. The external lever arm “d” is the perpendicular distance from the LLA to the knee
joint center, which is defined by the medial and lateral femoral epicondyle markers. The knee extension
moment, M, is obtained via an inverse dynamic model. Utilizing these parameters, the model estimates
the posterior component of the GRF (𝐹𝐵).

10
Figure 2: Predicted vs Actual Values of Peak Braking Force and Changes in Peak Braking Force

The isoline in (A) and (B) show where the predicted and actual values would be exactly equal.
Observations to the left of the isoline indicate that the model underpredicts the peak braking force, and
observations to the right of the line indicate that the model overpredicts. (C) Paired t-test comparison of
actual and predicted peak braking force at SSWS and FWS. (D) Paired t-test comparison of actual vs
predicted change in peak braking force with speed increase. SSWS: self-selected walking speed. FWS:
fast walking speed.

11
12
Figure 3: Relative Contribution of Key Components to Peak Braking Force Increases with Speed
Increase

A) When walking faster, the increase in the knee extension moment was the primary driver of increases
in peak braking force, followed by increases in the Leading Limb Angle (LLA) and the interaction of the
LLA and the knee extension moment. Increases in the lever arm length operated to reduce the predicted
change in peak braking force. B) Increases in knee extension moment were strongly negatively
correlated with increases in the lever arm length.

13
Table 1: Participant characteristics

Characteristics N = 441

Gender

M 23 (52%)

W 21 (48%)

Age (years) 36.7 (13.3)

Height (m) 1.73 (0.09)

Mass (kg) 72 (12)

BMI 23.69 (2.53)

Self-Selected Speed (m/s) 1.16 (0.15)

Fast Speed (m/s) 1.62 (0.22)

1n (%); Mean (SD)

14
Table 2: Model parameters at each speed and their relative contribution to change in peak
braking force. SSWS: self-selected walking speed. FWS: fast walking speed.

SSWS FWS p- Percent Relative

N = 441 N = 441 value2 Change 3 Contribution
to Δ Peak
Braking 4

Leading Limb Angle (deg) 9.90 (1.38 11.08 (1.90 <0.01 11.7% 12%
9 3) 4 1)

lever arm (d) (cm) 5.60 (1.75 7.691 (2.10 <0.01 37.1% -56%
4 1) 9)

Knee Extension Moment 0.04 (0.01 0.089 (.032) <0.01 97.8% 132%
(%BW) 6 9)

Interaction Effect 5 NA 12%

Actual Peak Braking (%BW) 0.14 (0.03 0.228 (.05) <0.01 55.1% NA
8 0)
1 Mean (SD)
2 Paired t-test
3 Percentage increase in parameter from SSWS to FWS [(FWS-SSWS)/ SSWS] *100]
4Value determined based on component definitions from equation (6) divided by the sum of all
components
5 Interaction of the change in Leading Limb Angle and the change in knee extension moment.

15