Advertisement

Multibody System Dynamics

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 123–154 | Cite as

A numerical procedure for inferring from experimental data the optimization cost functions using a multibody model of the neuro-musculoskeletal system

  • Carlo L. BottassoEmail author
  • Boris I. Prilutsky
  • Alessandro Croce
  • Enrico Imberti
  • Stefano Sartirana
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Neuro-musculoskeletal system Musculoskeletal inverse dynamics problem Indeterminacy problem Optimal control Cost functions Multibody dynamics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Anderson,F.G., Pandy, M.G.: Static and dynamic optimization solutions for gait are practically equivalent. Journal of Biomechanics 34, 153–161 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Betts, J.T.: Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Non-Linear Programming, SIAM, Philadelphia, (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    Bottasso, C.L., Croce, A., Leonello, D., Riviello, L.: Optimization of critical trajectories for rotorcraft vehicles. Journal of the American Helicopter Society 50, 165–177 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bottasso, C.L., Croce, A.: Optimal control of multibody systems using an energy preserving direct transcription method. Multibody System Dynamics 12, 17–45 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryson, A.E., Ho, Y.C.: Applied Optimal Control, Wiley, New York, (1975)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buchanan, T.S., Shreeve, D.A.: An evaluation of optimization techniques for the prediction of muscle activation patterns during isometric tasks. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 118, 565–574 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crowninshield, R.D., Brand, R.A.: A physiologically based criterion of muscle force prediction in locomotion. Journal of Biomechanics 14, 793–801 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dul, J., Johnson, G.E., Shiavi, R., Townsend, M.A.: Muscular synergism — II. A minimum-fatigue criterion for load sharing between synergistic muscles. Journal of Biomechanics 17, 675–684 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flash, T., Mussa-Ivaldi, F.: Human arm stiffness characteristics during the maintenance of posture. Experimental Brain Research 82, 315–326 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hatze, H.: Myocybernetic Control Model of Skeletal Muscle, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, (1981)Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Hatze, H.: The fundamental problem of myoskeletal inverse dynamics and its implications. Journal of Biomechanics 35, 109–115 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hull, D.G.: Conversion of optimal control problems into parameter optimization problems. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 20, 57–60 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Nubar, Y., Contini, R.: A minimal principal in biomechanics. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 23, 377–391 (1961)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seireg, A., Arvikar, R.: Biomechanical Analysis of the Musculoskeletal Structure for Medicine and Sports, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Prilutsky, B.I., Zatsiorsky, V.M.: Optimization-based models of muscle coordination. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews 30, 32–38 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raikova, R.T., Prilutsky, B.I.: Sensitivity of predicted muscle forces to parameters of the optimization-based human leg model revealed by analytical and numerical analyses. Journal of Biomechanics 34, 1243–1255 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Renegar, J.: A Mathematical View of Interior Point Methods in Convex Optimization, SIAM, Philadelphia (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wells, R., Evans, N.: Functions and recruitment patterns of one- and two-joint muscles under isometric and walking conditions. Human Movement Science 6, 349–372 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wood, J.E., Meek, S.G., Jacobsen, S.C.: Quantification of human shoulder anatomy for prosthetic arm control — II Anatomy matrices. Journal of Biomechanics 22, 309–325 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo L. Bottasso
    • 1
    Email author
  • Boris I. Prilutsky
    • 2
  • Alessandro Croce
    • 1
  • Enrico Imberti
    • 1
  • Stefano Sartirana
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria AerospazialePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.School of Applied PhysiologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations