Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Similarities and differences between musculoskeletal simulations of OpenSim and AnyBody modeling system

  • Published:
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human musculoskeletal models have revealed the general patterns of muscle recruitment during daily activities. Nonetheless, the consistency of dynamics calculations from different musculoskeletal simulation packages is not well understood. The objective of this study was to understand the effect of the simulation solver and simulation model on the musculoskeletal simulation results using lower limb models in OpenSim and AnyBody modeling system. Matched musculoskeletal model and generic model in both systems were simulated using the external forces and joint kinematics measured at the Fourth and Sixth Grand Challenge Competitions to Predict In-Vivo Knee Loads. Muscle activation levels in lower limb were compared between the packages, and against the electromyography signals from the aforementioned competitions. The muscle activation levels were very similar between the two packages when matched models were simulated, indicating high consistency between the solvers. In the generic models, the root mean square (RMS) difference in the muscle activation levels was high at 0.15 and 0.19 for ideal force generator muscles and modified Hill-type muscles, respectively. The RMS and phase differences were high between the muscle activations and electromyography signals. Comparisons will help understand the similarities and differences between the musculoskeletal simulation packages and the effects of the model differences on simulation results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. S. Ahmed and K. Babski–Reeves, Assessment of upper extremity postures in novice and expert during simulated carpentry tasks, Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet, USA (2012) 1173–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Balasubramanian, J. Montgomery, K. Mardula and C. Allen, Implanted miniature engineering mechanisms in tendon–transfer surgery improve robustness of post–surgery hand function, Hamlyn. Symp. Med. Robot (2013) 29.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Gerus, M. Sartori, T. F. Besier, B. J. Fregly, S. L. Delp, S. A. Banks and D. G. Lloyd, Subject–specific knee joint geometry improves predictions of medial tibiofemoral con–tact forces, Journal of Biomechanics, 46 (16) (2013) 2778–2786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S. L. Delp, J. P. Loan, M. G. Hoy, F. E. Zajac, E. L. Topp and J. M. Rosen, An interactive graphics–based model of the lower extremity to study orthopaedic surgical procedures, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 37 (8) (1990) 757–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. K. M. Steele, M. M. van der Krogt, M. H. Schwartz and S. L. Delp, How much muscle strength is required to walk in a crouch gait?, Journal of Biomechanics, 45 (15) (2012) 2564–2569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. Sandholm, C. Schwartz, N. Pronost, M. de Zee, M. Voigt and D. Thalmann, Evaluation of a geometry–based knee joint compared to a planar knee joint, The Visual Computer, 27 (2) (2011) 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. K. R. Saul, X. Hu, C. M. Goehler, M. E. Vidt, M. Daly, A. Velisar and W. M. Murray, Benchmarking of dynamic simulation predictions in two software platforms using an upper limb musculoskeletal model, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 18 (13) (2015) 1445–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D. W. Wagner, V. Stepanyan, J. M. Shippen, M. S. DeMers, R. S. Gibbons, B. J. Andrews and G. S. Beaupre, Consistency among musculoskeletal models: Caveat utilitor, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 41 (8) (2013) 1787–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S. L. Delp, F. C. Anderson, A. S. Arnold, P. Loan, A. Habib, C. T. John and D. G. Thelen, OpenSim: Open–source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 54 (11) (2007) 1940–1950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. J. Rasmussen, M. Damsgaard and M. Voigt, Muscle recruitment by the min/max criterion—A comparative numerical study, Journal of Biomechanics, 34 (3) (2001) 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. D. G. Thelen, Adjustment of muscle mechanics model parameters to simulate dynamic contractions in older adults, Transactions–American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 125 (1) (2003) 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. Au and J. Dunne, Gait 2392 and 2354 models, Accessed March 27 (2013) http://simtk–conflu–ence.stanford.edu:8080/display/OpenSim/Gait+2392+and+2354+Models (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Damsgaard, J. Rasmussen, S. T. Christensen, E. Surma and M. De Zee, Analysis of musculoskeletal systems in the anybody modeling system, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 14 (8) (2006) 1100–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. B. J. Fregly, T. F. Besier, D. G. Lloyd, S. L. Delp, S. A. Banks, M. G. Pandy and D. D. D'Lima, Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads, Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 30 (4) (2012) 503–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. A. L. Kinney, T. F. Besier, D. D. D'Lima and B. J. Fregly, Update on grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 135 (2) (2013) 021012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. R. W. McCleary and J. Andersen, Test–retest reliability of reciprocal isokinetic knee extension and flexion peak torque measurements, Journal of Athletic Training, 27 (4) (1992) 362.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. E. Zajac, Muscle and tendon Properties models scaling and application to biomechanics and motor, Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 17 (4) (1989) 359–411.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Wibawa, N. Verdonschot, J. Halbertsma, J. Burgerhof, R. Diercks and G. Verkerke, Musculoskeletal modeling of human lower limb during normal walking, one–legged forward hopping and side jumping: Comparison of measured EMG and predicted muscle activity patterns, Journal of Biomechanics, 49 (15) (2016) 3660–3666.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. A. Sprague and T. L. Geers, Spectral elements and field separation for an acoustic fluid subject to cavitation, Journal of Computational Physics, 184 (1) (2003) 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. L. E. Schwer, Validation metrics for response histories: perspectives and case studies, Engineering with Computers, 23 (4) (2007) 295–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R. Nisell, G. Németh and H. Ohlsén, Joint forces in extension of the knee: analysis of a mechanical model, Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 57 (1) (1986) 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. C. Redl, M. Gfoehler and M. G. Pandy, Sensitivity of muscle force estimates to variations in muscle–tendon properties, Human Movement Science, 26 (2) (2007) 306–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. D. C. Ackland, Y.–C. Lin and M. G. Pandy, Sensitivity of model predictions of muscle function to changes in moment arms and muscle–tendon properties: A Monte–Carlo analysis, Journal of Biomechanics, 45 (8) (2012) 1463–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. F. De Groote, A. Van Campen, I. Jonkers and J. De Schutter, Sensitivity of dynamic simulations of gait and dynamometer experiments to hill muscle model parameters of knee flexors and extensors, Journal of Biomechanics, 43 (10) (2010) 1876–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. M. Xiao and J. Higginson, Sensitivity of estimated muscle force in forward simulation of normal walking, Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 26 (2) (2010) 142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. M. G. Hoy, F. E. Zajac and M. E. Gordon, A musculoskeletal model of the human lower extremity: the effect of muscle, tendon, and moment arm on the moment–angle relationship of musculotendon actuators at the hip, knee, and ankle, Journal of Biomechanics, 23 (2) (1990) 157–169.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. A. Friederich and R. A. Brand, Muscle fiber architecture in the human lower limb, Journal of Biomechanics, 23 (1) (1990) 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. T. L. Wickiewicz, R. R. Roy, P. L. Powell and V. R. Edgerton, Muscle architecture of the human lower limb, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 179 (1983) 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M. K. Horsman, H. F. Koopman, F. C. van der Helm, L. P. Prosé and H. Veeger, Morphological muscle and joint parameters for musculoskeletal modelling of the lower extremity, Clinical Biomechanics, 22 (2) (2007) 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. M. E. Lund, M. de Zee, M. S. Andersen and J. Rasmussen, On validation of multibody musculoskeletal models, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 226 (2) (2012) 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. A. Cresswell and A. Overdal, Muscle activation and torque development during maximal unilateral and bilateral isokinetic knee extensions, Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42 (1) (2002) 19.

    Google Scholar 

  32. T. L. Heiden, D. G. Lloyd and T. R. Ackland, Knee extension and flexion weakness in people with knee osteoarthritis: is antagonist cocontraction a factor?, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 39 (11) (2009) 807–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. C. Pizzolato, D. G. Lloyd, M. Sartori, E. Ceseracciu, T. F. Besier, B. J. Fregly and M. Reggiani, CEINMS: A toolbox to investigate the influence of different neural control solutions on the prediction of muscle excitation and joint moments during dynamic motor tasks, Journal of Biomechanics, 48 (14) (2015) 3929–3936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. E. Forster, U. Simon, P. Augat and L. Claes, Extension of a state–of–the–art optimization criterion to predict cocontraction, Journal of Biomechanics, 37 (4) (2004) 577–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R. Ait–Haddou, P. Binding and W. Herzog, Theoretical considerations on cocontraction of sets of agonistic and antagonistic muscles, Journal of Biomechanics, 33 (9) (2000) 1105–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

    Younguk Kim, Woosung Choi & Kunwoo Lee

  2. School of Mechanical Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

    Yihwan Jung

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea

    Seungbum Koo

Authors
  1. Younguk Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yihwan Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Woosung Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kunwoo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seungbum Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seungbum Koo.

Additional information

Recommended by Associate Editor Moon Ki Kim

Younguk Kim received his B.S. degree in 2013 from Seoul National University. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Seoul National University under the supervision of Professor Kunwoo Lee. His research interests include human musculoskeletal simulation based on multibody system dynamics.

Yihwan Jung received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in 2012, 2014, and 2018 from Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, respectively. His research interests include human musculoskeletal simulation and joint soft tissue.

Woosung Choi received his B.S. degree in 2014 from Soongsil University. He received his M.S. degree in 2016 from Seoul National University. His research interests include human musculoskeletal simulation based on multibody system dynamics.

Kunwoo Lee received his B.S. degree in 1978 from Seoul National University. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1981 and 1984, respectively, from MIT. He is currently a Professor at Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. His research interests include human-centered computer- aided systems and 3D printers.

Seungbum Koo received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in 2000 and 2002 from Seoul National University, respectively. He received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 2006 from Stanford University. He is currently an Associate Professor at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea. His research interests include human musculoskeletal dynamics simulation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, Y., Jung, Y., Choi, W. et al. Similarities and differences between musculoskeletal simulations of OpenSim and AnyBody modeling system. J Mech Sci Technol 32, 6037–6044 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-018-1154-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-018-1154-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation