information available to support the movement, and the
GAIT PATTERNS
BRUCE ABERNETHY
WILLIAM W. LU
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Recording and analyzing human gait patterns have long
held the interest of biomechanists, bioengineers, kinesiol-
ogists, and clinicians and therapists involved in pediatric,
geriatric, and rehabilitative medicine. In large part this is
because gait is one of the most fundamental and function-
ally critical of all human movements, and the description,
explanation, and understanding of gait patterns are as
central to basic questions related to movement control and
coordination as they are to applied ones related to the
clinical identification and correction of abnormalities aris-
ing from disease, disuse, or injury. The essential kine-
matics, kinetics, and underlying neuromuscular
contributions to the human walking and running gait
patterns are now quite well understood although contro-
versy still remains as to how best to model each of these
patterns and as to what drivers trigger the transitions
between these modes of coordination at critical speeds of
travel or at critical changes in the nature of the terrain or
the trajectory of travel. Computer models of gait are
becoming increasingly capable of accurately accounting
for individual differences in gait patterns, and this pro-
vides promise to aid clinical assessment of disease onset
and progression, surgical decision-making, and the assess-
ment and enhancement of rehabilitative progress in the
future.
This entry provides a brief overview of current under-
standing and research on the principal human gait pat-
terns of walking and running. The initial sections of the
entry address the evolution of these distinctive patterns of
locomotion and the general approaches that have been
taken to their description and measurement. The middle
section of the entry examines, in turn, the cyclic charac-
teristics and the kinematic, kinetic, and neuromuscular
underpinnings of the walking and running gaits, noting
that each of these provides an important contribution to
the determination of the overall gait form. The latter
sections of the entry then address important issues related
to the transitions between walking and running, the
modeling and conceptualization of gait, and the modifying
effect of factors such as maturation, aging, disease, and
injury. Throughout, the treatment of the topic is necessa-
rily illustrative rather than exhaustive, with the coverage
restricted only to consideration of human gait and to some
but not all of the many aspects of gait patterns that are of
relevance to biomedical engineering.
1. THE EVOLUTION OF DISTINCTIVE GAIT PATTERNS
Favored patterns of coordination emerge for all different
types of movement tasks as solutions to the multiple, co-
existing constraints imposed by the goals of the task, the
biology of the organism (e.g., the neuro-biomechanical
configuration of the animal’s movement apparatus), the
1
Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
environment in which the task is carried out (1). As these
constraints differ from animal-to-animal and environ-
ment-to-environment, it is not surprising that an enor-
mous diversity in locomotor patterns has evolved across
the animal kingdom. Quadrupedal terrestrial animals
typically display a range of gait patterns including the
walk, trot, canter, and gallop, whereas human bipedal gait
is characteristically restricted to walk and run patterns. It
is widely believed that human bipedal gait has emerged as
a compromise between the need to move in an energeti-
cally efficient manner (something that quadrupeds of
similar size can do more efficiently than humans (2)) and
the need to free the forelimbs to carry food from one place
to another and to develop tools with which to hunt
(advantages not available within quadrupedal gait) (3,4).
While human infants exhibit primitive forms of quadru-
pedal gait, such as crawling, during the first year or so of
life, walking and running gaits are the stable forms of
human terrestrial locomotion thereafter. Other forms of
human bipedal gait, such as galloping, skipping, and
hopping, are nevertheless possible but are used only
infrequently, are energetically inefficient, and are hence
difficult to sustain for extended periods of time.
2. MEASUREMENT OF GAIT PATTERNS
The analysis of gait is typically undertaken with one of
three major objectives in mind: (1) to improve under-
standing of how the locomotor system works; (2) to bring
abnormal gait closer to normal standards; or (3) to im-
prove normal or above-average gait performance to excep-
tional levels (as in the case of athletic performance) (5).
Achieving any of these goals is directly dependent upon
having reliable and valid means of measuring relevant
features of individual gait patterns.
Contemporary measurement of gait involves a number
of different levels of analysis and the use of a range of
different measurement and analysis tools. Basic measures
of gait performance, such as walking speed, can be
achieved simply through the use of timing gates or
stopwatches while qualitative assessments of gait ab-
normalities can be routinely undertaken by trained ob-
servers using behavioral checklists. More detailed
analyses of gait patterns, however, typically require the
determination of objective information on the relative
motion of joints, the pattern of forces applied to the
ground, the sequence and timing of muscular activity,
and the energy consumption per distance traveled—de-
terminations that require use of more sophisticated forms
of data acquisition and analysis.
The relative movements of the joints (or limb seg-
ments), and other kinematic data describing the gait
pattern in terms of position, velocity, and/or acceleration
characteristics, are typically obtained using high-speed
video that tracks the motion of reflective markers posi-
tioned on the joints of interest. The pattern of forces
applied to the ground during gait is generally obtained
from ground-mounted force plates that measure the forces
exerted by the foot when it makes contact with the ground
2 GAIT PATTERNS
(or running surface). These forces are conventionally
determined in three orthogonal dimensions (vertical,
anterior-posterior, and medio-lateral). In combination
with kinematic data and (anthropometric) data on whole
body and individual segment size, shape, and mass, and
through the use of the inverse dynamics method, ground
reaction force data can be used to calculate net muscle
torques. Such kinetic variables may be particularly im-
portant in helping clinicians discriminate primary gait
abnormalities from secondary ones (5). Patterns of muscle
activation are determined from the collection of electro-
myographic (EMG) activity from muscles of interest—
typically through the use of recording electrodes mounted
on the skin and immediately overlaying the belly of the
muscle of interest. The electromyograph provides a record
of the electrical activity in muscle, and this can be used as
an indicator that a muscle has been activated. Considera-
tion of contemporaneous kinematic data and muscle
length calculations is necessary to determine whether
the muscle is contracting concentrically (shortening in
length), isometrically (staying at the same length), or
eccentrically (lengthening) at the time of its activation.
Energy expenditure during gait is generally measured
indirectly by determining, through an analysis of expired
air, the amount of oxygen that is consumed per unit of
time or to locomote a fixed distance. (A more detailed
description of the measurement tools used within a typical
gait laboratory and a brief history of the evolution of these
tools are provided by Johanson (6)).
A wide variety of systems for gait analysis have now
been developed, especially in the clinical environment (7–
9) and there is consistent progress in refining methods of
measurement and analysis and in standardizing proce-
dures internationally. The latter is facilitated by groups
such as the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB)’
Technical Group on the 3-D Analysis of Human Movement
[see http://www.utpb.edu/3D-HumanMovement/ for de-
tails] and the Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis So-
ciety [http://www.gcmas.net/cms/index.php]. One point
of continued discussion relates to the means by which gait
requirements are manipulated in the laboratory and
clinical setting and, in particular, the extent to which
gait on a treadmill is similar to natural, overground
locomotion. There is some evidence, for instance, to in-
dicate that energy requirements and neuromuscular
(EMG) activation patterns of treadmill and overground
running are generally similar (10,11) whereas other evi-
dence indicates that stride length and frequency, aspects
of gait kinematics and energetics, may be different be-
tween the two, especially when running at high velocities
is examined (11–14).
Kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data, along with anthro-
pometric and anatomical data (such as that derived from
magnetic resonance images of individual patients), are
often required as input to computer models of gait. The
purpose of these models is to aid understanding of general
principles underpinning gait control (including being able
to determine the relative contributions made by different
muscles, tendons, and connective/series-elastic structures
to gait at different speeds) and to help predict the implica-
tions for gait patterns and joint stability, etc., under
altered conditions (such as the addition of a prosthetic
limb, the relocation of muscle lines of action following
reconstructive surgery, the wearing of orthotic inserts,
etc.). These models frequently permit insights into the
functioning of normal gait that is not possible through
conventional means plus allow informed predictions of the
potential impact of surgical and other interventions in
advance of such procedures being actually conducted. For
example, a sophisticated computer model of muscle func-
tion in gait developed by Anderson and Pandy has demon-
strated the capacity of muscles to accelerate joints that
they do not directly span (15–18)—a capability not able to
be observed within traditional gait analysis experiments.
3. HUMAN WALKING PATTERNS
As a species humans are able to use the walking gait to
locomote at quite a wide range of different speeds—from
extremely slow speeds in many elderly and patient popu-
lations through to speeds greater than 4.5 m/s for trained
athletes. [The current world record for the 20 km walk of
1 hr 17 min 21.6 s, for example, equates to an average
velocity of approximately 4.3 m/s (or 15.5 km/hr) sustained
for longer than one hour.] However, despite the potential
range of walking speeds that are possible, natural walking
typically only occurs within a small range for any indivi-
dual. For healthy young adults, preferred walking speed is
in the order of some 1.3–1.4 m/s (4.7–5.0 km/hr) (19). This
preferred walking speed is also the most economical one
for walking, being the speed at which the mechanical
energy of the body is most nearly conserved through
interchange in the gait cycle between kinetic and gravita-
tional potential energy. It is hence the speed at which the
least metabolic energy is consumed to sustain the gait
pattern (20,21). Interestingly, this speed of travel for
greatest economy is relatively independent of age or level
of physical activity (22).
The gait pattern in walking is cyclical and can been
described (and then modeled) in terms of the kinematic,
kinetic, energetic, and neuromuscular mechanisms that
underpin it. Some details follow.
3.1. Characteristics of the Walking Gait Cycle
The human gait cycle (regardless of whether it is walking
or running) consists of two distinct phases for each leg—a
stance phase, in which the leg is in contact with the
ground or surface and a swing phase, in which the leg is
airborne. As Fig. 1 illustrates, the stance phase is defined
by the time from initial foot (usually heel) strike to toe-off
for a single leg and includes three identifiable subphases:
an initial double support phase in which both feet are in
contact with the ground, followed by a period of single
limb stance, and finally a second period of double support.
In normal walking the stance phase occupies B62% of the
gait cycle. The swing phase, from toe-off to foot strike in
the limb of interest, also consists of three identifiable
subphases—initial swing (from toe-off to foot clearance),
mid-swing (from foot clearance to the time at which the
tibia is vertical), and terminal swing (from tibia vertical to
foot strike). This swing phase, in which the motion of the
 GAIT PATTERNS 3

Typical walking gait cycle

Phases Stance phase Swing phase

Stance
Initial double Initial Mid Terminal
Sub-phases Single limb phase double
support swing swing swing
support

Events Opposite Reversal of Opposite Foot Tibia

Foot strike Toe off Foot strike
toe off fore-aft shear foot strike clearance vertical

% of cycle
0% 12% 50% 62% 100%
Figure 1. Typical walking gait.

Table 1. Sub-Phases and Functions within the Walking Gait Cycle

Sub-Phase
1. Initial double limb
support
2. Single limb support
3. Second double limb
support
4. Initial swing
5. Mid swing
6. Terminal swing
Reprinted from Sutherland et al. (23).
% Cycle Function Contralateral Limb
0-12 Loading, weight transfer Unloading & preparing for swing (pre-swing)
12-50 Support of entire body weight; center Swing
of mass moving forward
50-62 Unloading and preparing for swing Loading, weight transfer
(pre-swing)
62-75 Foot clearance Single limb support
75-85 Limb advances in front of body Single limb support
85-100 Limb deceleration, preparation for Single limb support
weight transfer

leg is essentially pendular, occupies B38% of the walking
gait cycle. Given the symmetrical nature of normal gait,
50% of each gait cycle is spent in the period from foot
strike of one leg to foot strike of the other. Each subphase
of the walking cycle serves a discrete function, as shown in
Table 1.
Step length is determined as the distance between a
common point on each foot (e.g., the distance between the
left heel and the right heel) during double limb support,
stride length is the distance between successive foot
strikes by the same foot, walking speed is the average
speed attained over multiple strides or distance, and
cadence is the number of steps per unit time (23).
3.2. Kinematics of the Walking Gait Pattern
The walking gait pattern can be described kinematically
in terms of the collective motion of the whole body and/or
the decomposed motion of individual joints and/or seg-
ments within the coordinated movement pattern.
Collective whole body motion is most readily described
through determination of the path of the whole body
center of mass during the gait cycle. In the plane of motion
of the walker (the sagittal plane), the center of mass
describes a smooth sinusoidal path throughout the walk-
ing cycle with a vertical displacement of 5 cm seen in
healthy young adults when they walk at their preferred
speed (24). Peak vertical displacement occurs in midstance
and minimum vertical displacement coincides with the
middle of the double-support phase. Lateral displacement
of the center of mass of approximately 5 cm in the trans-
verse plane also occurs during a typical gait cycle
although the frequency of oscillation in this plane is only
about 50% of that in the sagittal plane.
The translation of the whole body center of mass that
occurs in walking is a consequence of the synchronous
movement of most major body segments around most of
the major joints within the body. The lower limb segments
and the pelvis displace in all three planes of motion during
4 GAIT PATTERNS
a cycle of walking while the upper limb segments swing
out of phase with those of the lower limb. In a seminal
paper in 1953, Saunders, Inman, and Eberhart (25) pro-
posed that the pathway of the center of mass during
walking is determined by six kinematic mechanisms of
the lower limb—hip flexion, stance knee flexion, ankle
plantar flexion (all of which occur in the sagittal plane),
pelvic rotation (in the transverse plane), pelvic list (in the
frontal plane), and lateral pelvic displacement (in the
transverse plane). At the preferred speed of walking, the
hip has single peaks of flexion and extension within each
gait cycle, corresponding respectively to mid-swing and
toward the end of the stance phase, while the knee joint
shows two flexion-extension peaks per cycle. There is a
small cycle of knee flexion-extension during the stance
phase and a larger cycle during the swing phase, which
includes peak knee flexion during the initial swing phase
and near full-knee extension approaching foot strike. The
ankle joint moves first from plantar flexion immediately
following foot strike into dorsiflexion during the middle
and terminal phases of stance and then again later from
plantar flexion in the double support phase back to dorsi-
flexion during the swing phase, as the toe is raised to clear
obstacles. Pelvic rotation of þ /
81 helps increase step
length, pelvic list tilts the pelvis from the weight-bearing
leg to the leg about to commence swing, and lateral pelvic
displacement occurs as support alternates from leg to leg
(and the center of mass correspondingly displaces from
side to side). A fuller description of the major joint changes
within the gait cycle from the perspective of each of the
three planes of motion can be found in Sutherland et al.
(23).
3.3. Kinetics and Neuromuscular Contributions to the
Walking Gait Pattern
In order for locomotion to occur, it is essential for the body
to exert forces onto the ground or walking surface and the
reaction to these forces, which are a function of muscular
action and the weight of the body transmitted through the
feet, can be recorded using floor-mounted force (or more
strictly, load) plates. Ground reaction forces are typically
resolved into three forces–a vertical force directed up-
wards; an anterior-posterior force in the direction of
travel; and a medial-lateral force at 901 to the direction
of travel—and normalized for body weight. Center of
pressure can be also determined from such recordings as
the point, during a period of single limb support, at which
the total load can be characterized as being applied to the
foot. Unsurprisingly, the vertical forces during gait are
many times greater than those in the other two planes,
although the forces in all three planes are closely linked to
the oscillations in the body’s center of mass that occur
throughout the walking cycle. The vertical ground reac-
tion force shows two peaks during the walking cycle (at
some 15% and 50% of the cycle, respectively) at which
force levels exceed body weight and the center of mass is
accelerated upwards. During a typical walk cycle, the
vertical ground reaction force also shows a single mini-
mum (around 30% of the cycle) at which force levels are
typically only B80% of body weight and the center of mass
is consequently accelerated downwards. During steady-
state (constant-velocity) walking, net forces in the ante-
rior-posterior direction are applied backwards to the
direction of travel early in the stance phase, immediately
following foot strike, and forward later in the stance phase
as toe-off is approached. Forces in the medio-lateral direc-
tion are generally of the lowest magnitude of the three
axial components but are necessary to control for the
sideways movements in the whole body center of mass
as balance transfers from one leg to the other during the
gait cycle. Center of pressure migrates forward in the foot
during the normal walking cycle commencing medially at
the heel at foot strike and then progressing from there to
the lateral mid-foot during mid-support and to the medial
forefoot in preparation for toe-off (26).
As noted previously, it is possible, given ground reac-
tion forces, kinematic data, and estimates of segmental
masses and inertias, to calculate resultant loads or net
muscle moments about joints of interest using inverse
dynamics methods. Such calculations are valuable in
determining the timing of loads applied during the gait
cycle plus these calculations, in conjunction with EMG
data, can help determine the roles different muscles play
at different phases of the gait cycle. Analyses of net muscle
moments reveal that surprisingly small muscle moments
are needed during the swing phase, with only small
extensor moments at the hip and flexor moments at the
knee typically needed to decelerate the leg in preparation
for foot strike (9). The reason that minimal muscle activity
appears necessary during the swing phase of walking is
that the effects of gravity and inertia alone are sufficient to
generate the pendulum-like motion that the leg requires
during this phase. In contrast, the net muscle moments
applied during stance are of much greater magnitude and
complexity. In the initial phase of stance a small moment
is exerted by the dorsiflexors of the ankle to help decele-
rate the foot and facilitate its smooth placement on the
ground. With the foot placed squarely on the ground, or
whatever surface is being walked upon, eccentric contrac-
tion of the quadriceps occurs to limit knee flexion and
accelerate the knee into extension. This process of knee
extension is facilitated in early stance, as the limb loads,
by a plantar flexion moment developed around the ankle
joint and brought about through contraction of the soleus
muscle restraining forward motion of the tibia. The plan-
tar moment around the ankle peaks in the terminal phase
of stance and is a major contributor both to the push off
achieved immediately prior to the commencement of the
swing phase and, in conjunction with the hip flexors, to
the forward acceleration of the leg that occurs during the
swing phase. While most of the work performed in gait is
predictably in the plane of motion, the hip joint in
particular also completes significant work in the frontal
plane, presumably to control the pelvis and trunk against
the effects of gravity (27).
EMG profiles obtained during normal walking indicate
the systematic involvement of different muscle groups in
particular phases of the gait cycle and reflect the different
mechanical requirements of each phase (28); see [Table 2].
Distal muscles of the lower limb (the soleus, tibialis
anterior, and gastrocnemii, in particular) are the most

Table 2. Muscle Actions During the Walking Gait Cycle
Phase of Gait Mechanical Goals
Stance phase
Initial contact Position foot, begin deceleration
Loading response Accept weight, stabilize pelvis,
decelerate mass
Mid stance Stabilize knee, preserve
momentum
Terminal stance Accelerate mass
Swing phase
Pre-swing Prepare for swing
Initial swing Clear foot, vary cadence
Mid swing Clear foot
Terminal swing Decelerate shank, decelerate leg,
position foot, prepare for
contact
Reprinted from Rab (28).
active, and the least variable in patterns of activation,
during normal walking, whereas the more proximal mus-
cles (in particular those such as the iliopsoas and gluteui
crossing the hip joint) are least active and more variable in
pattern of activation. The biarticular muscles—muscles
such as the hamstrings, rectus femoris, and gastrocne-
mius that cross more than one joint—are characteristi-
cally more variable in EMG activity than muscles that act
at only a single joint (29).
Increases in the speed of walking are achieved both
through an increase in stride length, and cadence (30,31)
and are accompanied by increases in the peak ground
reaction forces in all planes of measurement. There have
been some suggestions in the literature, consistent with
either central pattern generator (32,33) or generalized
motor program (34) models of motor control, that faster
walking is achieved primarily through a linear speeding
up of all components of the gait cycle, such that temporal
proportionality remains invariant within the walking gait
pattern. While detailed analyses of the relative timing of
different phases of the gait cycle at different speeds of
walking do not strictly support such a view (35,36), the
temporal patterning of EMG activity for key muscles
nevertheless remains generally similar at different ca-
dences while the mean amplitude of the EMG during
both stance and swing phases increases as the speed of
walking increases (37,38).
4. HUMAN RUNNING PATTERNS
As with walking, humans are able to locomote using the
running gait over quite a wide range of speeds. Running
can be sustained, although not efficiently, at speeds of
travel below those which are normally preferred for walk-
ing (i.e., less than 1.3–1.4 m/s or 4.7–5.0 km/hr) although
running is obviously favored for use at velocities higher
than those spontaneously adopted for walking. Peak run-
ning velocities greater than 10 m/s (36 km/hr) can be
obtained by trained athletes for brief periods of time.
GAIT PATTERNS 5
Active Muscle Groups Examples
Ankle dorsiflexors, hip Anterior tibialis, gluteus
extensors, knee flexors, maximums, hamstrings
Knee extensors, hip abductors, Vasti, gluteus medius,
ankle plantarflexors gastrocnemius
Ankle plantarflexors (isometric) Gastrocnemius, soleus
Ankle plantarflexors (concentric) Gastrocnemius, soleus
Hip flexors Iliopsoas, rectus femoris
Ankle dorsiflexors, hip flexors Anterior tibialis, iliopsoas, rectus
femoris
Ankle dorsiflexors Anterior tibialis
Knee flexors, hip extensors, Hamstrings, gluteus maximus,
ankle dorsiflexors, knee anterior tibialis, vasti
extensors
The current men’s world record for the 100 m of 9.77 s,
for example, equates to an average velocity of 10.2 m/s (or
36.7 km/hr).
While sharing much in common with walking, the
running gait nevertheless differs from the walking gait
in a number of fundamental ways. The principal differ-
ences between the two gait forms stem from the nonexis-
tence in the running gait of any periods of double-support
(i.e., periods in which both feet are simultaneously in
contact with the ground; cf. Fig. 1) and the parallel
existence in the running gait of a flight phase (or a double
swing phase) in which neither foot is in contact with the
ground. The duty factor, which is the fraction of each
stride during which the foot is in contact with the ground,
is consequently less than 0.5 in the running mode and
greater than or equal to 0.5 in walking. The stance phase
of the running cycle is generally considered to consist of
three subphases: foot strike (or contact), mid-support, and
take-off (or propulsion). The relative and absolute dura-
tion of the stance phase decreases as running speed
increases to the point where stance may constitute as
little as 22% of the running gait cycle in sprinting (com-
pared to 62% in walking). The swing phase, in contrast,
occupies a relatively greater proportion of the running
cycle as speed increases. This phase includes, in sequence,
an initial follow-through phase in which the limb is in a
relatively extended position with minimal knee flexion; a
forward swing phase in which the knee is flexed to reduce
the moment of inertia and facilitate rapid forward move-
ment of the whole of the lower limb; a double swing (or
float) phase in which the alternate leg is also airborne; and
a final phase of foot descent in which the foot is lowered in
preparation for foot strike. Compared to walking, the
running gait cycle involves a relatively longer swing
than stance phase, the presence of double swing and the
absence of double support, longer stride lengths, and
higher cadences.
The gait cycle differences between walking and running
are necessarily underpinned by kinematic, kinetic, and
6 GAIT PATTERNS
neuromuscular control differences. The position of the
whole body center of mass is lower in running and the
vertical oscillation of the center of mass less than in
walking. In contrast, both the linear and angular velocity
of the lower limb segments and their range of motion are
greater in running than in walking. In running the foot-
falls of the two feet lie along an essentially common path
along the midline of the body (the absence of a double
support phase makes it imperative that the foot be
essentially positioned directly underneath the center of
gravity), whereas in walking foot placement does not need
to reach the midline, and rather the paths of progression
of the two feet lie in parallel.
Both the shape and peak values of the ground reaction
force-time curves for walking and running are fundamen-
tally different. Whereas the vertical ground reaction force
in walking has two, essentially symmetrical, peaks (as
described earlier), the comparable plot for running is
compressed in time, enhanced in amplitude, and asymme-
trical. Given that the propulsive forces applied during
stance in running must, by definition, be applied over a
shorter period of time than is available in walking, the
ground reaction forces in running are typically of the
order of 2.5–3 times body weight compared to the 0.9–1.1
body weight levels observed at different points in the
walking cycle.
Analyses of muscle moments, corroborated by EMG
analyses, indicate greater active involvement of muscular
activity in the generation of leg drive during the swing
phase of running compared to walking where swing can be
generated primarily through the mechanical pendular
characteristics of the limb. During the swing phase of
running the iliopsoas and rectus femoris, acting concen-
trically, help flex the hip; the hamstring muscles, acting
eccentrically, help extend the knee during the last phase of
swing; and tibialis anterior and the flexors of the toes,
acting concentrically, dorsiflex the ankle.
In terms of the energetics of running, there is no
optimal speed for running for maximal metabolic effi-
ciency as there is for walking. The metabolic cost of
running a given distance remains remarkably constant
at around 1.0 cal/kg/min regardless of speed of travel (39).
This is generally explained in terms of the elastic energy
storage that is possible within the Achilles tendon/gastro-
cnemius musculo-tendinous unit (40), and this elastic
energy storage forms a cornerstone of most mechanical
models of the running gait. With faster running, the
duration of the swing phase becomes progressively rate-
limiting. Stance duration declines relatively linearly with
increasing velocity, whereas the swing phase does not (41),
resulting in significant changes in the proportional time
spent in each phase of the running cycle, and significant
deviations away from any notions of invariant relative
timing of running, as speed of travel with running varies
(36).
5. TRANSITIONS BETWEEN GAIT PATTERNS
Walking and running are distinct modes of coordination
and a number of key environmental and task conditions
and constraints are more favorable to the adoption of one
mode over the other. The most obvious determinant of
which mode of coordination is spontaneously favored is
the required speed of travel and the time period over
which travel must occur. Left with freedom of choice,
healthy young adults spontaneously switch from the
walking gait to the running gait when the required speed
of travel reaches B2.0 m/s (or 7.2 km/hr). The speed of
travel at which transition occurs is replicable and robust
within individuals (42) but is subject to some individual
differences and hysteresis effects. (Hysteresis in this con-
text refers to the speed of travel at the transition from
walking to running being different to that from running to
walking.) Interindividual anthropometric differences in
limb lengths or masses appear to be only weakly linked
to the speed of travel at which transition occurs (42,43),
but the direction in which required speed of locomotion is
varied may have a more systematic influence. Specifically,
the speed of travel at transition between running and
walking is often lower than the speed of travel at transi-
tion between walking and running (36) although recent
evidence suggests that the direction of this hysteresis
effect may be dependent upon the rate of acceleration or
deceleration (44). The normal transition between the
walking and running gaits can be voluntarily altered or
overridden if necessary, albeit at some attentional cost
that can be quantified by having participants concurrently
undertake a second, cognitively demanding task at the
same time as they are walking or running (45,46). While
required speed of travel is the most obvious factor that can
influence the selection of the most appropriate gait pat-
tern, it is by no means the only factor. The nature of the
terrain that must be traversed, the slope of the terrain,
the height and location of any pathway obstacles (espe-
cially in relation to leg length), and whether or not objects
and/or loads have to be carried, can all influence whether
walking or running is the preferred gait mode at a given
speed (47–49).
A long-standing question of interest for gait research-
ers and, more recently, for motor control theorists inter-
ested in the general question of movement pattern
formation (50), is the determination of what factors limit
each gait mode and, in turn, are responsible for the
sensing and triggering of spontaneous changes between
the walking and running patterns of coordination. Propo-
sitions have been advanced that the switching between
gait modes at critical speeds of travel occurs because one
or more of the mechanical, energetic/efficiency, force at-
tenuation, or pattern stability limits of the current gait
pattern are reached (51,52). It is probable both that these
limits are, in many cases, interdependent and that differ-
ent factors may limit particular gait patterns and trigger
transitions dependent upon the specific task constraints
that are imposed (40,53).
The search for mechanical limits to the walking gait,
for instance, has primarily involved seeking out anthro-
pometric variables, such as limb lengths and masses, as
correlates of the preferred transition speed between walk-
ing and running. Although high correlations exist between
body mass and the transition speeds evident across quad-
rupedal species of differing mass (54), correlations ob-

served in human gait between individuals of different
body proportions are low to modest at best (42,43) and
equations using mechanical variables to predict preferred
transition speed have been of low accuracy. A number of
studies have sought to also examine whether kinematic
variables such as the angle of lower limb separation
(maximum interthigh angle) (55) or the center of mass
trajectory (56) might be predictive of gait transitions,
either as determinants themselves or as correlates of
determinants (52). Hreljac (57) has provided empirical
evidence that peak angular velocity of the ankle satisfies
many of the characteristics expected of a trigger for the
walk-run transition in that it increases systematically in
value as walking speed increases and then goes through
an abrupt value change when running commences; transi-
tion consistently coincides with a critical angular velocity
value; and the variable has the potential to be sensed
proprioceptively and thus directly influence a feedback-
based control system. Given the moments that are gener-
ated around the ankle during high velocity walking, and
the local muscular fatigue that accrues in the dorsiflexors
of the ankle under such conditions, it is plausible that
humans may switch from walking to running as a strategy
to minimize local discomfort in the ankle dorsiflexors—a
discomfort that could be sensed proprioceptively and could
consequently influence centralized gait control mechan-
isms (58).
In the animal gait literature there is strong evidence to
suggest that gait patterns are selected that are most
energetically efficient (in terms of energy cost per distance
traveled), with animals naturally selecting as their most
frequent speeds of travel for particular gait modes those
speeds that are most energetically optimal for the gait
mode (54,59). A natural extension of this line of thinking is
that transitions between different gait modes may be
driven by energetic variables and the attempt by the
neuromuscular system to optimize particular energetic
variables to conserve energy and maximize efficiency.
While there is some evidence to support an energetic
trigger for human gait transitions in the form of concor-
dance between the intersection of the transport costs
(measured in oxygen consumption per distance of travel)
of walking and running and preferred transition speed
(42), others have questioned the importance of energy
minimization in the human walk-run transition, primar-
ily on the grounds that the predicted transition speed
based on energy minimization is significantly faster than
that actually observed (58,60).
A related issue for possible energetic determinants of
human gait transitions is the question of how energy
efficiency might be directly perceived. For this and other
reasons a number of researchers (61,62) have argued that
musculo-skeletal forces, which may be more directly
sensed and communicated to the central nervous system,
are more probable triggers and that it may be that gait
transitions occur in order to decrease mechanical stresses
imposed by different forms of gait and, through this,
minimize injury risks (63). In studies on horses, in which
ground reaction forces were manipulated through the
imposition of loads carried by the horses. Farley and
Taylor (62) demonstrated that it was the attainment of a
GAIT PATTERNS 7
critical level of skeletal loading rather than the attain-
ment of the most energetically optimal speed that was
responsible for triggering gait transitions. Although there
is some evidence to indicate that the kinetic variables of
time to first peak force and loading rate may be correlates
of the transitions between walking and running in hu-
mans (52), it is nevertheless unlikely that force minimiza-
tion per se is the triggering mechanism in humans for
changing from walking to running given that contact
forces and musculo-skeletal loading are typically higher
in bipedal running than walking (40).
Changes in pattern stability, in a dynamical sense,
have also been proposed as the major determinant for
the spontaneous changes between the walking and run-
ning gaits that occur at critical speeds of travel and under
other conditions. Using methodologies and approaches
developed from synergetics and dynamical systems theory
(64,65) to explain pattern transitions in a range of other
biological and nonbiological systems, Diedrich and Warren
(66,67) have demonstrated that changes in the stability of
some critical parameters describing the gait pattern
(called, order parameters) are strongly predictive of the
onset of transition and gait pattern re-organization from
walking to running and running to walking. The relative
phase relationships within the same limb between ankle
and knee, in particular, are similar within each gait mode
but different between modes and demonstrate critical
increases in variability (instability) as the transition point
is approached. The examination of relative phase relation-
ships between segments has also been shown to be of use
in describing upper extremity coordination during gait
(68) as well as the coupling between arms and legs at
different speeds of locomotion (69). For example, at low
speeds of walking the pelvis and thorax are close to
moving in-phase whereas at faster speeds of travel they
become progressively out-of-phase (68). As the next sec-
tion illustrates, the ability to adequately explain transi-
tions between different gait patterns is increasingly seen
as an important challenge for the development of compre-
hensive models of human gait.
6. MODELS OF HUMAN GAIT
6.1. Mechanical Models of Gait
While a large number of mechanical models of gait have
been developed, varying substantially in their level of
complexity and detail, the fundamentals of the majority
of the models are similar. The walking gait is most
frequently modeled as an inverted pendulum system
with highly conservative exchanges between kinetic and
potential energy used to account for the energetic effi-
ciency known to exist at preferred walking speed (70–73).
Walking is often conceptualized as a ‘‘rolling egg’’ (74) in
which kinetic energy is exchanged for potential energy as
the center of mass slows down as it gains height in mid-
stance and then this potential energy is returned to
kinetic energy when the center of mass subsequently
lowers during the double support phase. The running
gait, in contrast, is typically conceptualized as a ‘‘bouncing
ball’’ or ‘‘spring’’ system (75) in which the key feature is
8 GAIT PATTERNS
high kinetic-elastic energy exchanges (76–78). The ex-
change between kinetic and elastic energy in running is
made possible by the capacity of tendons and muscles
within the limb in contact with the ground to store elastic
energy extremely effectively. High stresses are needed to
create the strains essential for elastic energy storage and
this is responsible for the elastic energy contribution to
running being substantially greater than it is to walking.
Hof (79) has estimated the elastic energy contribution to
running (at 2.0–2.75 m/s) to be of the order of 47–51 J
whereas the contribution to walking (at 0.75–1.75 m/s) is
only B13–23 J.
While these relatively simple fundamental models for
walking and running have proven quite accurate for
estimating gait characteristics such as duty factors, stride
length, and cadence, and aspects of the ground reaction
forces, they have been relatively poor at predicting char-
acteristics related to transitions between the two patterns,
especially preferred transition speed. The basic assump-
tion of these models is that transition will occur when the
respective gait modes reach their mechanical limits. In the
case of simple inverted pendulum models of walking, the
transition to running is predicted to occur when the
acceleration of the body’s center of gravity toward the
ground exceeds acceleration due to gravity (80), yet, in
practice, transitions typically occur well before this point
is reached (66). It is conceivable that the walk-run transi-
tion may be triggered in some way when the energy-
conserving elements of the elastic mechanism, which is
most accessible in running, exceed the energy-conserving
characteristics of the pendular mechanism, which is domi-
nant in walking. Experimental evidence indicating that
the transition between walking and running occurs at
lower absolute speeds under reduced gravitational condi-
tions provides some support for this view that it may be
the desire to minimize mechanical power generation that
is pivotal to driving changes in gait form (81).
An obvious difficulty of modeling walking and running
as completely different systems (and characterizing walk-
ing solely in terms of energy conservation through pend-
ular actions and running solely in terms of energy
conservation through springlike, elastic actions) is that
both walking and running contain some elements of both
methods of energy conservation (82). To more fully capture
the essential biomechanics underpinning the walking and
running gait patterns hybrid models of gait have now been
developed that contain both inertial (pendulum-like) and
elastic (springlike) components. Models of gait as a force-
driven harmonic oscillator, for example (83,84), have
proven capable of predicting preferred gait characteristics
in both children (85) and adults (86) and begin to bridge
the gap between mechanical models of gait production and
models that attempt to also elucidate the mechanisms
underpinning gait control.
6.2. Control Models of Gait
Models of the control of human gait essentially represent a
microcosm of the more general models that have been
developed to explain the control of voluntary human
movement of all forms (87,88). One class of control model
(frequently referred to as open-loop control models) views
the control of movement as being largely the consequence
of a prestructured set of neural commands that permits
movement to be carried out with minimal ongoing depen-
dence on sensory feedback derived from the movement
itself. Models of gait control based around generalized
motor programs, which allow movement to be produced
without reliance on continuous feedback and which pre-
serve some features of movement invariant from one cycle
to the next (34,89) are of this type. In contrast, closed-loop
models place great dependence on sensory feedback for
continuous control and modification of movement com-
mands. While studies of spinalized animals indicate that
basic gait patterns can be produced without sensory feed-
back (90), such gait is typically clumsy, suggesting that
sensory information from the movement itself does play at
least some role in normal control, perhaps in the tuning of
the movements (91). The role apparently played by both
centralized efferent commands and afferent feedback in
the control of normal gait suggests that hybrid models of
control containing both open- and closed-loop elements are
likely most accurate.
At the spinal level the basic neural circuitry for gait
and other rhythmic patterns of flexion and extension
activity exist in the form of central pattern generators
(32,92). Central pattern generators (CPGs) are neural
networks capable of producing rhythmic patterns of motor
outputs without the necessity for either rhythmic sensory
input or rhythmic command input from elsewhere in the
nervous system. The properties of CPGs have now been
extensively studied (93,94). The characteristic cyclical set
of flexion-extension movements evident in gait are now
generally believed to emerge as a consequence of the
inherent oscillatory properties of the network of neurons
that collectively constitute the CPGs and not as a conse-
quence of structured preplanning (95,96). While the ma-
jority of gait control may be achievable through
mechanisms at the spinal cord level, descending input
from higher centers appears essential for gait initiation
and probably also ongoing monitoring (91,97). As noted
earlier, the voluntary overriding of preferred gait pat-
terns—such as in the case of walking at a speed at which
running is naturally preferred—requires input from the
level of the brain and has an associated cognitive cost that
can be measured using dual-task methods (45).
Dynamical models of movement control (50,98) contend
that stable patterns of coordination at a systems-wide
level also emerge as a consequence of the intrinsic dy-
namics of the system and without a priori planning. The
stability of dynamical systems may be described in terms
of the relationship between an order parameter (that
describes the organizational state of the system of inter-
est) and a control parameter (the value of which deter-
mines which organizational state of the system is favored).
Phase transitions occur when the control parameter
reaches a critical value and the order parameter under-
goes a discrete change in value. As the critical control
parameter value is approached, the order parameter in-
creases in variability (a property known as critical fluc-
tuations) and the system is slower to respond to any
external perturbations that occur (a property known as

critical slowing down). Movement speed appears to act as
a control parameter for gait with transitions between the
walking and running patterns occurring when speed (or
perhaps cadence) reaches a critical value (of around 2.0 m/
s). As noted in the previous section, Diedrich and Warren
(66) have presented evidence to suggest that relative
phase of the lower limb may be a suitable order parameter
to describe bipedal gait given that it demonstrates discrete
value changes at transition and shows the critical fluctua-
tions property. The challenge for dynamical systems mod-
els of gait, and indeed all models of gait control, is not only
to explain steadystate gait in healthy young adults but
also to provide insight and explanatory value for the
changes in gait that occur with factors such as develop-
ment, aging, and pathology—modifiers of gait that are
considered in the next section.
7. FACTORS THAT MODIFY GAIT PATTERNS
7.1. Maturation and Aging
Gait patterns undergo significant change throughout the
lifespan. While most children walk unassisted soon after
their first year of life and run by 18 months to 2 years of
age, adult-like gait patterns are not fully established until
at least age 7 years and adult values on measures such as
step length, walking speed, and cadence are not attained
until around age 15 years (99). Even though obtaining
accurate measurement of children’s gait characteristics,
especially kinetic and EMG properties, can be proble-
matic, the existing evidence is relatively clear that the
development of mature walking gait involves major
changes in stance duration, walking speed, cadence, step
length, and step width during early childhood (100,101).
The duration of single-leg stance increases from about
32% of the gait cycle at age 1 year to the adult level of 38–
39% by age 7 years [cf. Fig. 1] as balance skill and
intermuscular coordination is acquired and the ankle
plantar flexors gain the strength necessary to propel the
body forward in late stance. Over the same developmental
period, walking speed increases from 0.64 m/s to 1.14 m/s
(a value still below the preferred walking speed of adults
of 1.3 to 1.4 m/s) and cadence decreases from around
176 steps/min to 145 steps/min (compared to the adult
level of around 113 steps/min at preferred walking speed).
Step length increases from around 0.2 m at age 1 year to
0.5 m at age 7 years (adult values are B0.7 m) and step
width (measured as the width of the support base between
the ankles expressed as a percentage of pelvic width)
decreases from B70% at age 1 to 45% at age 7 years
(adult values are B30%). On both of these parameters the
changes toward adult values occur most rapidly in the
first 3.5 to 4 years of life. The measurable differences in
gait performance and gait cycle characteristics between
children and adults are underpinned by kinematic and
neuromuscular differences including foot rather than heel
contact, reduced hip and knee extension, decreased plan-
tar flexor activation, and increased and extended quad-
riceps muscle activation in the child compared to the adult
(100,102).
GAIT PATTERNS 9
Many of the same differences evident between devel-
oping gait and the gait of healthy young adults also
become apparent when the gait characteristics of healthy
older adults are compared to those of healthy young
adults. Older adults consistently show a decrease in
preferred speed of walking compared to younger adults
(103,104). This decrease in walking speed becomes most
pronounced from age 60 to 65 years with preferred walk-
ing speed decreasing from this age onwards at a rate of
about 1.24% – 1.60% per annum and maximum walking
speed decreasing at a rate of approximately 2% per annum
(105). The overall decrease in walking speed stems from
decreases in step length rather than changes in cadence
and is associated with decreases in the ratio of swing to
stance time, increases in double support time, and in-
creases in stance width (40,104). Gait kinetics also change
noticeably for healthy adults in or beyond their seventh
decade of life with a marked decrease in ankle planter
flexion power output. This has the effect of decreasing the
propulsive forces that can be generated during the push-
off phase, reducing the peak vertical and anterior-poster-
ior ground reaction forces, and perhaps also contributing
to a greater metabolic cost of walking in older adults
(40,104,106). The fundamental causes of the underlying
changes in elderly gait are somewhat unclear but appear
to stem in large part from a mix of the reduction of
muscular force that can be generated in key muscle
groups (especially the hip extensors and the ankle plantar
flexors), the impact of a gradual loss of compliance in
muscles and tendons and an associated decrease in elastic
energy return, and perhaps also the conscious adoption of
conservative strategies aimed to enhance stability and
reduce the chances of falling (107,108). A recent review by
McGibbon (109) suggests that the neuromuscular adapta-
tions seen in the gait of healthy elders are functional ones
to deal with age-related impairments. Some exercise-
based intervention programs for the healthy elderly tar-
geted at increasing muscular strength and improving
balance have shown improvements in gait parameters
such as walking speed (110), but these benefits are not
found uniformly (111).
7.2. Disease and Injury
Disease and injury can lead to significant disruption to
‘‘normal’’ patterns of gait. The prevalence of gait abnorm-
alities increases with population age and the increased
frequency of neurological and musculo-skeletal disorders
in the elderly. For example, a study by Odenheimer et al.
of elderly people living in the community (112) indicated
that whereas abnormalities of gait were evident in 15% of
the population aged 67 to 74 years, these increased to
nearly 50% for people over 85 years of age. Rates are likely
substantially higher for those people living in acute care
facilities. Identifying and understanding gait disorders is,
of course, directly dependent on the extent to which a
comprehensive description and explanation can be
achieved as to what constitutes ‘‘normal gait’’; recognizing,
as is apparent from the previous section, that the char-
acteristics of normal gait are significantly age-dependent.
Being able to identify and measure gait disorders is
10 GAIT PATTERNS
important because individuals with disorders of gait are at
substantially increased risk of falls and injury, and con-
sequential compromise of their capacity for independent
living (113). Individuals with a history of repeat falling
show reduced cadence and stride length and greater levels
of peak torque across proximal joints compared to non-
fallers (114). It is unclear whether these torque differences
arising from co-contraction and consequential increases in
limb stiffness are a predisposing cause of falling or a
compensatory attempt to develop a protective mechanism
to either prevent or reduce the effects of future falling. The
kinematics, kinetics, energetics, and underlying neuro-
muscular patterns of innervation of gait can all potentially
change with disability, injury, and immobilization.
There is a vast range of neurological conditions that
can cause deviations from normal gait although each
tends to affect gait in slightly different ways. Spinal
diseases such as myelopathy, neurodegenerative diseases
such as Parkinson’s disease and diseases causing degen-
eration of the cerebellum, cerebrovascular diseases such
as stroke, diseases of sensory deficit, psychogenic diseases
such as depression, and diseases such as multiple sclerosis
and cerebral palsy that produce spasticity, can all affect
gait in characteristic ways that can, in turn, assist with
disease diagnosis and treatment (115,116). For example,
patients with Parkinson’s disease frequently exhibit a
short-stepping, shuffling gait from a highly flexed posture,
deficits in stride length regulation, abnormally decreased
mobility (hypokinesia), hesitation in starting walking, and
occasional postural freezing (117,118). Likewise, common
musculo-skeletal disorders, such as osteoarthritis (OA),
show characteristic gait differences from healthy con-
trols—in the case of OA patients this is reduced ankle
power and knee mechanical energy and increased hip
power absorption (119). Given the potential value of gait
analysis to both the determination of disease etiology and
the guidance and assessment of rehabilitation processes,
there have been increasing efforts to develop classification
systems for gait disorders based on either clinical gait
patterns or anatomic criteria (116) and to explore the
feasibility of automated classification of clinical gait pat-
terns through the use of neural networks (120,121).
Gait patterns and underlying mechanics can be not
only modified by disease and injury but can also be altered
by medical and therapeutic interventions put in place as
part of the treatment regime. Surgeons undertaking knee
reconstructions (122,123), biomedical engineers fitting
prosthetic limbs (124), physical therapists using braces
(125), and podiatrists applying orthotic devices (126) are
increasingly measuring the effectiveness of these inter-
ventions with respect to the degree to which pathological
gait patterns can be made less deviant from those of
normal gait, and essential gait pattern components such
as walking speed, joint loadings, or movement efficiency
can be improved to levels approaching those existent in
the nonpathological state. Future improvement in the
understanding and treatment of gait disorders will likely
depend on the progressive development of more sophisti-
cated models of gait control—models that can adequately
account for particular pathologies (e.g., see Winter (127)
and Holt et al. (84) for early examples) and can help
progress beyond simple mechanical descriptions of gait
toward explanation and prediction of gait pattern
changes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. K. M. Newell, Constraints on the development of coordina-
tion, In: M. Wade and H. T. A. Whiting, eds., Motor Devel-
opment in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 341–360,
1986.
2. C. R. Taylor and V. J. Rowntree, Running on two or four legs:
Which consumes more energy? Science 1973; 179:186–187.
3. J. Napier, The antiquity of human walking. Sci. Am. 1967;
217:50–60.
4. A. E. Patla and W. A. Sparrow, Factors that have shaped
human locomotor structure and behavior: The ‘joules’ in the
crown, In: W. A. Sparrow ed., Energetics of human activity,
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 43–65, 2000.
5. J. R. Gage and S. E. Koop, Clinical gait analysis, In: P.
Allard, I. Stokes and J. P. Blanchi eds., Three-Dimensional
Analysis of Movement, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp.
349–362, 1994.
6. M. E. Johanson, Gait laboratory: Structure and data gather-
ing, In: J. Rose and J.G. Gamble eds., Human Walking. 2nd
ed., Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, pp. 201–224,
1994.
7. P. Allard, A. Capozzo, A. Lundberg, and C. Vaughan, Three-
dimensional analysis of human locomotion, Chichester, UK:
John Wiley, 1998.
8. S. Giannini, F. Catani, M. G. Benedetti, and A. Leardini,
Gait Analysis: Methodologies and Clinical Applications.
Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1994.
9. M. W. Whittle, Gait Analysis: An Introduction. 3rd. ed.,
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002.
10. D. R. Bassett, M. D. Giese, F. J. Nagle, A, Ward, D. M., Raab,
and B. Balke, Aerobic requirements of overground versus
treadmill running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1985; 17(4):477–
481.
11. V. Wank, U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher, Kinematics and
electromyography of lower limb muscles in overground and
treadmill running, Int. J. Sports Med. 1998; 19:455–461.
12. B. C, Elliott and B. A. Blanksby, A cinematographic analysis
of overground and treadmill running by males and females,
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1976; 8(2):84–87.
13. G. J. van Ingen Schenau, Some fundamental aspects of the
biomechanics of overground vs. treadmill locomotion, Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 1980; 12:257–261.
14. B. A. Frishberg, An analysis of overground and treadmill
sprinting, Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1983; 15:478–485.
15. F. C. Anderson and M. G. Pandy, Dynamic optimization of
human walking, J. Biomed. Eng. 2001; 123:381–390.
16. F. C. Anderson and M. G. Pandy, Individual muscle con-
tributions to support in normal walking, Gait Posture 2003;
17:159–169.
17. M. G. Pandy, Computer modeling and simulation of human
movement, Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2001; 3:245–273.
18. B. Abernethy, S. J. Hanrahan, L. T. Mackinnon, V. Kippers,
and M. Pandy, Biophysical Foundations of Human Move-
ment. 2nd ed., Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, Chapter 8,
2005.

19. H. J. Ralston, Energy-speed relation and optimal speed
during level walking, Arbeitsphysiologie 1958; 17:277–283.
20. G. A. Cavagna, H. Thys, and A. Zamboni, The sources of
external work in level walking and running, J. Physiol. 1976;
262:639–657.
21. C. T. Farley and D. P. Ferris, Biomechanics of walking and
running: Center of mass movements to muscle action, Exerc.
Sport Sci. Rev. 1988; 26:253–285.
22. P. E. Martin, D. E. Rothstein, and D. D. Larish, Effects of age
and physical activity status on the speed-aerobic demand
relationship of walking, J. Appl. Physiol. 1992; 73:200–206.
23. D. H. Sutherland, K. R. Kaufman, and J. R. Moitoza,
Kinematics of normal human walking, In: J. Rose and J. G.
Gamble, eds., Human Walking 2nd ed., Baltimore, MD:
Williams & Wilkins, pp. 23–44, 1994.
24. V. T. Inman, H. J. Ralston, and F. Todd, Kinematics of
normal human walking. In: J. Rose and J. G. Gamble eds.,
Human Walking. 2nd ed., Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilk-
ins, pp. 1–22, 1994.
25. J. B. Saunders, V. T. Inman, and H. D. Eberhart, The major
determinants in normal and pathological gait, J. Bone Joint
Surg. 1953; 35A:543–558.
26. D. Meglan and F. Todd, Kinetics of human locomotion, In: J.
Rose and J. G. Gamble eds., Human Walking, 2nd ed.,
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, pp. 73–99, 1994.
27. J. J. Eng and D. A. Winter, Kinetic analysis of the lower
limbs during walking: what information can be gained from
a three-dimensional model? J. Biomech. 1995; 28:753–758.
28. G. T. Rab, Muscle, In: J. Rose and J. G. Gamble, eds., Human
Walking 2nd ed., Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins, pp.
101–121, 1994.
29. D. A. Winter and H. J. Yack, EMG profiles during normal
human walking: Stride-to-stride and inter-subject variabil-
ity, Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1987; 67:402–
411.
30. D. W. Grieve and R. J. Gear, The relationships between
length of stride, frequency, time of swing and speed of
walking for children and adults, Ergonomics 1966; 5:379–
399.
31. M. P.Murray, R. C. Kery, B. H. Clarkson, and S. B. Sepic,
Comparison of free and fast speed walking patterns of
normal man, Am. J. Phys. Med. 1966; 45:8–24.
32. S. Grillner and P. Wallen, Central pattern generators for
locomotion, with special reference to vertebrates, Annu. Rev.
Neurosci. 1985; 8:233–261.
33. J. E. J. Duysens and H. W. A. A. Van de Crommert, Neural
control of locomotion: The central pattern generator from
cats to humans, Gait Posture 1998; 7(2):131–141.
34. D. C. Shapiro, R. Zernicke, R. J. Gregor, and J. D. Diestal,
Evidence of generalized motor programs using gait pattern
analysis, J. Mot. Behav. 1981; 11:33–47.
35. R. Burgess-Limerick, R. J. Neal and B. Abernethy, Relative
timing and phase angle invariance in stair-climbing, Q. J.
Exp. Psychol. 1992; 44A(4):705–722.
36. B. Abernethy, R. J. Burgess-Limerick, C. M. Engstrom, A.
Hanna, and R. J. Neal, Temporal co-ordination of human
gait, In: D. J. Glencross and J. Piek eds., Motor Control and
Sensory Motor Integration, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 171–
196, 1995.
37. D. A. Winter, Biomechanical motor patterns in normal
walking, J. Mot. Behav. 1983; 15:302–330.
GAIT PATTERNS 11
38. J. F. Yang and D. A.Winter, Surface EMG profiles during
different walking cadences in humans, Electroencephalogr.
Clin. Neurophysiol. 1985; 60:485–491.
39. R. Kram and C. R. Taylor, Energetics of running: A new
perspective, Nature 1990; 346:265–267.
40. P. K. Martin and D. J. Sanderson, Biomechanics of walking
and running, In: W. E. Garrett, Jr., and D. T. Kirkendall eds.,
Exercise and Sport Science, Philadelphia: Lippincott Wil-
liams & Wilkins, pp. 661–674, 2000.
41. J. Nilsson, A. Thorstensson, and J. Halbertsma, Changes in
leg movements and muscle activity with speed of locomotion
and mode of progression in animals, Acta. Physiol. Scand.
1985; 123:457–475.
42. A. Hanna, B. Abernethy, R. J. Neal, and R. J. Burgess-
Limerick, Triggers for the transition between human walk-
ing and running. In: W. A. Sparrow ed., Energetics of Human
Activity, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 124–164,
2000.
43. A. Hreljac, Effects of physical characteristics on the gait
transition speed during human locomotion, Hum. Mov. Sci.
1995; 14:205–216.
44. L. Li, Stability landscapes of walking and running near gait
transition, J. Appl. Biomech. 2000; 16:428–435.
45. B. Abernethy, A. Hanna, and A. Plooy, The attentional
demands of preferred and non-preferred gait patterns Gait
Posture 2002; 15: 256–265.
46. G. L. Daniels and K. M. Newell, Attentional focus influences
the walk-run transition in human locomotion, Biol. Psychol.
2003; 63:163–178.
47. W. H. Warren, Jr., Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of
stair climbing, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1984;
10:683–703.
48. A. E. Patla, S. D. Prentice, C. Robinson, and J. Neufield,
Visual control of locomotion: strategies for changing direc-
tion and going over obstacles, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept.
Perform 1991; 17:603–634
49. M. F. Haisman and R. F. Goldman, The effect of terrain on
the energy cost of walking with back loads and handcart
loads, J. Appl. Physiol. 1974; 36:545–548.
50. J. A. S. Kelso, Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of
Brain and Behavior, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
51. M. T. Turvey, K. G. Holt, M. E. LaFiandra, and S. T. Fonseca,
Can the transitions to and from running and the metabolic
costs of running be determined from the kinetic energy of
running? J. Mot. Behav. 1999; 31:265–278.
52. A. Raynor, J. Y. Chow, B. Abernethy, and J.-J. Quek, Are
transitions in human gait determined by mechanical, kinetic
or energetic factors? Hum. Mov. Sci. 2002; 21:785–805.
53. G. E. Caldwell, R. E. A. van Emmerik, and J. Hamill,
Movement proficiency: Incorporating task demands and
constraints in assessing human movement, In: W. A. Spar-
row ed., Energetics of human activity, Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics, pp 66–95, 2000.
54. N. C. Heglund and C. R. Taylor, Speed, stride frequency and
energy cost per stride: How do they change with body size
and gait? J. Exp. Biol. 1988; 138:301–318.
55. A. E. Minetti, L. P. Ardigo, and F. Saibene, The transition
between walking and running in humans: maetabolic and
mechanical aspects at different gradients, Acta. Physiol.
Scand. 1994; 150:315–323.
56. C. R. Lee and C. T. Farley, Determinants of the center of
mass trajectory in human walking and running, J. Exp. Biol.
1998; 201:2935–2944.
12 GAIT PATTERNS
57. A. Hreljac, Determinants of the gait transition speed during
human locomotion: kinematic factors, J. Biomech. 1995;
28:669–677.
58. A. Hreljac, Preferred and energetically optimal gait transi-
tion speeds in human locomotion, Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
1993; 25:1158–1162.
59. D. F. Hoyt and C. R. Taylor, Gait and the energetics of
locomotion in horses, Nature 1981; 292: 239–240.
60. J. Brisswalter and D. Mottet, Energy cost and stride dura-
tion variability at preferred transition gait speed between
walking and running, Can. J. Appl. Physiol. 1996; 21:471–
480.
61. C. R. Taylor, Force development during sustained locomo-
tion: a determinant of gait, speed and metabolic power, J.
Exp. Biol. 1985; 115:253–262.
62. C. T. Farley and C. R. Taylor, A mechanical trigger for the
trot-gallop transition in horses, Science 1991; 253:306–308.
63. A. A. Biewener and C. R. Taylor, Bone strain: A determinant
of gait and speed? J. Exp. Biol. 1986; 123:383–400.
64. H. Haken, Synergetics: An introduction. 3rd ed., Berlin:
Springer Verlag, 1983.
65. J. J. Jeka and J. A. S. Kelso, The dynamic pattern approach
to coordinated behavior: A tutorial review, In: S. A. Wallace
ed., Perspectives on the coordination of movement, Amster-
dam: Elsevier, pp. 3–43, 1989.
66. F. J. Diedrich and W. H. Warren, Jr., Why change gaits?
Dynamics of the walk run transition, J. Exp. Psychol. 1995;
21:183–202.
67. F. J. Diedrich and W. H. Warren, Jr., The dynamics of gait
transitions: Effects of grade and load, J. Mot. Behav. 1998;
30:60–78.
68. R. E. A. van Emmerik and R. C. Wagenaar, Effects of velocity
on relative phase dynamics in the trunk in human walking,
J. Biomech. 1996; 29:1175–1184.
69. R. C. Wagenaar and R. E. A. van Emmerik, The dynamics of
pathological gait: stability and adaptability of movement
coordination, Hum. Mov. Sci. 1994; 13:441–471.
70. R. McN. Alexander, Optimum walking techniques for quad-
rupeds and bipeds, J. Zool. (London) 1980; 192:97–117.
71. R. McN. Alexander, A model of bipedal locomotion on
compliant legs, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1992;
338(B):189–198.
72. T. McGreer, Passive dynamic walking, Int. J. Robotics Res.
1990; 9(2): 62–82.
73. S. Mochon and T. A. McMahon, Ballistic walking, J. Bio-
mech. 1980; 13:49–57.
74. G. A. Cavagna, F. P. Saibene, and R. Margaria, External
work in walking, J. Appl. Physiol. 1963; 18:1–19.
75. C. T. Farley, J. Glasheen, and T. A. McMahon, Running
springs: speed and animal size, J. Exp. Biol. 1993; 185:71–
86.
76. R. Blickhan, The spring mass model for running and hop-
ping, J. Biomech. 1989; 22:1217–1227.
77. T. McGreer, Passive dynamic running, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
1990; 240(B):107–134.
78. T. A. McMahon and G. C. Cheng, The mechanics of running:
how does stiffness couple with speed? J. Biomech. 1990;
23(1):65–78.
79. A. L. Hof, Effects of muscle elasticity in walking and run-
ning, In: J. M. Winter and S. L.-Y. Woo eds., Multiple muscle
systems, biomechanics and movement organization, New
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 591–607, 1990.
80. R. McN. Alexander, Energy saving mechanisms in walking
and running, J. Exp. Biol. 1991; 160:55–69.
81. R. Kram, A. Domingo, and D. P. Ferris, Effect of reduced
gravity on the preferred walk-run transition speed, J. Exp.
Biol. 1997; 200:821–826.
82. K. G. Holt, Constraints in the emergence of preferred
locomotory patterns, In: D. A. Rosenbaum and C. E. Collyer,
eds., Timing of Behavior: Neural, computational and psy-
chological perspectives, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
83. K. G. Holt, S. F. Jeng, R. Ratcliffe, and J. Hamill, Energetic
cost and stability in preferred human walking, J. Mot.
Behav. 1995; 27:164–179.
84. K. G. Holt, S. T. Fonseca, and J. P. Obusek, Dynamic and
thermodynamic constraints and the metabolic cost of loco-
motion, In: W. A. Sparrow ed., Energetics of human activity,
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 255–285, 2000.
85. K. G. Holt, S. F. Jeng, and L. Fetters, Walking cadence of 9-
year olds is predictable as the resonant frequency of a force-
driven harmonic oscillator, Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1991; 3:121–
128.
86. K. G. Holt, J. Hamill, and R. O. Andres, The force-driven
harmonic oscillator as a model for human locomotion, Hum.
Mov. Sci. 1990; 9:55–68.
87. B. Abernethy and W. A. Sparrow, The rise and fall of
dominant paradigms in motor behaviour research, In: J. J.
Summers ed., Approaches to the study of motor control and
learning, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 3–45, 1992.
88. R. A. Schmidt and T. Lee, Motor control and learning: A
behavioral emphasis 4th ed., Champaign, IL: Human Ki-
netics, 2005.
89. R. A. Schmidt, Past and future issues in motor program-
ming, Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 1980; 51:122–140.
90. S. Grillner, Control of locomotion in bipeds, tetrapods, and
fish, In: V. B. Brooks ed., Handbook of Physiology (Sect 1, vol.
II, Part 2), Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society,
pp. 1179–1236, 1981.
91. D. A. Rosenbaum, Human motor control, San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, 1991.
92. F. Delcomyn, Neural basis of rhythmic behavior in animals,
Science 1975; 210:492–498.
93. E. Marder and R. L. Calabrese, Principles of rhythmic motor
pattern production, Physiol. Rev. 1996; 76:687–717.
94. P. S. G. Stein, S. Grillner, A. I. Selverston, and D. G. Stuart,
Neurons, networks, and behavior, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1997.
95. E. Kandel, J. Schwartz, and T. Jessel eds., Principles of
neural science. 3rd ed., New York: Elsevier, 1991.
96. G. Taga, G. Yamaguchi, and H. Shimizu, Self-organized
control of bipedal locomotion by neural oscillators in unpre-
dictable environments, Biol. Cybern. 1991; 65:147–159.
97. M. L. Shik, F. V. Severin, and G. N. Orlosky, Control of
walking and running by means of electrical stimulation of
the mid-brain, Biophysics. 1966; 11:756–765.
98. J. A. S. Kelso and G. Schöner, Self-organization of coordina-
tive movement patterns, Hum. Mov. Sci. 1988; 7:27–46.
99. J. Keogh and D. Sugden, Movement skill development, New
York: Macmillan, 1985.
100. D. H. Sutherland, R. Olshen, E. N. Biden, and M. P. Wyatt,
The development of mature walking. Philadelphia: JB Lip-
pincott, 1988.

101. S. Skinner, Development of gait, In: J. Rose and J. G.
Gamble, eds., Human Walking. 2nd ed., Baltimore, MD:
Williams & Wilkins, pp. 125–138, 1994.
102. D. H. Sutherland, R. Olshen, L. Cooper, and S. L.-Y. Woo,
The development of mature gait, J. Bone. Joint Surg. 1980;
62A:336–353.
103. M. P. Murray, R. C. Kory, and B. H. Clarkson, Walking
patterns in healthy old men, J. Gerontol. 1969; 24:169–178.
104. D. A. Winter, A. E. Patla, J. S. Frank, and S. E. Walt,
Biomechanical walking pattern changes in the fit and
healthy, Phys. Ther. 1990; 70:340–347.
105. J. E. Himann, D. A. Cunningham, P. A. Rechnitzer, and D. H.
Paterson, Age-related changes in speed of walking, Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 1988; 20:161–166.
106. P. E. Martin, D. E. Rothstein, and D. D. Larish, Effects of age
and physical activity status on the speed-aerobic demand
relationship of walking, J. Appl. Physiol. 1992; 73:200–206.
107. J. O. Judge, R. B. Davis, and S. Oonpuu, Step length
reductions in advanced ages: the role of ankle and hip
kinetics, J. Gerontol. 1996; 51A:M303–M312.
108. B. E. Maki, Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or
indicators of fear? J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1997; 45:313–320.
109. C. A. McGibbon, Toward a better understanding of gait
changes with age and disablement: neuromuscular adapta-
tion, Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2003; 31:102–108.
110. S. R. Lord, D. G. Lloyd, M. Nirui, J. Raymond, P. Williams,
and R. A. Stewart, The effect of exercise on gait patterns in
older women: a randomized control trial, J. Gerontol. 1996;
51A: M64–M70.
111. D. M. Buchner, M. E. Cress, B. J. de Lateur, P. C. Esselman,
A. J. Margherita, R. Price, and E. H. Wagner, The effect of
strength and endurance training on gait, balance, fall risk,
and health services use in community-living older adults, J.
Gerontol. 1997; 52A:M218–M224.
112. G. Odenheimer, H. H. Funkenstein, L. Beckett, M. Chown,
D. Pilgrim, D. Evans, and M. Albert, Comparison of neuro-
logic changes in ‘successfully aging’ persons vs the total
aging population, Arch. Neurol. 1994; 51: 573–580.
113. M. E. Tinetti, M. Speechley, and S. F. Ginter, Risk factors for
falls among elderly persons living in the community, N.
Engl. J. Med. 1988; 319:1701–1707.
114. L. W. Lee and D. C. Kerrigan, Identification of kinetic
differences between fallers and nonfallers in the elderly,
Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1999; 78:242–246.
115. L. Sudarsky, Gait disorders: prevalence, morbidity, and
etiology, In: R. Rù&ièka, M. Hallett, and J. Jankovic eds.,
GAIT PATTERNS 13
Gait Disorders: Advances in Neurology, Vol 87, Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 111–117, 2001.
116. J. Jankovic, J. G. Nutt, and L. Sudarsky, Classification,
diagnosis and etiology of gait disorders, In: R. Rù&ièka, M.
Hallett, and J. Jankovic, eds., Gait Disorders: Advances in
Neurology, Vol 87, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins, pp. 119–133, 2001.
117. M. E. Morris, R. Iansek, T. A. Matyas, and J. J. Summers,
Stride length regulation in Parkinson’s disease: normaliza-
tion strategies and underlying mechanisms, Brain 1996;
119:551–568.
118. M. E. Morris, F. E. Huxham, J. McGinley, and R. Iansek,
Gait disorders and gait rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease,
In: R. Rù&ièka, M. Hallett, and J. Jankovic, eds., Gait
Disorders: Advances in Neurology, Vol 87, Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 347–361, 2001.
119. C. A. McGibbon and D. E. Krebs, Compensatory gait me-
chanics in patients with unilateral knee arthritis, J. Rheu-
matol. 2002; 29:2410–2419.
120. S. Holzreiter and M. Köhle, Assessment of gait patterns
using neural networks, J. Biomech. 1993; 26:645–651.
121. W. I. Schöllhorn, Applications of artificial neural nets in
clinical biomechanics, Clin. Biomech. 2004; 19:873–875.
122. M. J. Kurz, N. Stergiou, U. H. Buzzi, and A. D. Georgoulis,
The effect of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on
lower extremity relative phase dynamics during walking
and running, Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2005;
13:107–115.
123. K. E. Webster, J. E. Wittwer, J. O’Brien, and J. A. Feller, Gait
patterns after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are
related to graft type, Am. J. Sports Med. 2005; 33:247–254.
124. A. Gitter, J. Czerniecki, and M. Meinders, Effect of prosthe-
tic mass on swing phase work during above-knee amputee
ambulation, Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1998; 76:114–121.
125. J. D. Richards, J. Sanchez-Ballester, R. K. Jones, N. Darke,
and B. N. Livingstone, A comparison of knee braces during
walking for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the medial
compartment of the knee, J. Bone Joint Surg. 2005; 87:937–
939.
126. S. A. Bus, J. S. Ulbrecht, and P. R. Cavanagh, Pressure relief
and load redistribution by custom-made insoles in diabetic
patients with neuropathy and foot deformity, Clin. Biomech.
2004; 19: 629–638.
127. D. A. Winter, Biomechanics of normal and pathological gait:
implications for understanding human locomotor control, J.
Mot. Behav. 1989; 21:337–355.