Advertisement

Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 6037–6044 | Cite as

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

  • Younguk Kim
  • Yihwan Jung
  • Woosung Choi
  • Kunwoo Lee
  • Seungbum KooEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Human musculoskeletal simulation Kinematics and kinetics Muscle activation Electromyography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [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. [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. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [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. [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. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [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. [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. [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. [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.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    L. E. Schwer, Validation metrics for response histories: perspectives and case studies, Engineering with Computers, 23 (4) (2007) 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [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. [27]
    J. A. Friederich and R. A. Brand, Muscle fiber architecture in the human lower limb, Journal of Biomechanics, 23 (1) (1990) 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [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. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Younguk Kim
    • 1
  • Yihwan Jung
    • 2
  • Woosung Choi
    • 1
  • Kunwoo Lee
    • 1
  • Seungbum Koo
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringChung-Ang UniversitySeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations