J Appl Physiol 104: 747–755, 2008.
First published November 29, 2007; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01380.2006.
Biomechanics of overground vs. treadmill walking in healthy individuals
Song Joo Lee1,2 and Joseph Hidler1,2
1
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Catholic University, and 2Center for Applied Biomechanics and Rehabilitation
Research National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
Submitted 5 December 2006; accepted in final form 21 November 2007
Lee SJ, Hidler J. Biomechanics of overground vs. treadmill walking
in healthy individuals. J Appl Physiol 104: 747–755, 2008. First pub-
lished November 29, 2007; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01380.2006.—The
goal of this study was to compare treadmill walking with overground
walking in healthy subjects with no known gait disorders. Nineteen
subjects were tested, where each subject walked on a split-belt
instrumented treadmill as well as over a smooth, flat surface. Com-
parisons between walking conditions were made for temporal gait
parameters such as step length and cadence, leg kinematics, joint
moments and powers, and muscle activity. Overall, very few differ-
ences were found in temporal gait parameters or leg kinematics
between treadmill and overground walking. Conversely, sagittal plane
joint moments were found to be quite different, where during tread-
mill walking trials, subjects demonstrated less dorsiflexor moments,
less knee extensor moments, and greater hip extensor moments. Joint
powers in the sagittal plane were found to be similar at the ankle but
quite different at the knee and hip joints. Differences in muscle
activity were observed between the two walking modalities, particu-
larly in the tibialis anterior throughout stance, and in the hamstrings,
vastus medialis and adductor longus during swing. While differences
were observed in muscle activation patterns, joint moments and joint
powers between the two walking modalities, the overall patterns in
these behaviors were quite similar. From a therapeutic perspective,
this suggests that training individuals with neurological injuries on a
treadmill appears to be justified.
gait; motion analysis; electromyogram
OVER THE LAST DECADE, THERE has been a steady shift in gait
training strategies in neurorehabilitation clinics where body-
weight-supported treadmill training is now considered a viable
intervention for treating gait impairments following neurolog-
ical disorders such as stroke (12, 13) and spinal cord injury (9).
Treadmill training has numerous advantages compared with
overground gait training, where the training can be done in
small area, a larger volume of steps can be achieved, walking
speed can be well controlled, and because the subject is
stationary and often elevated, the positioning of the therapist is
more optimal for providing assistance. Additionally, overhead
body weight-support systems can be utilized, relieving the
subject of a portion of their weight, which allows them to train
safely and earlier in their recovery period (see Ref. 10 for a
review).
Because the goal of all patients is to walk overground and
not on a treadmill, it is important that the motor control
strategy utilized during each type of walking modality be
similar so that improvements in treadmill ambulation will
transfer to overground walking. In theory, if the belt speed of
the treadmill is constant, biomechanically, there should be no
differences between the two walking modalities (31). A num-
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. Hidler, Dept. of
Biomedical Engineering, Catholic Univ., Pangborn Hall, #104b, 620 Michigan
Ave., NE, Washington, DC 20064 (e-mail: hidler@cua.edu).
http://www. jap.org 8750-7587/08 $8.00 Copyright © 2008 the American Physiological Society
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
ber of previous studies have compared temporal gait parame-
ters (1, 5, 24 –26, 29, 33), joint kinematics(1, 5, 24, 25, 29), and
muscle activation patterns (2, 24, 25) between overground and
treadmill walking, however, the results are often conflicting
and inconclusive. For example, Murray et al. (24) reported no
statistical differences in temporal gait parameters but claimed
that during treadmill walking, subjects demonstrated trends for
shorter step lengths, higher cadences, shorter swing phases,
and longer double-limb support. They also reported that de-
spite no statistical differences in muscle activity except for
quadriceps, EMG activity was, in general, higher on the tread-
mill. This is in contrast to the reports by Arsenault et al. (2),
who reported no differences in muscle activity in the soleus,
rectus femoris, vastus medialis, or tibialis anterior between the
two walking modalities. These investigators did report elevated
activity in the biceps femoris and the variability was lower in
muscle firing patterns on the treadmill. Alton et al. (1) found
that during treadmill ambulation, subjects had a shorter stance
time, higher cadence, larger hip range of motion, and greater
maximum hip flexion angle. Unfortunately, the experimental
procedures in that study were questionable, because the walk-
ing speeds between the two conditions were never accurately
matched, and the method for estimating the joint angles,
particularly at the hip, was problematic.
Although the studies described above have looked at tem-
poral gait parameters, kinematics, and muscle activation pat-
terns, only one has looked at joint moments and powers while
walking on a treadmill (29). In that study, it was reported that
joint moments and powers were statistically different, yet
because these differences were within the variability of the
kinetic measures, it was concluded that treadmill and over-
ground joint moments and powers are similar. This study only
reported on the maximum and minimum moments and powers
during stance, and it did not report on muscle activation
patterns for these trials.
Although the study by Riley et al. (29) provides the first look
at kinetic patterns during treadmill walking, it is important to
look at these behaviors across the gait cycle and also to
examine the corresponding muscle activation patterns. Because
motor coordination, synergy patterns, energy expenditure, and
other control strategies can be best observed by looking at
kinetics and muscle activity, having a detailed understanding
of these behaviors for treadmill and overground gait may
provide important insight into developing gait training proto-
cols for neurological subjects and for understanding how tread-
mill-based interventions may be limited. It may also help
explain the therapeutic benefits of body weight-supported
treadmill training for individuals with lower limb impairments.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment
of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement”
in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
747
748 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING
Fig. 1. A: ADAL treadmill manufactured by Techmachine
(Andrezieux Boutheon, France). The split belt treadmill sits
on top of 8 tri-axial Kistler force sensors, 4 per half-treadmill,
labeled 1– 4 in B. See text for detailed description. Note
picture is not to scale.
With the integration of force-sensing capabilities into split-belt
treadmills (3, 22), ground reaction forces and centers of pres-
sure can now be measured so that when combined with
kinematic data, inverse dynamics calculations of joint mo-
ments and powers during treadmill ambulation can now be
realized.
The goal of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis
of the temporal gait parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics,
and muscle activation patterns utilized when subjects walk on
a treadmill compared with overground ambulation. We hypoth-
esize that when individuals walk on a treadmill, they will
demonstrate significant differences in joint moments and pow-
ers, as well as muscle activation patterns when compared with
overground walking.
METHODS
Subjects
Nineteen healthy individuals with no known gait impairments
participated in the study. Eight subjects (4 men, 4 women) were in the
age range of 50 –70 yr old (means ⫾ SD: 56.0 ⫾ 5.6), while 11
subjects (5 men, 6 women) were between 18 and 30 yr old (means ⫾
SD: 23.5 ⫾ 3.3 yr). Our original goal was to determine whether there
were age-related differences in treadmill vs. overground walking.
However, with analysis of the data, we found that there were no
age-related differences in any of the metrics we examined.1 As such,
we collapsed all subject data into the analysis.
Exclusion criteria included cardiac arrhythmia, hypertension, or
any known gait abnormality such as an orthopedic injury, lower limb
pain, or neurological injury that would bias the results of this study.
All subjects were required to provide informed consent approved by
the Institutional Review Boards of Medstar Research Institute. All
experiments were conducted at the National Rehabilitation Hospital
(Washington, DC).
1
It should be noted that the “older” subjects tested in this study were
extremely fit, and they often walk on a treadmill as part of their normal
exercise routine.
J Appl Physiol • VOL
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
Instrumentation
The primary equipment used in this study was an ADAL3D-F/
COP/Mz instrumented split-belt treadmill (TECHMACHINE, An-
drézieux, France; see Ref. 3 for detailed description). As shown in
Fig. 1, each half of the treadmill is mounted on 4 Kistler triaxial
piezoelectric sensors (Winterthur, Switzerland). This allows for
ground reaction forces to be resolved in the vertical, anterior-poste-
rior, and medial-lateral planes while subjects ambulate on the device.
These forces could then be used to calculate the center of pressure
under each foot during stance.
Compared with previous studies that compared treadmill with
overground walking (1, 2, 5, 24 –26, 33), one of the distinct advan-
tages of our experimental setup is that the floor in our laboratory is
raised to be level with the ADAL treadmill. Thus, for the overground
experiments, the treadmill motors were turned off and the subjects
simply walked across the treadmill. Utilizing the same “force plates”
for both treadmill and overground walking trials eliminated any
experimental bias that might have been introduced into the ground
reaction force measurements had the overground gait analysis been
done using standard force plates. In that setting, the sensors of the
different force plates may have different dynamic response character-
istics. More importantly, the surfaces of the force plates in the two
walking modalities would be different (e.g., rubber treadmill vs. hard
overground). Changes in surface stiffness and damping result in
significant changes in muscle EMG activity (23), suggesting the
importance of consistent test conditions. It should be noted that before
the study, we checked for belt slippage during overground walking
trials by placing motion analysis markers on the surface of the belt as
subjects walked across the treadmill. We did not observe any belt
slippage during these overground test trials.
The kinematics of lower limbs were measured using a CodaMotion
system (Charnwood Dynamics). A single Codomotion CX1048 infra-
red camera station was used to capture the three-dimensional coordi-
nates of markers on the subject’s lower limbs. To minimize marker
movement artifacts that come from direct contact to subjects’ skin,
custom-made clusters were used to track the markers. Each cluster
consisted of four Codamotion active markers attached to custom-
made Aquaplast shells, where the marker locations could be adjusted
for each subject to minimize marker dropout.
Muscle activity was recorded differentially from the tibialis ante-
rior, medial gastrocnemius, medial hamstrings, vastus medialis, rectus
104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org
 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING
femoris, adductor longus, and gluteus maximus and medius muscles
on the left leg using a Bagnoli-8 EMG system (Delsys, Boston, MA).
All force and EMG data were antialias filtered at 500 Hz before
sampling at 1,000 Hz using a 16-bit data acquisition board (Measure-
ment computing, PCI-DAS 6402, Middleboro, MA) and custom
software (Mathworks, Natick, MA). Marker position data from Co-
damotion were sampled at 100 Hz. Force plate data were further
low-pass filtered using a zero-delay fourth-order Butterworth filter
with a 25-Hz cutoff frequency.
Protocol
After the subject signed the informed consent form, EMG
electrodes were attached on the subject’s skin by a trained physical
therapist, after which the marker clusters were strapped on to the
subject’s legs with neoprene (DuPont, Wilmington, DE) and co-
band (3M, St. Paul, MN). The neoprene was wrapped tightly
around the subject’s shanks and thighs, which helped minimize
skin movement artifacts. Marker clusters were placed on the
subject’s feet, shanks and thighs, while four individual markers
were placed on the subject’s pelvis.
With all of the instrumentation in place, subjects were asked to
walk overground for a distance of ⬃5 m at their comfortable speed. In
general, ⬃10 trials were necessary to obtain three acceptable passes
749
with adequate rest breaks in between. The criteria for an acceptable
trial were that the subject made good contact with the center of the
force plate, and minimal marker dropout was observed over a full gait
cycle. The average walking speeds were calculated from the first three
overground trials, which were then used in the treadmill trials.
After the overground walking trials, subjects were allowed to
acclimate to walking on the treadmill for ⬃3 min. During the
treadmill trials, subjects were not allowed to hold onto the handrails
because this could possibly alter their gait pattern. After the acclima-
tion phase, the speed of the treadmill was set to the speed obtained
during the overground walking trials and data were collected for 30 s.
On completion of the walking trials, anatomic landmarks were
digitized using the C-Motion digitizing pointer, which established
relationships between landmarks and marker locations. Landmark
locations were obtained from both legs for the lateral malleolus,
lateral femoral epicondyle, greater trochanter, and the anterior iliac
crest. Additionally, anatomic measures of the foot, ankle, and knee
were taken for each subject to create subject-specific link segment
models in Visual 3D (C-Motion, Rockville, MD) (see below).
Analysis
Subject-specific models were created in Visual 3D using the
anatomic measures taken for each subject, along with body mass and

Fig. 2. Average ankle, knee, and hip joint moments in sagittal (A, C, E) and frontal (B, D, F) planes for all subjects. Gray line with shading, mean ⫾1 SD for
overground trials; solid black line with 2 dashed lines, mean ⫾1 SD for treadmill trials. Max Pflexor, maximum plantar flexion; Max Dflexor, maximum
dorsiflexion; MaxEV1, maximum eversion in early stance; MaxEV2, maximum eversion in late stance; MaxIN, maximum inversion; MaxEX1, maximum
extension in early stance; MaxEX2, maximum extension in late stance; MaxFL, maximum flexion; MaxFL1, maximum flexion in mid stance; MaxFL2, maximum
flexion in late swing; MaxIN, maximum inversion; MinVal, minimum valgus; MaxVal1, maximum valgus in early stance; MaxVal2, maximum valgus in late
stance; MinAB, minimum abduction; MaxAB1, maximum abduction in early stance; MaxAB2, maximum abduction in late stance.

J Appl Physiol • VOL 104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
750 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING

height, which were used to normalize joint moments and joint powers,
and to define segment masses and inertial values.
The Visual 3D model assumes that each segment is a rigid body,
which is then used to calculate joint angles, joint moments, and joint
powers.
For each trial, individual gait cycles were extracted from a data
sequence, considered the interval between successive heel strikes in
the same foot. Since only one heel contact was normally made on the
force plate for the overground trials, the subsequent heel strike was
inferred from the kinematic data. Each stride cycle was resampled for
averaging purposes and time normalized, expressed as a percentage of
the total gait cycle (e.g., 0 –100%). All temporal, kinematic, kinetic,
and EMG measures were calculated for each stride, which resulted in
three overground trials and ⬃10 –20 treadmill strides. To make
equivalent comparisons between the two walking conditions, 3 strides
were randomly selected from the treadmill trials for each subject,
which were then compared with the overground trials (see Statistics).
Temporal gait parameters. Temporal gait parameters were esti-
mated for treadmill and overground walking conditions. Measures
included stance time, total double-limb support time, swing time,
stride time, step time, cadence, and stride length (see Ref. 21 for an
explanation of each gait parameter). Speed, cadence, and stride length
were normalized using the procedures described by Hof (15) to
account for individuals of various heights:
1
Normalized speed: speed 䡠 (1)
冑H ⴱ g
Normalized cadence: cadence 䡠 冑
H
g
(2)

1
Normalized stride length: stride length 䡠 (3)
H
where H is the subject’s height in meters, and g is gravity (9.81 m/s2).
Kinematic analysis. The angular range of motion in the sagittal
plane for the hip, knee, and ankle was found by subtracting the
minimum joint angle from the maximum joint angle for overground
and treadmill trials (1). Peak ankle flexion and extension, knee flexion,
and hip flexion and extension were also identified for each trial. These
values, and the phase of the gait cycle in which they occurred, were
used to evaluate the kinematic differences between treadmill and
overground walking.
Kinetic analysis. Joint moments at the ankle, knee, and hip (11, 21,
34, 35) were analyzed in the sagittal and frontal planes. For the ankle,
the maximum dorsiflexor and plantar flexor moments were calculated
in the sagittal plane, while maximum eversion and the midstance
minimum moments were determined for the frontal plane. For the
knee in the sagittal plane, the maximum extension moments generated
in early stance and late stance, along with the maximum flexion
moment were identified. In the frontal plane, the two peak valgus
moments in early and late stance were identified, along with the minimum
valgus moment in midstance. At the hip, sagittal plane maximum
extension moments were identified in early stance and late swing,
along with the maximum hip flexion moment. For the frontal plane,
peak abduction moments in early and late stance were identified
as well as the minimum in midstance. These metrics are outlined in
Fig. 2 and described in RESULTS.
Joint powers (11) were analyzed for the sagittal planes, where the
minimum and maximum joint powers were estimated for the ankle,
knee, and hip throughout the gait cycle (Fig. 3). Ground reaction
forces were examined in the vertical, medial-lateral, and anterior-
posterior planes, where the maximum and minimum values were
analyzed in the gait cycle, particularly at transition points (see Fig. 4).
EMG analysis. Muscle activation patterns (16) were processed
using the technique described by Hidler and Wall (14). Briefly, the
mean EMG pattern for each muscle was rectified and then smoothed
Fig. 3. Average ankle (A), knee (B), and hip (C) joint power in the sagittal
plane for all subjects. Gray line with shading, mean and ⫾1 SD for overground
trials; solid black line with 2 dashed lines, mean and ⫾1 SD for treadmill trials.
Max, maximum power; Min, minimum power; Min1, first local minimum;
Min2, second local minima; Min3, third local minimum; Max1, maximum
power in early stance; Max2, maximum power in late stance.
using a 50-point root-mean-square algorithm (19). For each muscle,
the smoothed EMG was normalized to the maximum value observed
in that respective muscle across all trials so that intersubject compar-
isons could be made. After the average EMG profile for each muscle
was calculated, the data were broken up into seven phases as de-
scribed by Perry (27). Within each of these phases, the integrated
EMG activity was calculated for each muscle.
Statistics
Two parallel statistical analyses were performed on the temporal
gait parameters, kinematic measures, joint moments, and joint powers.
A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to first compare treadmill and
overground walking. As stated above, the three overground strides
were compared with three randomly selected treadmill strides for each
subject. Temporal parameters compared included normalized walking
speed, normalized cadence, normalized stride length, stride time,
stance time, swing time, and double-limb support time. Kinematic
variables examined were maximum and minimum flexion and exten-
sion angles, and range of motion of the ankle, knee, and hip in sagittal
and frontal plane. Kinetic measures were compared by looking at
anterior-posterior, medial-lateral, and vertical ground reaction forces,
joint moments, and joint powers that have been discussed in Kine-
matic analysis. Interactions were also looked at across strides and
groups, as well as within groups and between strides. All statistical
tests were run using STATA (Intercooled Stats 9.2 for Windows,
Stata).

J Appl Physiol • VOL 104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING 751

Fig. 4. Average ground reaction forces (GRF) for

all subjects in the anterior-posterior (A), medial-
lateral (B), and vertical (C) axes. Gray line with
shading, mean and ⫾1 SD for overground trials;
Solid black line with 2 dashed lines, mean and ⫾1
SD for treadmill trials. MinAP, minimum anterior-
posterior GRF; MaxAP, maximum anterior-posterior
GRF; ML Max1, maximum medial lateral GRF in
early stance; ML Max2 maximum medial lateral
GRF in late stance; Vmin, minimum vertical GRF;
VMax1, maximum vertical GRF in early stance;
VMax2, maximum vertical GRF in late stance.

Because of the large number of comparisons being made between
treadmill and overground walking, we also analyzed the data de-
scribed above using a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) model,
which is an extension of linear regression model. SUR models are
systems of simultaneous equations in which the variables are not
independent. The SUR model tests the effects of a number of inde-
pendent variables on each dependent variable by taking into account
the potential correlation among the error terms. Thus this modeling
technique allowed us to look for differences between treadmill and
overground walking by implicitly modeling the similarities between
the dependent variables (20). For the SUR model analysis, indepen-
dent variables consisted of type of walking and stride number.
To analyze the EMG data, we used a fixed-effects regression
analysis to account for the interrelatedness between the phases of the
gait cycle and to model the unobserved factors that arise from the
multiple steps and the individual subjects. This model allowed us to
test for differences between the treadmill and the overground for each
phase of the gait cycle, assuming that the phases are part of a complete
movement rather than analyzing each phase separately across the
types of walking. Here, fixed factors in the model included type of
walking, subject, and phase of the gait cycle, while the dependent
measure was the mean integrated amount of muscle activity (see EMG
Analysis).
RESULTS
Temporal Gait Parameters and Joint Kinematics
Joint Moments
General observation. With the exception of peak ankle
plantar flexion, sagittal plane joint moments during treadmill
trials were significantly different than those utilized during
overground walking. Conversely, joint moments in the frontal
plane were not significantly different between treadmill and
overground walking. A detailed listing of the mean and stan-
dard deviations of the sagittal plane joint moment features
outlined in Kinetic analysis can be found in Table 3.
Ankle moment. A representative example of the ankle mo-
ments for treadmill and overground walking can be seen in Fig.
2A. During the loading response of the gait cycle (0 –10%),
subjects had a tendency to produce larger dorsiflexor moments
during overground walking. Maximum plantar flexor moments
during terminal stance phase (30 –50%) were not significantly
different between overground and treadmill walking. For the
frontal plane, neither ankle inversion nor eversion moments
were significantly different between the walking conditions
(Fig. 2B).
Table 1. Temporal gait parameters for overground
and treadmill walking
Parameter Overground Treadmill P Value

Table 1 lists means SD of the temporal parameters for both Walking speed (dimensionless) 0.27 (0.04) 0.28 (0.04) 0.95
overground and treadmill ambulation. With the exception of Step time, s 0.56 (0.05) 0.54 (0.06) 0.41
Stance time, s 0.68 (0.07) 0.65 (0.08)* 0.021
swing time and stance time, none of the temporal gait param- Swing time, s 0.45 (0.03) 0.43 (0.04)* 0.0017
eters were significantly different between treadmill and over- Double-limb support time, s 0.23 (0.05) 0.22 (0.05) 0.77
ground ambulation. Comparing joint kinematics in the sagittal Cadence (dimensionless) 45.1 (4.0) 46.6 (4.5) 0.28
plane, only knee range of motion was significantly different Stride length (dimensionless) 0.73 (0.09) 0.71 (0.08) 0.86
between treadmill and overground walking. A summary of Values are means (SD). *Different from overground walking, P ⬍ 0.05 (see
joint kinematic parameters is listed in Table 2. Statistics for details).

J Appl Physiol • VOL 104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org

Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
752 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING

Table 2. Sagittal plane kinematic measures for treadmill Table 4. Sagittal joint powers during overground
and overground walking and treadmill walking
Parameter Overground Treadmill P Value Parameter Overground Treadmill P Value

Maximum ankle flexion 13.9 (4.2) 12.2 (4.4) 0.15 Ankle Minimum ⫺0.84 (0.36) ⫺0.85 (0.32) 0.93
Maximum ankle extension ⫺12.8 (7.3) ⫺15.3 (7.0) 0.091 Ankle Maximum 3.13 (1.00) 3.24 (1.05) 0.62
Ankle range of motion 26.6 (6.2) 27.5 (5.6) 0.84 Knee Maximum 0.56 (0.35) 0.46 (0.19) 0.22
Maximum knee flexion 69.1 (4.3) 67.7 (4.7) 0.48 Knee Min1 ⫺0.62 (0.44) ⫺0.38 (0.35)* 0.04
Knee range of motion 67.7 (3.2) 65.6 (3.3)* 0.0037 Knee Min2 ⫺1.74 (0.80) ⫺1.12 (0.87)* 0.001
Maximum hip flexion 31.5 (4.0) 31.4 (4.1) 0.97 Knee Min3 ⫺0.94 (0.33) ⫺1.14 (0.31) 0.07
Maximum hip extension ⫺12.6 (4.2) ⫺12.6 (3.5) 0.81 Hip Max1 0.54 (0.38) 0.79 (0.39)* 0.03
Hip range of motion 44.1 (3.6) 44.0 (4.5) 0.96 Hip Minimum ⫺0.62 (0.27) ⫺0.55 (0.31)* 0.02
Hip Max2 0.97 (0.38) 0.95 (0.42) 0.58
Values are means (SD) given in degrees. *Different from overground
walking, P ⬍ 0.05 (see Statistics for details). Values are means (SD) given in W/kg. Min1, first local minimum; Min2,
second local minimum; Min3, third local minimum; Max1, first local maxi-
mum; Max2, second local maximum. *Different from overground walking, P
Knee moment. Throughout the gait cycle, subjects produced ⬍ 0.05 (see Statistics for details).
larger knee extensor moments during overground walking
compared with treadmill walking. As shown in Fig. 2C and
summarized in Table 3, the peak extensor moments in early comparison. The first two local minima (e.g., Min1 and Min2)
and late stance (e.g., MaxEX1 and MaxEX2) were both sig- were found to be significantly less for overground walking
nificantly greater during overground walking than on the tread- (e.g., more negative), whereas the third local minimum (Min3)
mill (P ⬍ 0.05). The peak flexor moments in late stance (e.g., was not different for the two walking conditions. The maxi-
MaxFL1) and in late swing (e.g., MaxFL2) were significantly mum knee power (Max) was also not significantly different
greater during treadmill walking. In the frontal plane (Fig. 2D), between treadmill and overground walking. For the hip, the
no statistical differences were found in valgus knee moments first maximum (Max1) was significantly greater for treadmill
between walking conditions. walking while the local minimum (Min) was significantly
Hip moment. Sagittal plane hip extensor moments in early greater (e.g., more negative) for overground walking. No
stance (e.g., MaxEX1) and late swing (MaxEX2) were both differences were found for the second maximum hip power
greater during treadmill walking than during overground trials (Max2) between walking conditions.
(see Fig. 2E), whereas the peak hip flexion moment (MaxFL) Ground Reaction Forces
was significantly higher (e.g., more negative) during treadmill
walking. In the frontal plane, no statistical differences were Because the joint kinematics were similar between treadmill
found in joint moments for treadmill or overground walking and overground walking yet numerous joint moments and
(Fig. 2F). powers were different, we examined the ground reaction forces
for each condition in hopes of better understanding these
Joint Powers differences. Figure 4 illustrates the ground reaction forces in
Joint powers for the sagittal plane are reported. As illustrated the anterior-posterior (A), medial-lateral (B), and vertical
in Fig. 3A and listed in Table 4, the maximum and minimum planes (C). We found that the maximum braking forces (la-
joint powers at the ankle for treadmill and overground trials beled MinAP in Fig. 4A) was significantly greater during
were not different. Conversely, significant differences were overground walking than during treadmill walking. No other
found for knee power curves throughout the gait cycle. Figure ground reaction force metrics shown in Fig. 4 were signifi-
3B illustrates the mean knee power curves for both treadmill cantly different.
and overground walking, along with the metrics used for In addition to comparing absolute measures of ground reac-
tion forces, we also examined the magnitude of the various
ground reaction forces at the time when metrics used to
Table 3. Sagittal plane joint moments during overground describe sagittal plane joint moments were observed (e.g.,
and treadmill walking those listed in Table 3). When peak dorsiflexor moments were
observed, the braking forces and the vertical ground reaction
Parameter Overground Treadmill P Value
forces were significantly higher during overground walking
Maximum dorsiflexor ⫺0.20 (0.09) ⫺0.11 (0.12)* 0.0004 (P ⬍ 0.05). We also observed that the propulsion forces were
Maximum plantar flexor 1.35 (0.22) 1.38 (0.17) 0.46 significantly lower during overground walking at knee
Knee MaxEX1 0.63 (0.27) 0.39 (0.25)* 0.0005 MaxFL1 and significantly higher during overground walking at
Knee MaxFL1 ⫺0.10 (0.16) ⫺0.25 (0.24)* 0.0016
Knee MaxEX2 0.34 (0.16) 0.22 (0.18)* 0.0010 knee MaxEX2 (P ⬍ 0.05).
Knee MaxFL2 ⫺0.23 (0.06) ⫺0.28 (0.06)* 0.0000
Hip MaxEX1 0.40 (0.15) 0.57 (0.23)* 0.0000 Muscle Activity
Hip MaxFL ⫺0.75 (0.26) ⫺0.62 (0.30)* 0.0023
Hip MaxEX2 0.21 (0.10) 0.31 (0.11)* 0.0013 During treadmill walking, EMG activity in the tibialis ante-
rior was lower throughout stance (P ⬍ 0.05). Similarly, activ-
Values are means (SD) given in N 䡠 m/kg. MaxEX1, maximum extension in ity in the gastrocnemius was also lower throughout much of
early stance; MaxEX2, maximum extension in late stance; MaxFL, maximum
flexion; MaxFL1, maximum flexion in early stance; MaxFL2, maximum stance yet slightly higher in terminal swing (P ⬍ 0.05). An
flexion in late stance. *Different from overground walking, P ⬍ 0.05 (see interesting pattern among hamstrings, vastus medialis, and
Statistics for details). adductor longus emerged between the two conditions. Here,
J Appl Physiol • VOL 104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING
throughout early and midswing, there was higher activity
during overground walking in each of these muscles yet at
terminal swing, this relationship reversed (e.g., significantly
more activity during treadmill walking). For the rectus femoris,
there was significantly higher muscle activity when subjects
walked on the treadmill during the transition from stance to
swing (e.g., phases 4 and 5) as well as at terminal swing. Table 5
summarizes integrated muscle activation parameters for tread-
mill and overground walking conditions.
DISCUSSION
Although numerous studies have compared treadmill and
overground walking, there still exists significant debate as to
the differences between the two walking modalities. Our re-
sults suggest that when individuals walk on a treadmill, they
modify their muscle activation patterns and subsequently joint
moments and powers while maintaining relatively constant
limb kinematics and spatiotemporal gait parameters.
We did not find any statistical differences in the peak
vertical ground reaction forces between treadmill and over-
ground walking. This is different than the reports by White
et al. (33), who found that for normal and fast walking speeds,
the magnitude of the vertical ground reaction forces were
greater on the treadmill during midstance yet lower in late
stance. Because those authors evaluated the same events as we
did in this study (e.g., VMax1, VMin, and VMax2 in Fig. 4C),
Table 5. Means and standard deviations of EMG integration per each phase of gait cycle during overground
and treadmill walking
Phase Overground Treadmill
Tibialis anterior
1 141.9 (56.7) 105.3 (27.2)*
2 74.2 (31.9) 66.1 (38.8)*
3 58.6 (19.1) 47.2 (15.6)*
4 41.8 (18.1) 29.3 (22.3)*
5 132.6 (32.7) 107.1 (24.5)*
6 57.6 (18.2) 66.0 (19.5)
7 162.0 (59.7) 154.9 (46.5)
Hamstrings
1 63.4 (34.9) 44.6 (30.4)*
2 47.5 (23.9) 48.5 (17.8)
3 65.8 (43.8) 44.6 (8.6)
4 24.5 (27.3) 19.9 (12.1)
5 23.0 (18.6) 15.2 (7.1)*
6 46.7 (18.9) 36.8 (15.1)*
7 105.5 (17.4) 123.9 (24.4)*
Rectus femoris
1 111.5 (78.5) 120.8 (58.1)
2 100.5 (86.5) 93.2 (73.1)
3 54.8 (49.6) 52.2 (45.5)
4 37.1 (20.7) 47.6 (25.3)*
5 39.4 (20.2) 66.0 (40.2)*
6 26.9 (20.1) 27.2 (18.9)
7 56.7 (46.7) 72.9 (39.5)*
Gluteus medius
1 120.7 (38.2) 119.1 (22.9)
2 86.6 (36.5) 94.5 (44.8)
3 52.7 (37.0) 48.4 (25.4)
4 25.4 (18.0) 24.2 (16.7)*
5 25.7 (17.0) 28.1 (19.6)*
6 25.6 (18.0) 25.5 (18.5)
7 87.0 (31.5) 79.1 (22.1)
Values are means (SD). 1, loading response (0 –10%); 2, midstance (10 –30%); 3, terminal stance (30 –50%); 4, preswing (50 – 60%); 5, initial swing (60 –75%);
6, midswing (73– 85%); 7, terminal swing (85–100%); Different from overground walking, P ⬍ 0.05 (see Statistics for details).
J Appl Physiol • VOL
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
753
one possible explanation for the differences in results is that
they collected their overground data on a different system than
the treadmill data. We believe that a key strength of this study
was that both overground and treadmill data were collected
from the same force plates, which were mounted underneath
each half of the treadmill. This resulted in consistent sensors
being used for both walking modalities, as well as the same
surface, both of which could introduce errors into the record-
ings.
We also did not find significant differences in medial-lateral
ground reaction forces. Riley et al. (29) reported significantly
different medial-lateral forces at self-selected speeds, which
led to statistical difference in frontal plane joint moments.
They claimed that the differences in these forces were in the
range of variability. Again, in that study, overground gait
assessment was done in a motion analysis laboratory rather
than on the treadmill. Because the surfaces of the force plates
were different for the two conditions in their study, whereas in
this study we had a consistent and continuous force plate
surface, this may explain the differences with the results
presented in this study.
When subjects walked on the treadmill, we did find the
braking ground reaction forces at heel contact were less than
overground walking (Fig. 4, MinAP), which led to smaller
ankle dorsiflexor moments and smaller knee extensor mo-
ments. One possible explanation for this would be if the
Phase Overground Treadmill
Gastrocnemius
1 27.3 (20.6) 24.9 (19.7)*
2 99.9 (79.9) 101.6 (60.3)
3 226.9 (49.2) 214.7 (67.1)*
4 17.2 (15.7) 17.0 (12.8)
5 27.3 (26.4) 22.2 (17.7)
6 19.4 (21.0) 21.6 (23.6)
7 23.0 (17.6) 25.5 (19.0)*
Vastus medialis
1 119.0 (56.5) 125.4 (42.5)
2 87.4 (55.3) 77.9 (28.1)
3 46.8 (21.4) 39.0 (18.9)
4 26.4 (14.8) 24.7 (10.5)
5 24.9 (10.8) 23.5 (11.0)*
6 27.3 (16.1) 23.6 (12.6)*
7 65.1 (32.2) 109.0 (44.0)*
Gluteus maximus
1 128.4 (50.5) 124.3 (23.6)
2 84.0 (38.1) 96.6 (40.6)
3 60.6 (37.8) 61.2 (29.6)
4 32.6 (16.0) 33.8 (16.8)
5 39.4 (17.6) 49.8 (25.8)*
6 30.9 (17.6) 32.5 (16.6)
7 110.9 (33.7) 112.0 (23.0)
Adductor longus
1 111.4 (87.6) 92.6 (42.2)*
2 85.9 (38.1) 106.8 (54.1)*
3 77.3 (61.7) 77.7 (63.0)
4 67.0 (36.8) 65.8 (56.2)
5 125.7 (116.5) 59.5 (37.0)*
6 86.2 (47.5) 62.4 (35.2)*
7 127.1 (65.6) 152.2 (77.8)*
104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org
754 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING
treadmill belt slowed briefly at heel contact due to excessive
loads placed on the treadmill motors. In looking at the output
of the treadmill motor encoders, we did observe speed de-
creases that reached a maximum of 2.5% of the reference
speed. Although this speed fluctuation may appear to be small,
it could result in the slight decreases in braking forces observed
in the study. In addition, this speed fluctuation could also be
responsible for the attenuation in vertical ground reaction
forces when subjects produced a maximum dorsiflexor mo-
ment.
In contrast to Riley et al. (29), our results demonstrate that
there are in fact significant differences in sagittal plane joint
moments and powers between treadmill and overground walk-
ing. They found 15 of 18 joint moment maximums and 3 of 6
power maximums, each in stance, were different but concluded
that because the differences were in the range of repeatability
of kinematic measures, the differences should not be consid-
ered meaningful. We too found that there was significant
variability in joint moments; however, many of the metrics we
compared (e.g., see Figs. 2 and 3) were still significantly
different. In fact, these differences in joint moments and
powers are further supported by the differences we observed in
muscle activation patterns in numerous muscles (see Statis-
tics).
Our original aim was to determine whether there are differ-
ences between walking on a treadmill compared with walking
overground, in terms of kinematics, kinetics, and muscle acti-
vation patterns. While we found that there were differences in
joint moments, joint powers, and EMGs, the key question now
is why are these behaviors different? Based on the study by
Van Ingen Schenau (31), if the treadmill belt speed remains
constant, there should, in theory, be no differences in the
dynamic behavior between the two conditions. We believe that
there are a number of factors that probably violate this theo-
retical law. First, most studies have compared walking on the
treadmill with overground walking using different force plates
(e.g., the force plates under the treadmill and the gait labora-
tory force plate). This could introduce mechanical errors that
the subject may need to compensate for. However, in our
study, this was controlled for because the same surface was
used in both walking conditions. Second, if the treadmill belt
speed does in fact change, then the acceleration patterns of the
limbs under the two conditions would change, requiring a
different control strategy to maintain constant kinematics.
Similar to previous studies (29, 30), we did observe a slight
drop in belt speed at heel contact (e.g., ⬍2.5%) which can
explain the differences in the dorsiflexor moments we observed
in early stance. However, the differences in knee and hip
moments observed later in the gait cycle would presumably not
be affected by this issue.
Perhaps the most likely reason we observed differences
between the two walking conditions is that optic flow subjects
receive on the treadmill is in stark contrast to what they receive
while walking overground. Studies have shown that vision
plays a role in gait (32) such that different optic flow patterns
may alter locomotor control strategies. When walking on the
treadmill, subjects do not receive the same optic flow as they
do when walking overground, which may alter their balance
and stability or their perception of where they are on the
treadmill or the speed at which they are ambulating. These
factors are supported by previous studies, because Regnaux
J Appl Physiol • VOL
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
et al. (28) found that treadmill ambulation was not an auto-
mated task. Since the optic flow patterns are different between
treadmill and overground walking, small perceptual changes at
one stage of the gait cycle could lead to altered joint moments
and consequently to a cascade of changes during the remainder
of the gait cycle if the goal is to preserve their kinematic
patterns, which is what we hypothesize. This hypothesis is
further supported by Carollo and Matthews (6) and Ivanenko
et al. (17, 18), who suggested that during human locomotion,
the kinematics appear to be the desired control variable. Sat-
isfying kinematic demands during functional tasks has also
been reported in primates (4, 7).
Our findings suggest that while temporal gait parameters and
kinematic patterns are similar between treadmill and over-
ground walking, the muscle activation patterns and joint mo-
ments and powers used to achieve these movement patterns are
often different. Although such effects may lead to differences
in motor strategies, from a therapeutic perspective, the overall
kinematic and muscle activation patterns appear to be similar
enough that training individuals with neurological injuries
(e.g., stroke and spinal cord injury) on a treadmill appears
justified. Because walking at home and society often requires
individuals to navigate obstacles and alter their strategies, it
could be viewed that the slight differences we observed here
could be beneficial to the individual being able to adapt to
different environments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Mihriye Mete for helping with statistical analysis, Scott Selbie at
C-Motion for suggesting a visual 3D model and all subjects who volunteered
for the study.
REFERENCES
1. Alton F, Baldey L, Caplan S, Morrissey MC. A kinematic comparison
of overground and treadmill walking. Clin Biomech 13: 434 – 440, 1998.
2. Arsenault AB, Winter DA, Marteniuk RG. Treadmill versus walkway
locomotion in humans: an EMG study. Ergonomics 29: 665– 676, 1986.
3. Belli A, Bui P, Berger A, Geyssant A, Lacour JR. A treadmill ergometer
for three-dimensional ground reaction force measurement during walking.
J Biomech 34: 105–112, 2001.
4. Bizzi E, Tresch MC, Saltiel P, d’Avella A. New perspectives on spinal
motor Systems. Nat Rev Neurosci 1: 101–108, 2000.
5. Boda WL, Tapp W, Findley TF. Biomechanical comparison of treadmill
and overground walking. Eighth Biennial Conf, Canadian Soc for Biome-
chanics, Calgary, 1994, p. 88 – 89.
6. Carollo JJ, Matthews D. Strategies for clinical motion analysis based on
functional decomposition of the gait cycle. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am
13: 949 –977, 2002.
7. d’Avella A, Saltiel P, Bizzi E. Combinations of muscle synergies in the
construction of a natural motor behavior. Nat Neurosci 6: 300 –308, 2003.
8. Dingwell JB, Cusumano JP, Cavanagh PR, Sternad D. Local dynamic
stability versus kinematic variability of continuous overground and tread-
mill walking. J Biomed Eng 123: 27–32, 2001.
9. Dobkin B, Apple D, Barbeau H, Basso M, Behrman A, Deforge D,
Ditunno J, Dudley G, Elashoff R, Fugate L, Harkema S, Saulino M,
Scott M. Weight-supported treadmill vs over-ground training for walking
after acute incomplete SCI. Neurology 66: 484 – 493, 2006.
10. Field-Fote EC. Spinal cord control of movement: implications for loco-
motor rehabilitation following spinal cord injury. Phys Ther 80: 477– 484,
2000.
11. Harris GF, Smith PA. Human Motion Analysis: Current Applications
and Future Directions. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1996.
12. Hesse S, Bertelt C, Schaffrin A, Malezic M, Mauritz KH. Restoration
of gait in nonambulatory hemiparetic patients by treadmill training with
partial body weight support. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75: 1087–1093,
1994.
104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org
 BIOMECHANICS OF TREADMILL WALKING
13. Hesse S, Helm B, Krajnik MS, Gregoric M, Mauritz KH. Treadmill
training with partial body weight support: Influence of body weight release
on the gait of hemiparetic patients. J Neurol Rehabil 11: 15–20, 1997.
14. Hidler JM, Wall AE. Alterations in muscle activation patterns during
robotic-assisted walking. Clin Biomech 20: 184 –193, 2005.
15. Hof AL. Scaling gait data to body size. Gait Posture 4: 222–223, 1996.
16. Inman VT, Ralston HJ, Todd F. Introduction in Human Walking.
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1981.
17. Ivanenko YP, Poppele RE, Lacquaniti F. Five basic muscle activation
patterns account for muscle activity during human locomotion. J Physiol
556: 267–282, 2004.
18. Ivanenko YP, Poppele RE, Lacquaniti F. Motor control programs and
walking. Neuroscientist 12: 339 –348, 2006.
19. Kenney JF, Keeping ES. Root mean square In: Mathematics of Statistics.
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1962, pt. 1, p. 59 – 60.
20. Kennedy PA. Guide to Econometrics (4th ed.), Cambridge: MIT Press,
1998.
21. Kirtley C. Clinical Gait Analysis: Theory and Practice. London:
Churchill Livingston, 2006.
22. Kram R, Griffin TM, Donelan JM, Chang YH. A Force-treadmill for
measuring vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces. J Appl Physiol
85: 764 –769, 1998.
23. Moritz CT, Farley CT. Passive dynamics chance leg mechanics for an
unexpected surface during human hopping. J Appl Physiol 97: 1313–1322,
2004.
24. Murray MP, Spurr GB, Sepic SB, Gardner GM, Mollinger LA.
Treadmill vs floor walking: kinematics, electromyogram, and heart rate.
J Appl Physiol 59: 87–91, 1985.
25. Nymark JR, Balmer SJ, Melis EH, Lemair ED, Millar S. Electromyo-
graphic and kinematic nondisabled gait differences at extremely slow
J Appl Physiol • VOL
Downloaded from journals.physiology.org/journal/jappl (195.053.121.106) on July 7, 2022.
755
overground and treadmill walking speeds. J Rehabil Res Dev 42: 523–534,
2005.
26. Pearce ME, Cunningham DA, Donner AP, Rechnitzer PA, Fullerton
GM, Howard JH. Energy cost of treadmill and floor walking at self-
selected paces. Eur J Phys 52: 115–119, 1983.
27. Perry J. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function. Thorofare,
NJ: Slack, 1992.
28. Regnaux JP, Robertson J, Smail DB, Daniel O, Bussel B. Human
treadmill walking needs attention. J Neuroeng Rehabil 3: 2006.
29. Riley PO, Paolini G, Croce UD, Paylo KW, Kerrigan DC. A Kinematic
and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill walking in healthy
subjects. Gait Posture 2006;doi:10.1016/j. gaitpost.2006.07.003.
30. Savelberg HHCM, Vorstenbosch MATM, Kamman EH, Weijer
JGW, Schambardt HC. Intra-stride belt-speed affects treadmill locomo-
tion. Gait Posture 7:26 –34, 1998.
31. Van Ingen Schenau GJ. Some fundamental aspects of the biomechanics
of overground versus treadmill locomotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 12:
257–261, 1980.
32. Warren WH, Kay BA, Zosh WD, Duchon AP, Sahuc S. Optic flow is
used to control human walking. Nat Neurosci 4: 213–216, 2001.
33. White SC, Yack HJ, Tucker CA, Lin HY. Comparison of vertical
ground reaction forces during overground and treadmill walking. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 30: 1537–1542, 1998.
34. Winter DA. Biomechanical motor patterns in normal walking. J Motor
Behav 15: 302–330, 1983.
35. Winter DA. The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait:
Normal,Elderly, and Pathological. Waterloo, Canada: University of Wa-
terloo Press, 1991.
36. Zellner A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regres-
sions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat 57: 348 – 68, 1962.
104 • MARCH 2008 • www.jap.org