An electromyographic (EMG) activity pattern for individual muscles in the gait cycle exhibits a great deal of intersubject, intermuscle and context‐dependent variability. Here we examined the issue of common underlying patterns by applying factor analysis to the set of EMG records obtained at different walking speeds and gravitational loads. To this end healthy subjects were asked to walk on a treadmill at speeds of 1, 2, 3 and 5kmh⁻¹ as well as when 35–95% of the body weight was supported using a harness. We recorded from 12–16 ipsilateral leg and trunk muscles using both surface and intramuscular recording and determined the average, normalized EMG of each record for 10–15 consecutive step cycles. We identified five basic underlying factors or component waveforms that can account for about 90% of the total waveform variance across different muscles during normal gait. Furthermore, while activation patterns of individual muscles could vary dramatically with speed and gravitational load, both the limb kinematics and the basic EMG components displayed only limited changes. Thus, we found a systematic phase shift of all five factors with speed in the same direction as the shift in the onset of the swing phase. This tendency for the factors to be timed according to the lift‐off event supports the idea that the origin of the gait cycle generation is the propulsion rather than heel strike event. The basic invariance of the factors with walking speed and with body weight unloading implies that a few oscillating circuits drive the active muscles to produce the locomotion kinematics. A flexible and dynamic distribution of these basic components to the muscles may result from various descending and proprioceptive signals that depend on the kinematic and kinetic demands of the movements.

Despite distinct differences between walking and running, the two types of human locomotion are likely to be controlled by shared pattern-generating networks. However, the differences between their kinematics and kinetics imply that corresponding muscle activations may also be quite different. We examined the differences between walking and running by recording kinematics and electromyographic (EMG) activity in 32 ipsilateral limb and trunk muscles during human locomotion, and compared the effects of speed (3–12 km/h) and gait. We found that the timing of muscle activation was accounted for by five basic temporal activation components during running as we previously found for walking. Each component was loaded on similar sets of leg muscles in both gaits but generally on different sets of upper trunk and shoulder muscles. The major difference between walking and running was that one temporal component, occurring during stance, was shifted to an earlier phase in the step cycle during running. These muscle activation differences between gaits did not simply depend on locomotion speed as shown by recordings during each gait over the same range of speeds (5–9 km/h). The results are consistent with an organization of locomotion motor programs having two parts, one that organizes muscle activation during swing and another during stance and the transition to swing. The timing shift between walking and running reflects therefore the difference in the relative duration of the stance phase in the two gaits.

How the CNS selects the appropriate muscle patterns to achieve a behavioral goal is an open question. To gain insight into this process, we characterized the spatiotemporal organization of the muscle patterns for fast-reaching movements. We recorded electromyographic activity from up to 19 shoulder and arm muscles during point-to-point movements between a central location and 8 peripheral targets in each of 2 vertical planes. We used an optimization algorithm to identify a set of time-varying muscle synergies, i.e., the coordinated activations of groups of muscles with specific time-varying profiles. For each one of nine subjects, we extracted four or five synergies whose combinations, after scaling in amplitude and shifting in time each synergy independently for each movement condition, explained 73–82% of the data variation. We then tested whether these synergies could reconstruct the muscle patterns for point-to-point movements with different loads or forearm postures and for reversal and via-point movements. We found that reconstruction accuracy remained high, indicating generalization across these conditions. Finally, the synergy amplitude coefficients were directionally tuned according to a cosine function with a preferred direction that showed a smaller variability with changes of load, posture, and endpoint than the preferred direction of individual muscles. Thus the complex spatiotemporal characteristics of the muscles patterns for reaching were captured by the combinations of a small number of components, suggesting that the mechanisms involved in the generation of the muscle patterns exploit this low dimensionality to simplify control.

Mammalian locomotion patterns share common roots.

Simple arm movements involving forward projection of the hand toward a target were studied by measuring simultaneous wrist position in three- dimensional space and changes in elbow angle. An attempt was made to identify those features of the movement which exhibit invariant characteristics under the hypothesis that such invariances may reflect the operations by which central processes participate in the organization of the movement. The first such invariance to be identified was that the trajectory in space is independent of movement speed. Secondly, the movement can be viewed as consisting of two phases, an acceleratory phase and a deceleratory one, with the movement during the acceleratory phase being so organized as to maintain the ratio of elbow angular velocity to shoulder angular velocity invariant with respect to target location in the deceleratory phase. It is suggested that proprioceptive information is used to control the movement and that the latter invariance may result from a negative feedback of force involving tendon organ afferents.