A numerical procedure for inferring from experimental data the optimization cost functions using a multibody model of the neuro-musculoskeletal system
- 263 Downloads
We propose a computational procedure for inferring the cost functions that, according to the Principle of Optimality, underlie experimentally observed motor strategies. In the current use of optimization-based mathematical models of neuro-musculoskeletal systems, the cost functions are not known a-priori, since they can not be directly observed or measured on the real bio-system. Consequently, cost functions need to be hypothesized for any given motor task of interest, based on insight into the physical processes that govern the problem.
This work tries to overcome the need to hypothesize the cost functions, extracting this non-directly observable information from experimental data. Optimality criteria of observed motor tasks are here indirectly derived using: (a) a mathematical model of the bio-system; and (b) a parametric mathematical model of the possible cost functions, i.e. a search space constructed in such a way as to presumably contain the unknown function that was used by the bio-system in the given motor task of interest. The cost function that best matches the experimental data is identified within the search space by solving a nested optimization problem. This problem can be recast as a non-linear programming problem and therefore solved using standard techniques.
The methodology is here formulated for both static and dynamic problems, and then tested on representative examples.
KeywordsNeuro-musculoskeletal system Musculoskeletal inverse dynamics problem Indeterminacy problem Optimal control Cost functions Multibody dynamics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.An, K.-N., Kwak, B.M., Chao, E.Y., Morrey, B.F.: Determination of muscle and joint forces: a new technique to solve the indeterminate problem. Transactions of the ASME 106, 364–367 (1984)Google Scholar
- 3.Betts, J.T.: Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Non-Linear Programming, SIAM, Philadelphia, (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Barclay, A., Gill, P.E., Rosen, J.B.: SQP methods and their application to numerical optimal control, Report NA 97–3, Department of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, CA, (1997)Google Scholar
- 7.Bryson, A.E., Ho, Y.C.: Applied Optimal Control, Wiley, New York, (1975)Google Scholar
- 12.Hatze, H.: Myocybernetic Control Model of Skeletal Muscle, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, (1981)Google Scholar
- 13.Hatze, H.: Biomechanics of sports — Selected examples of successful applications and future perspectives, Proc. 16th Symposium of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports, University of Konstanz, Germany (1998)Google Scholar
- 16.Kaufman, K.R., An, K.-N., Litchy, W.J., Chao, E.Y.: Physiological prediction of muscle forces — II. Application to isokinetic exercise. Neuroscience 40, 793–804 (1991)Google Scholar
- 18.Seireg, A., Arvikar, R.: Biomechanical Analysis of the Musculoskeletal Structure for Medicine and Sports, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York (1989)Google Scholar
- 19.Prilutsky, B.I.: Coordination of two- and one-joint muscles: functional consequences and implications for motor control. Motor Control 4, 1–44 (2000)Google Scholar