This suggests a reluctance to load the paretic leg, resulting in reduced single-leg stance phase on the paretic leg and longer double-limb support phase.
For the 10 subjects who displayed both concave LL and LU, the loading of both paretic and nonparetic legs was slow, suggesting that they spent a large proportion of the gait cycle in the double-limb support phase and displayed slow loading of both the paretic and nonparetic leg.
In addition, the difference in terminal double-limb support could be explained by reduced ability to plantar flex the ankle to create push-off power during the second double-limb support phase, and also the increased knee flexion could be credited to increased power generation requirements of the nonparetic leg (at hip, knee, and ankle) to compensate for the decreased power output from the paretic leg .
Average percentage of double-limb support phase required for transition of weight from paretic (P) to nonparetic (NP) (P to NP) and nonparetic to paretic (NP to P).
The timing of LL was calculated for each leg as the crossover point of the two vertical GRF curves during the double-limb support phase (i.
The average leg angle in the mediolateral direction was calculated during each double-limb support phase as the angle between the vertical and the projection of the line connecting the center of mass of the pelvis with the center of mass of the foot in the frontal plane (Figure 1(c), Figure 2(c)).
We also correlated LL and LU with the kinematic measures during each double-limb support phase of the gait cycle.
This can be related to the information gained by the duration of the second double-limb support phase of the paretic (28.
LL and LU occur during the double-limb support phases of the gait cycle, and therefore, all variables were calculated in these two phases.