Cited by 108Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesGait Recognition and Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 41 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Human walking in the real world: Interactions between terrain type, gait parameters, and energy expenditure

Open access
Kowalsky, Daniel B., Rebula, John R., Ojeda, Lauro V., Adamczyk, Peter G., Kuo, Arthur D.·2021·PLOS One

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Humans often traverse real-world environments with a variety of surface irregularities and inconsistencies, which can disrupt steady gait and require additional effort. Such effects have, however, scarcely been demonstrated quantitatively, because few laboratory biomechanical measures apply outdoors. Walking can nevertheless be quantified by other means. In particular, the foot’s trajectory in space can be reconstructed from foot-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs), to yield measures of stride and associated variabilities. But it remains unknown whether such measures are related to metabolic energy expenditure. We therefore quantified the effect of five different outdoor terrains on foot motion (from IMUs) and net metabolic rate (from oxygen consumption) in healthy adults (N = 10; walking at 1.25 m/s). Energy expenditure increased significantly ( P < 0.05) in the order Sidewalk, Dirt, Gravel, Grass, and Woodchips, with Woodchips about 27% costlier than Sidewalk. Terrain type also affected measures, particularly stride variability and virtual foot clearance (swing foot’s lowest height above consecutive footfalls). In combination, such measures can also roughly predict metabolic cost (adjusted R 2 = 0.52, partial least squares regression), and even discriminate between terrain types (10% reclassification error). Body-worn sensors can characterize how uneven terrain affects gait, gait variability, and metabolic cost in the real world.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Foot-mounted IMUs and portable respirometry were used to quantify how five outdoor terrains affect gait and metabolic cost in healthy adults walking at about 1.25 m/s. Energy expenditure increased from Sidewalk to Dirt, Gravel, Grass, and Woodchips, with Woodchips about 27% costlier than Sidewalk, and stride measures such as virtual clearance and variability were terrain-dependent and roughly predictive of metabolic cost.

Key findings

  • Net metabolic rate increased significantly across terrains (repeated-measures ANOVA, P = 7.11e-11), from Sidewalk 189.1 ± 29.00 W to Woodchips 240.8 ± 28.91 W; Woodchips was about 27% costlier than Sidewalk. Non-significant pairwise comparisons were Dirt vs. Sidewalk, Gravel vs. Dirt, and Grass vs. Gravel (P ≥ 0.05).
  • Terrain affected stride measures, especially virtual clearance: mean changed by up to 58% and RMS variability by up to 63% across terrains.
  • Multivariate stride measures predicted metabolic rate better than any single measure: partial least squares regression yielded adjusted R² = 0.52, principal components regression R² = 0.46, and the strongest single univariate regressor, mean virtual clearance, R² = 0.34 (individualized R² = 0.49).
  • Linear discriminants classified terrain from stride measures with 10% resubstitution error (5 errors out of 50 observations).

Methods

  • Ten healthy adults (N = 10; 5 male, 5 female; age 18–48; body mass 64.86 ± 10.10 kg; leg length 0.90 ± 0.07 m) walked outdoors in Nichols Arboretum on five surfaces: Sidewalk, Dirt, Gravel, Grass, and Woodchips, presented in random order for 8 minutes each.
  • Speed was loosely regulated at approximately 1.25 m/s via GPS while following an experimenter; metabolic data were collected with portable respirometry and only the last 3 minutes of each trial were used for net metabolic rate after subtracting quiet standing (97.29 ± 27.06 W).
  • Foot paths were reconstructed from foot-mounted IMUs; 90 strides per foot were analyzed from forward walking sections, with only left-foot data reported. Analyses included repeated-measures ANOVA, linear regressions, PCA, LDA, PCR, and PLSR, with stride distances normalized by leg length and metabolic power by Mg^1.5 L^0.5.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the analysis used a relatively small number of summary measures, that foot-path reconstruction errors exceed laboratory motion capture, and that the method relies on the foot being nearly stationary during stance, which may not occur on softer terrains such as Woodchips, adding uncertainty to stride height and variability.
  • The paper also states that reported variability includes terrain, inertial drift, and measurement noise; that kinematic measures cannot capture leg force or power; that inertial data cannot readily discern step width; and that more challenging terrain, speed and elevation variations, and carried loads were not examined.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (N = 10), only five terrains were studied, walking speed was only loosely controlled, and only left-foot data were used for reported measures.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0228682

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 41 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26
49 of 49
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is presently scant understanding of how terrain affects a person’s actual movements and actions, which are the ultimate determinants of energy expenditure.

    “But aside from this overall effect, there is presently scant understanding of how terrain affects a person’s actual movements and actions, which are the ultimate determinants of energy expenditure.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is challenging to determine the biomechanical adaptations for different terrains.

    “It is challenging to determine the biomechanical adaptations for different terrains.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Traditional laboratory measures are difficult to obtain outdoors.

    “But such laboratory measures are difficult to obtain outdoors.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The details of actual surface variations were unknown.

    “Of course, the details of actual surface variations were unknown”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Stride-height variability is called terrain-sensitive despite a non-significant test

    Major

    The discussion names stride-height variability among the most notable terrain sensitivities, but Table 1 reports P = 0.284 for it and leaves its terrain-significance indicator blank.

  • Stride-width variability falls outside the stated R2 range

    Minor

    The stated top four correlates include stride-width variability and are said to have adjusted R2 values of 0.29-0.38. Table 2 instead gives stride-width variability an R2 of 0.14.

  • Stride-width variability is called terrain-sensitive despite a non-significant test

    Minor

    The discussion names stride-width variability among the most notable terrain sensitivities, but Table 1 reports P = 0.423 for it and leaves its terrain-significance indicator blank.

  • Lateral-swing variability is called non-significant despite P = 0.00937

    Minor

    The text says lateral swing variability was not significantly correlated with metabolic rate, but Table 2 marks its regression significant and reports P = 0.00937, below the stated 0.05 threshold.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. AR Wu, 2015, Energetic tradeoffs of foot-to-ground clearance during swing phase of walking
  2. DW Grieve, 1968, Gait patterns and the speed of walking, Biomed Eng, 3, 119
  3. JC Russ, 2013, Fractal surfaces

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 108

Metadata

Authors
Kowalsky, D. B., Rebula, J. R., Ojeda, L. V., Adamczyk, P. G., & Kuo, A. D.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
PLOS One
Published
2021-01-13
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
e0228682
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3118943433
Cited by
106
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5
FWCI
17.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (W81XWH-09-2-0142)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG030815)
  • Office of Naval Research (ETOWL)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
Keywords
human walking, outdoor terrain, metabolic cost, gait variability, stride-to-stride variability, foot trajectory, inertial measurement unit, oxygen consumption, uneven terrain, wood chips, gravel, Poaceae, dirt, wearable sensors
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Biomechanical Phenomena, Energy Metabolism, Female, Foot, Gait, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen Consumption, Walking, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review