Consistency Among Musculoskeletal Models: Caveat Utilitor
- 1k Downloads
Musculoskeletal simulation software and model repositories have broadened the user base able to perform musculoskeletal analysis and have facilitated in the sharing of models. As the recognition of musculoskeletal modeling continues to grow as an engineering discipline, the consistency in results derived from different models and software is becoming more critical. The purpose of this study was to compare eight models from three software packages and evaluate differences in quadriceps moment arms, predicted muscle forces, and predicted tibiofemoral contact forces for an idealized knee-extension task spanning −125 to +10° of knee extension. Substantial variation among models was observed for the majority of aspects evaluated. Differences among models were influenced by knee angle, with better agreement of moment arms and tibiofemoral joint contact force occurring at low to moderate knee flexion angles. The results suggest a lack of consistency among models and that output differences are not simply an artifact of naturally occurring inter-individual differences. Although generic musculoskeletal models can easily be scaled to consistent limb lengths and use the same muscle recruitment algorithm, the results suggest those are not sufficient conditions to produce consistent muscle or joint contact forces, even for simplified models with no potential of co-contraction.
KeywordsMusculoskeletal models Muscle moment arm Joint contact force Muscle recruitment Musculoskeletal simulation Knee flexion
Funding for this work was provided by the Dept of Veterans Affairs, Rehab R&D (Proj. A6816R) and by the Paralyzed Veterans of America Endowment for Spinal Cord Injury at Stanford University.
Conflict of interest
Matthew S. DeMers collaborated on the development of the Steele 2012 model evaluated in this manuscript. James M. Shippen is the primary developer of the Biomechanics of Bodies software used in this manuscript.
- 4.Andersen, M. S., M. de Zee, S. Dendorfer, B. MacWilliams, and J. Rasmussen. Validation of a detailed lower extremity model based on the klein horsman data set. In: The 12th International Symposium On Computer Simulation In Biomechanics, edited by Proceedings Of. Cape Town: South Africa, 2009, pp. 27–28.Google Scholar
- 5.Andrews, B. J., J. Shippen, R. S. Gibbons, B. May, and G. Wheeler. FES rowing biomechanics: fixed and floating stretcher ergometers. In: 17th Annual International FES Society Conference: Smart Machines—Neural Evolution, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2012.Google Scholar
- 10.Buford, W. L., Jr., F. M. Ivey, Jr., J. D. Malone, R. M. Patterson, G. L. Peare, D. K. Nguyen, and A. A. Stewart. Muscle balance at the knee-moment arms for the normal knee and the ACL-minus knee. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 5:367–379, 1997Google Scholar
- 11.Chang, C.-Y., J. D. Rupp, M. P. Reed, R. E. Hughes, and L. W. Schneider. Predicting the effects of muscle activation on knee, thigh, and hip injuries in frontal crashes using a finite-element model with muscle forces from subject testing and musculoskeletal modeling. Stapp Car Crash J. 53:291–328, 2009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.de Zee, M., M. Lund, C. Schwartz, C. Olesen, and J. Rasmussen. Validation of musculoskeletal models: the importance of trend validations. Leuven, Belgium: IUTAM Symposium on Human Movement Analysis and Simulation, 2010.Google Scholar
- 28.Frey Law, L. A., and R. K. Shields. Femoral loads during passive, active, and active-resistive stance after spinal cord injury: a mathematical model. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 19:313–321, 2004.Google Scholar
- 35.Iwami, T., K. Miyawaki, K. Hiramoto, M. Takeshima, T. Matsunaga, Y. Shimada, and G. Obinata. Biomechanical analysis and muscle tension estimation of the lower extremities using EMG data. International Symposium on Micro-NanoMechatronics and Human Science (MHS), 2010, 2010, pp 175–180.Google Scholar
- 36.Kiratli, B. J. Immobilization osteopenia. In: Osteoporosis, 2nd edition. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001, pp. 207–227.Google Scholar
- 37.Klein Horsman, M. D., H. F. J. M. Koopman, F. C. T. van der Helm, L. P. Prosé, and H. E. J. Veeger. Morphological muscle and joint parameters for musculoskeletal modelling of the lower extremity. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 22:239–247, 2007.Google Scholar
- 38.Klein Horsman, M. D. The Twente Lower Extremity Model: Consistent Dynamic Simulation of the Human Locomotor Apparatus [dissertation]. Department of Engineering Technology. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, 2007.Google Scholar
- 46.Perry, J. Gait Analysis : Normal And Pathological Function. Thorofare, N.J.: SLACK inc., 1992.Google Scholar
- 47.Pontonnier, C., M. de Zee, A. Samani, G. Dumont, and P. Madeleine. Trend Validation of a Musculoskeletal Model with a Workstation Design Parameter. ISB Technical Group on Computer Simulation Symposium 2011, Leuven, Belgium, 2011.Google Scholar
- 49.Rasmussen, J., M. Boocock, and G. Paul. Advanced musculoskeletal simulation as an ergonomic design method. Work: J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 41:6107–6111, 2012.Google Scholar
- 50.Rasmussen, J., and M. de Zee. Design optimization of airline seats. In: Sae Transactions: Journal of Passenger Cars—Electronic and Electrical Systems, 2008.Google Scholar
- 51.Roebuck, J. A. Anthropometric Methods : Designing To Fit The Human Body. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1995.Google Scholar
- 56.Sherman, M., A. Seth, and S. Delp. How to compute muscle moment arm using generalized coordinates, Rev. 0.2. http://simtk-confluence.stanford.edu:8080/x/yoQz. 2010.
- 63.Wagner, D. W., J. Rasmussen, and M. P. Reed. Assessing the importance of motion dynamics for ergonomic analysis of manual materials handling tasks using the AnyBody Modeling System. In: Sae Transactions: Journal Of Passenger Cars—Mechanical Systems, 2007, pp. 2092–2101.Google Scholar
- 64.Wagner, D. W., K. Divringi, C. Ozcan, M. Grujicic, B. Pandurangan, and A. Grujicic. Combined musculoskeletal dynamics/structural finite element analysis of femur physiological loads during walking. Multidiscip. Model. Mater. Struct. 6:417–437, 2010.Google Scholar