Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 199–206 | Cite as

Studies of the Effects of Simulated Weightlessness and Lunar Gravitation on the Biomechanical Parameters of Gait in Humans


We present results from a comparative analysis of the biomechanical characteristics of human gait before and after prolonged antiorthostatic hypokinesia with a body slope angle of –6° relative to the horizontal as a model of microgravitation (the ANOH group) and orthostatic hypokinesia with a positive body angle of +9.6° relative to the horizontal as model of lunar gravitation (the MOON group). Biomechanical gait characteristics were analyzed at a rate of 60 steps/min on a treadmill. Leg joint angles were measured at the hip, knee, and ankle. The electromyographic characteristics of the knee and hip muscles were also recorded. The study results showed that the most marked influences on human gait parameters were seen in subjects of the ANOH group, which was reflected in changes in the leg joint angles at different phases of stepping and changes in the electrical activity of muscles. Subjects of the MOON group showed analogous but less marked changes.


locomotion video analysis of movements hypokinesia electromyogram joint angles decreased gravitation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. V. Baranov, V. P. Katuntsev, A. V. Shpakov, and V. M. Baranov, “A method for the terrestrial simulation of the physiological effects on humans in low-gravity conditions,” Byull. Eksperim. Biol. Med., 160, No. 9, 392–396 (2015).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. N. Gevlich, L. S. Grigor’eva, M. I. Boiko, and I. B. Kozlovksii, “Assessment of skeletal muscle tone by recording transverse rigidity,” Kosm. Biol. Aviakosm. Med., 17, No. 5, 86–89 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. M. Genin, A. E. Il’in, A. S. Kaplanskii, et al., “Bioethics rules for studies on humans and animals in aviation, space, and marine medicine,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 35, No. 4, 14–20 (2001).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. S. Grigor’eva and I. B. Kozlovskaya, “Effects of weightlessness and hypokinesia on the speed/force properties of human skeletal muscles,” Kosm. Biol. Aviakosm. Med., 21, No. 1, 27–30 (1987).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. A. Mel’nik, A. A. Artamonov, T. F. Miller, and A. V. Voronov, “Effects of mechanical stimulation of the support zones of the feet during seven-day dry immersion on the kinematic parameters of locomotion in humans,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 40, No. 5, 61–65 (2006).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. F. Chekirda and A. V. Eremin, “Dynamics of cyclic and acyclic locomotion in cosmonauts after a 63-day space flight,” Kosm. Biol. Aviakosm. Med., 8, No. 4, 9–13 (1974).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. V. Shpakov, A. A. Artamonov, A. V. Voronov, and K. A. Mel’nik, “Effects of immersion hypokinesia on the kinematic and electromyographic characteristics of locomotion in humans,” Aviakosm. Ekol. Med., 42, No. 5, 24–29 (2008).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. V. Shpakov, A. V. Voronov, E. V. Fomina, et al., “Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of different regimes for locomotor training in prolonged space flights based on biomechanical and electromyographic characteristics of gait,” Fiziol. Cheloveka, 39, No. 2, 60–69 (2013).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Bouisset and B. Maton, “Comparison between surface and intramuscular EMG during voluntary movements,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., 29, No. 5, 533–539 (1970).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. R. Cavanagh, A. J. Rice, A. A. Licata, et al., “A novel lunar bed rest analogue,” Aviat. Space Environ. Med., 84, No. 11, 1191–1195 (2013).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. R. Edgerton and R. R. Roy, “Neuromuscular adaptation to actual and simulated spaceflight,” in: Handbook of Physiology. Environmental Physiology. The Gravitational Environment, Oxford Univ. Press, New York (1996), Vol. 3, pp. 721–763.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Gappelini, Y. P. Ivanenko, R. E. Poppele, and F. Lacquaniti, “Motor pattern in human walking and running,” J. Neurophysiol., 95, 3426–3437 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. R. Khusnutdinova, A. I. Netreba, and I. B. Kozlovskaya, “Mechanic stimulation of the support zones as countermeasure of the contractile properties decline under microgravity conditions,” J. Gravit. Physiol., 12, No. 1, 143–144 (2005).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Kozlovskaya, A. Grigoriev, and B. Shenkman, “Support afferentation as the system of proprioreception,” J. Gravit. Physiol., 15, No. 1, 1–4 (2008).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. A. Miller, B. T. Peters, R. R. Brady, et al., “Change in toe clearance during treadmill walking after long-duration spaceflight,” Aviat. Space Environ. Med., 81, No. 10, 919–928 (2010).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. F. Miller, I. V. Saenko, D. V. Popov, et al., “Effect of mechanical stimulation of the support zones of soles on the muscle stiffness in 7-day dry immersion,” J. Gravit. Physiol., 11, No. 2, 135–136 (2004).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. H. Paloski, J. J. Bloomberg, M. F. Reschke, et al., “Spaceflight-induced changes in posture and locomotion,” J. Biomech., 27, No. 6, 812–832 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. V. Popov, I. V. Sayenko, O. L. Vinogradova, and I. B. Kozlovskaya, “Mechanical stimulation of foot support zones for preventing unfavorable effects of gravitational unloading,” J. Gravit. Physiol., 10, No. 1, 59–60 (2003).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Space Medicine, Federal Scientific-Clinical CenterRussian Federal Medical-Biological AgencyMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Federal Scientific Center for Physical Culture and SportMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations