Peter Beek

Prof. Peter Beek

Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 9, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

39Years (1988-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2004 in Clinical Biomechanics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ADAndreas Daffertshofer
Andreas Daffertshofer
Claudine LamothClaudine Lamoth
Claudine Lamoth
OMOnno G. Meijer
Onno G. Meijer
Peter BeekPeter Beek
Peter Beek

6 June 2013 in Journal of The Royal Society Interface
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SBSjoerd Bruijn
Sjoerd Bruijn
OMO. G. Meijer
O. G. Meijer
Peter BeekPeter Beek
Peter Beek
Jaap Van DieenJaap Van Dieen
Jaap Van Dieen
Falling poses a major threat to the steadily growing population of the elderly in modern-day society. A major challenge in the prevention of falls is the identification of individuals who are at risk of falling owing to an unstable gait. At present, several methods are available for estimating gait stability, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, we review the currently available measures: the maximum Lyapunov exponent ( λ S and λ L ), the maximum Floquet multiplier, variability measures, long-range correlations, extrapolated centre of mass, stabilizing and destabilizing forces, foot placement estimator, gait sensitivity norm and maximum allowable perturbation. We explain what these measures represent and how they are calculated, and we assess their validity, divided up into construct validity, predictive validity in simple models, convergent validity in experimental studies, and predictive validity in observational studies. We conclude that (i) the validity of variability measures and λ S is best supported across all levels, (ii) the maximum Floquet multiplier and λ L have good construct validity, but negative predictive validity in models, negative convergent validity and (for λ L ) negative predictive validity in observational studies, (iii) long-range correlations lack construct validity and predictive validity in models and have negative convergent validity, and (iv) measures derived from perturbation experiments have good construct validity, but data are lacking on convergent validity in experimental studies and predictive validity in observational studies. In closing, directions for future research on dynamic gait stability are discussed.

31 March 2007 in Experimental Brain Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SDStella F. Donker
Stella F. Donker
Melvyn RoerdinkMelvyn Roerdink
Melvyn Roerdink
AGAn J. Greven
An J. Greven
Peter BeekPeter Beek
Peter Beek
The influence of attention on the dynamical structure of postural sway was examined in 30 healthy young adults by manipulating the focus of attention. In line with the proposed direct relation between the amount of attention invested in postural control and regularity of center-of-pressure (COP) time series, we hypothesized that: (1) increasing cognitive involvement in postural control (i.e., creating an internal focus by increasing task difficulty through visual deprivation) increases COP regularity, and (2) withdrawing attention from postural control (i.e., creating an external focus by performing a cognitive dual task) decreases COP regularity. We quantified COP dynamics in terms of sample entropy (regularity), standard deviation (variability), sway-path length of the normalized posturogram (curviness), largest Lyapunov exponent (local stability), correlation dimension (dimensionality) and scaling exponent (scaling behavior). Consistent with hypothesis 1, standing with eyes closed significantly increased COP regularity. Furthermore, variability increased and local stability decreased, implying ineffective postural control. Conversely, and in line with hypothesis 2, performing a cognitive dual task while standing with eyes closed led to greater irregularity and smaller variability, suggesting an increase in the “efficiency, or “automaticity” of postural control”. In conclusion, these findings not only indicate that regularity of COP trajectories is positively related to the amount of attention invested in postural control, but also substantiate that in certain situations an increased internal focus may in fact be detrimental to postural control.

29 April 2005 in European Spine Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Claudine LamothClaudine Lamoth
Claudine Lamoth
OMOnno G. Meijer
Onno G. Meijer
ADAndreas Daffertshofer
Andreas Daffertshofer
PWPaul I. J. M. Wuisman
Paul I. J. M. Wuisman
Peter BeekPeter Beek
Peter Beek

10 May 2006 in Experimental Brain Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Melvyn RoerdinkMelvyn Roerdink
Melvyn Roerdink
MHM. De Haart
M. De Haart
ADA. Daffertshofer
A. Daffertshofer
SDS. F. Donker
S. F. Donker
AGA. C. H. Geurts
A. C. H. Geurts
Peter BeekPeter Beek
Peter Beek

1 December 2010 in Journal of Experimental Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SBSjoerd Bruijn
Sjoerd Bruijn
OMOnno G. Meijer
Onno G. Meijer
Peter BeekPeter Beek
Peter Beek
Jaap Van DieenJaap Van Dieen
Jaap Van Dieen
SUMMARY: Arm swing during human gait has been shown to reduce both angular momentum about the vertical and energy expenditure, and has been hypothesized to enhance gait stability. To examine this hypothesis, we studied the effect of arm swing on the local and global stability of steady-state gait, as well as the ability to perform adequate recovery actions following a perturbation. Trunk kinematics of 11 male subjects was measured in treadmill walking with normal and with restricted arm swing. In half of the trials, gait was perturbed by a position-controlled forward pull to the trunk. We constructed state spaces using data recorded from the unperturbed steady-state walking trials, and quantified local gait stability by calculating maximum Lyapunov exponents. In addition, we analyzed perturbation forces, the distance from the unperturbed gait pattern, and the return toward the normal gait pattern following an external perturbation. Walking without arm swing led to a non-significantly lower Lyapunov exponent (P=0.06), significantly higher perturbation forces (P<0.05), and significantly slower movements away from the attractor (P<0.01). These results suggest that gait without arm swing is characterized by similar local stability to gait with arm swing and a higher perturbation resistance. However, return towards the normal gait pattern was significantly slower (P<0.05) when walking with restricted arms, suggesting that the arms play an important role in the recovery from a perturbation. Collectively, the results suggest that arm swing as such does not enhance gait stability, but rather that recovery movements of the arms contribute to the overall stability of human gait.