Skip to main content
Log in

Toward subject-specific evaluation: methods of evaluating finite element brain models using experimental high-rate rotational brain motion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational models of the brain have become the gold standard in biomechanics to understand, predict, and mitigate traumatic brain injuries. Many models have been created and evaluated with limited experimental data and without accounting for subject-specific morphometry of the specimens in the dataset. Recent advancements in the measurement of brain motion using sonomicrometry allow for a comprehensive evaluation of brain model biofidelity using a high-rate, rotational brain motion dataset. In this study, four methods were used to determine the best technique to compare nodal displacement to experimental brain motion, including a new morphing method to match subject-specific inner skull geometry. Three finite element brain models were evaluated in this study: the isotropic GHBMC and SIMon models, as well as an anisotropic model with explicitly embedded axons (UVA-EAM). Using a weighted cross-correlation score (between 0 and 1), the anisotropic model yielded the highest average scores across specimens and loading conditions ranging from 0.53 to 0.63, followed by the isotropic GHBMC with average scores ranging from 0.46 to 0.58, and then the SIMon model with average scores ranging from 0.36 to 0.51. The choice of comparison method did not significantly affect the cross-correlation score, and differences of global strain up to 0.1 were found for the morphed geometry relative to baseline models. The morphed or scaled geometry is recommended when evaluating computational brain models to capture the subject-specific skull geometry of the experimental specimens.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Alshareef A, Giudice JS, Forman J, Salzar RS, Panzer MB (2018) A novel method for quantifying human in situ whole brain deformation under rotational loading using sonomicrometry. J Neurotrauma 35:780–789

    Google Scholar 

  • Alshareef A, Giudice JS, Forman J, Shedd DF, Wu T, Reynier KA, Panzer MB (2020a) Application of trilateration and Kalman filtering algorithms to track dynamic brain deformation using sonomicrometry. Biomed Signal Process Control 56:101691

    Google Scholar 

  • Alshareef A, Giudice JS, Forman J, Shedd DF, Reynier KA, Wu T, Sochor S, Sochor MR, Salzar RS, Panzer MB (2020b) Biomechanics of the human brain during dynamic rotation of the head. J Neurotrauma 37:1546–1555

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayly PV, Alshareef A, Knutsen AK, Upadhyay K, Okamoto RJ, Carass A, Butman JA, Pham DL, Prince JL, Ramesh KT, Johnson CL (2021) MR imaging of human brain mechanics in vivo: new measurements to facilitate the development of computational models of brain injury. Ann Biomed Eng 1–16

  • Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) Method for registration of 3-D shapes. In Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures. International Society for Optics and Photonics, vol 1611, pp 586–606

  • Bian K, Mao H (2020) Mechanisms and variances of rotation-induced brain injury: a parametric investigation between head kinematics and brain strain. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 19:2323–2341

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan R, Mohan PS, Hopkins A, Galloway F, Taylor M, Nair PB (2010) Statistical modelling of the whole human femur incorporating geometric and material properties. Med Eng Phys 32:57–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Coronado VG, McGuire LC, Sarmiento K, Bell J, Lionbarger MR, Jones CD, Geller AI, Khoury N, Xu L (2012) Trends in traumatic brain injury in the US and the public health response: 1995–2009. J Safety Res 43:299–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Deck C, Willinger R (2009) The current state of the human head finite element modelling. Int J Veh Saf 4:85–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Duma SM, Manoogian SJ, Bussone WR, Brolinson PG, Goforth MW, Donnenwerth JJ, Greenwald RM, Chu JJ, Crisco JJ (2005) Analysis of real-time head accelerations in collegiate football players. Clin J Sport Med 15:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkin BS, Gabler LF, Panzer MB, Siegmund GP (2019) Brain tissue strains vary with head impact location: A possible explanation for increased concussion risk in struck versus striking football players. Clin Biomech, 64:49–57

  • Gabler LF, Crandall JR, Panzer MB (2016) Assessment of kinematic brain injury metrics for predicting strain responses in diverse automotive impact conditions. Ann Biomed Eng 44:3705–3718

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabler LF, Joodaki H, Crandall JR, Panzer MB (2018) Development of a single-degree-of-freedom mechanical model for predicting strain-based brain injury responses. J Biomed Eng 140(3)

  • Gabler LF, Crandall JR, Panzer MB (2019) Development of a second-order system for rapid estimation of maximum brain strain. Ann Biomed Eng 47(9):1971–1981

  • Ganpule S, Daphalapurkar NP, Ramesh KT, Knutsen AK, Pham DL, Bayly PV, Prince JL (2017) A three-dimensional computational human head model that captures live human brain dynamics. J Neurotrauma 34:2154–2166

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehre C, Gades H, Wernicke P (2009) Objective rating of signals using test and simulation responses. In Proceedings: international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, vol 2009. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

  • Gennarelli TA (1993) Mechanisms of brain injury. J Emerg Med 11:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghajari M, Hellyer PJ, Sharp DJ (2017) Computational modelling of traumatic brain injury predicts the location of chronic traumatic encephalopathy pathology. Brain 140:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano C, Kleiven S (2016) Development of an unbiased validation protocol to assess the biofidelity of finite element head models used in prediction of traumatic brain injury. Stapp Car Crash J 60:363

  • Giordano C, Zappalà S, Kleiven S (2017) Anisotropic finite element models for brain injury prediction: the sensitivity of axonal strain to white matter tract inter-subject variability. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 16:1269–1293

    Google Scholar 

  • Giudice JS, Zeng W, Wu T, Alshareef A, Shedd DF, Panzer MB (2019) An analytical review of the numerical methods used for finite element modeling of traumatic brain injury. Ann Biomed Eng 47:1855–1872

    Google Scholar 

  • Giudice JS, Alshareef A, Wu T, Gancayco CA, Reynier KA, Tustison NJ, Druzgal JT, Panzer MB (2020) An image registration-based morphing technique for generating subject-specific brain finite element models. Ann Biomed Eng 48:2412–2424

    Google Scholar 

  • Giudice JS, Alshareef A, Wu T, Knutsen AK, Hiscox LV, Johnson CL, Panzer MB (2021) Calibration of a heterogeneous brain model using a subject-specific inverse finite element approach. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 9:354

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez AD, Knutsen AK, Xing F, Lu Y-C, Chan D, Pham DL, Bayly P, Prince JL (2018) 3-D measurements of acceleration-induced brain deformation via harmonic phase analysis and finite-element models. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 66:1456–1467

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy WN, Foster CD, Mason MJ, Yang KH, King AI, Tashman S (2001) Investigation of head injury mechanisms using neutral density technology and high-speed biplanar X-ray. Stapp Car Crash J 45:337–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy WN, Mason MJ, Foster CD, Shah CS, Kopacz JM, Yang KH, King AI, Bishop J, Bey M, Anderst W et al (2007) A study of the response of the human cadaver head to impact. Stapp Car Crash J 51:17

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho J, von Holst H, Kleiven S (2009) Automatic generation and validation of patient-specific finite element head models suitable for crashworthiness analysis. Int J Crashworth 14:555–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson VR (1975) National operating committee on standards for athletic equipment football helmet certification program. Med Sci Sports 7:225–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Horgan TJ, Gilchrist MD (2004) Influence of FE model variability in predicting brain motion and intracranial pressure changes in head impact simulations. Int J Crashworth 9:401–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Horstemeyer MF, Panzer MB, Prabhu RK (2019) State-of-the-art modeling and simulation of the brain’s response to mechanical loads. Ann Biomed Eng 47:1829–1831

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CL, McGarry MD, Gharibans AA, Weaver JB, Paulsen KD, Wang H, Olivero WC, Sutton BP, Georgiadis JG (2013) Local mechanical properties of white matter structures in the human brain. Neuroimage 79:145–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiven S (2007) Predictors for traumatic brain injuries evaluated through accident reconstructions. Stapp Car Crash J 51:81

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiven S, von Holst H (2002) Consequences of head size following trauma to the human head. J Biomech 35:153–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen AK, Magrath E, McEntee JE, Xing F, Prince JL, Bayly PV, Butman JA, Pham DL (2014) Improved measurement of brain deformation during mild head acceleration using a novel tagged MRI sequence. J Biomech 47:3475–3481

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen AK, Gomez AD, Gangolli M, Wang W-T, Chan D, Lu Y-C, Christoforou E, Prince JL, Bayly PV, Butman JA (2020) In vivo estimates of axonal stretch and 3D brain deformation during mild head impact. Brain Multiphys 1:100015

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurt M, Wu L, Laksari K, Ozkaya E, Suar ZM, Lv H, Epperson K, Epperson K, Sawyer AM, Camarillo D (2019) Optimization of a multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography protocol for the human brain. J Neuroimaging. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Z, Hu J, Reed MP, Rupp JD, Hoff CN, Zhang J, Cheng B (2011) Development, validation, and application of a parametric pediatric head finite element model for impact simulations. Ann Biomed Eng 39:2984–2997

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Zhou, Z, Kleiven S (2021) An anatomically detailed and personalizable head injury model: Significance of brain and white matter tract morphological variability on strain. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 20(2):403–431

  • Lu YC, Daphalapurkar NP, Knutsen AK, Glaister J, Pham DL, Butman JA, Prince JL, Bayly PV, Ramesh KT (2019). A 3D computational head model under dynamic head rotation and head extension validated using live human brain data, including the falx and the tentorium. Ann Biomed Eng 47(9):1923–1940

    Google Scholar 

  • Mao H, Zhang L, Jiang B, Genthikatti VV, Jin X, Zhu F, Makwana R, Gill A, Jandir G, Singh A et al (2013) Development of a finite element human head model partially validated with thirty five experimental cases. J Biomech Eng 135:111002

    Google Scholar 

  • Meaney DF, Smith DH (2011) Biomechanics of concussion. Clin Sports Med 30:19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Meaney DF, Morrison B, Bass CD (2014) The mechanics of traumatic brain injury: a review of what we know and what we need to know for reducing its societal burden. J Biomech Eng 136:021008

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller LE, Urban JE, Stitzel JD (2016) Development and validation of an atlas-based finite element brain model. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 15:1201–1214

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller LE, Urban JE, Davenport EM, Powers AK, Whitlow CT, Maldjian JA, Stitzel JD (2021) Brain strain: computational model-based metrics for head impact exposure and injury correlation. Ann Biomed Eng 49:1083–1096

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki Y, Ujihashi S, Mochimaru M, Kouchi M (2005) Influence of the head shape variation on brain damage under impact (No. 2005-01-2738). SAE Technical Paper

  • Nahum AM, Smith, R, Ward CC (1977). Intracranial pressure dynamics during head impact (No. 770922). SAE Technical Paper

  • NHTSA New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) (2015) National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Washington, DC

  • Okamoto RJ, Romano AJ, Johnson CL, Bayly PV (2019) Insights into traumatic brain injury from MRI of harmonic brain motion. J Exp Neurosci 13:1179069519840444

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzer MB (2012) Numerical simulation of primary blast brain injury. In: Doctoral dissertation, Duke University

  • Park G, Kim T, Forman J, Panzer MB, Crandall JR (2017) Prediction of the structural response of the femoral shaft under dynamic loading using subject-specific finite element models. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 20:1151–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynier KA, Alshareef A, Sanchez EJ, Shedd DF, Walton SR, Erdman NK, Newman BT, Giudice JS, Higgins MJ, Funk JR (2020) The effect of muscle activation on head kinematics during non-injurious head impacts in human subjects. Ann Biomed Eng 48:2751–2762

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins DH, Schneider LW, Snyder RG, Pflug M, Haffner M (1983) Seated posture of vehicle occupants. SAE transactions, pp 486–511

  • Rohr K, Stiehl HS, Sprengel R, Buzug TM, Weese J, Kuhn MH (2001) Landmark-based elastic registration using approximating thin-plate splines. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:526–534

    Google Scholar 

  • SAE (1995) Instrumentation for impact test, part I: electronic instrumentation. In: SAE Paper No. J211/1. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA

  • Sahoo D, Deck C, Yoganandan N, Willinger R (2015) Influence of head mass on temporo-parietal skull impact using finite element modeling. Med Biol Eng Comput 53:869–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez EJ, Gabler LF, McGhee JS, Olszko AV, Chancey VC, Crandall J, Panzer MB (2017) Evaluation of head and brain injury risk functions using sub-injurious human volunteer data. J. Neurotrauma 34:2410–2424

    Google Scholar 

  • Santiago LA, Oh BC, Dash PK, Holcomb JB, Wade CE (2012) A clinical comparison of penetrating and blunt traumatic brain injuries. Brain Inj 26:107–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhounts EG, Eppinger RH, Campbell JQ, Tannous RE (2003) On the development of the SIMon finite element head model. Stapp Car Crash J 47:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhounts EG, Ridella SA, Hasija V, Tannous RE, Campbell JQ, Malone D, Danelson K, Stitzel J, Rowson S, Duma S (2008) Investigation of traumatic brain injuries using the next generation of simulated injury monitor (SIMon) finite element head model. Stapp Car Crash J 52:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhounts EG, Craig MJ, Moorhouse K, McFadden J, Hasija V (2013) Development of brain injury criteria (Br IC). Stapp Car Crash J 57:243

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor CA, Bell JM, Breiding MJ, Xu L (2017) Traumatic brain injury-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths—United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 66:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Trosseille X, Tarriere C, Lavaste F, Guillon F, Domont A (1992) Development of a FEM of the human head according to a specific test protocol. SAE Transact 101(6):1801–1819

  • Wang F, Han Y, Wang B, Peng Q, Huang X, Miller K, Wittek A (2018) Prediction of brain deformations and risk of traumatic brain injury due to closed-head impact: quantitative analysis of the effects of boundary conditions and brain tissue constitutive model. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 17:1165–1185

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver AA, Danelson KA, Stitzel JD (2012) Modeling brain injury response for rotational velocities of varying directions and magnitudes. Ann Biomed Eng 40:2005–2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu T, Antona-Makoshi J, Alshareef A, Giudice JS, Panzer MB (2020) Investigation of cross-species scaling methods for traumatic brain injury using finite element analysis. J Neurotrauma, 37(2):410–422

  • Wu T, Alshareef A, Giudice JS, Panzer MB (2019) Explicit modeling of white matter axonal fiber tracts in a finite element brain model. Ann Biomed Eng 47(9):1908–1922

  • Wu T, Hajiaghamemar M, Giudice JS, Alshareef A, Margulies SS, Panzer MB (2021) Evaluation of tissue-level brain injury metrics using species-specific simulations. J Neurotrauma, 38(13):1879–1888

  • Yanaoka T, Dokko Y, Takahashi Y (2015) Investigation on an injury criterion related to traumatic brain injury primarily induced by head rotation (No. 2015-01-1439). SAE Technical Paper

  • Zhang L, Yang KH, King AI (2004) A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury. Trans-Am Soc Mech Eng J Biomech Eng 126:226–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao W, Ji S (2020) Displacement-and strain-based discrimination of head injury models across a wide range of blunt conditions. Ann Biomed Eng 48:1661–1677

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao W, Choate B, Ji S (2018) Material properties of the brain in injury-relevant conditions–Experiments and computational modeling. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 80:222–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z, Li X, Kleiven S, Hardy WN (2019) Brain strain from motion of sparse markers. Stapp Car Crash J 63:1–27

  • Zou H, Kleiven S, Schmiedeler JP (2007) The effect of brain mass and moment of inertia on relative brain–skull displacement during low-severity impacts. Int J Crashworth 12:341–353

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored in part by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under contract number DTNH221500022/0002. The authors appreciate the assistance of Gwansik Park in adapting the morphing method framework for brain models.

Funding

This study was sponsored in part by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under contract number DTNH221500022/0002.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew B. Panzer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Morphing technique

Appendix: Morphing technique

A morphing technique was implemented to match the geometry of the specimens to a target geometry. A technique utilized and adapted by Park (2017) (Park et al. 2017) for the subject-specific FE modeling of human femurs was extended to the brain in order to accurately match the geometries. The morphing methodology involved four steps: FE model and specimen geometry preparation, rigid body alignment, surface registration, and 3D volume morphing (Fig. 8). The steps are applied below to morph a specimen geometry to the GHBMC brain model, but the same method can be applied to any FE model or parametric space.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Representation of the morphing process, with the GHBMC brain model as an example. The morphing process includes four main steps: (1) surface preparation and segmentation, (2) rigid body alignment and scaling, (3) surface registration, and (4) volume morphing and evaluation

In the preparation stage, the inner cranial geometry of the specimen was segmented from the computed tomography (CT) scans using Mimics 19.0 (Materialise, Plymouth, MI). The segmented geometry included everything in the cranial vault up to the inner skull. A thresholding value was used to apply a mask to the desired geometry, followed by manual editing of the mask in areas with inconsistent edges and inferior regions of the cranium. The mask was used to extract the 3D brain cranial geometry of each specimen. The target geometry of the FE brain models was prepared by extracting the outermost layer of the model, the skull or dura.

To align the two surfaces, the specimen geometry was first rotated and centered to match the coordinate system of the FE model. Once the two surfaces were closely aligned using manual rigid body rotation, an iterative closest point approximation (ICP) (Besl and McKay 1992) was used to match the initial rigid body position of the surfaces. The specimen geometry was then scaled to the target external geometry of the FE model in all three directions (x, y, z) to minimize volume differences between the two geometries. The scaling factors were used to scale back the target geometry after the surface registration as to not affect the 3D volume morphing.

Next, control points were selected to map the FE model surface to the specimen surface. In typical biomechanical morphing techniques, control points are chosen based on automated spatial segmentation or a manual assignment based on prominent anatomical features. These methods were difficult for segmented brain CT scans because the shape of the brain may vary significantly, and manual assignment of landmarks may lead to large user error. To minimize errors in the choice of landmarks, an iterative registration method based on the 3D generalization of Burr’s elastic registration (Bryan et al. 2010), was used to match the external geometry of the two surfaces. All the points in each model, which were mapped in the surface registration, were utilized as landmarks to convert the FE brain model geometry to the specimen brain geometry using the registration algorithm. The accuracy of the registration method was evaluated using an average minimum distance error which was the average distance between nodes on the target surface and the surface of the specimen geometry.

The transformations used to match the control points in the registration step were then applied to the internal nodes of the FE brain model to morph the 3D volume to the external geometry of the specimen using radial basis functions with thin-plate splines (Rohr et al. 2001). The normalized Jacobian ratio of all elements in the morphed model was quantified to ensure comparable element quality of the morphed model to the original FE brain models.

The morphing methodology implemented to account for specimen anthropometry provides an important advancement in FE brain modeling. The technique facilitates matching the exact inner cranium shape of the model and specimens, not only the size and volume. The average minimum distance between the surface of the FE model and the surface of each specimen CT was less than 1 mm. While morphing has been attempted through conventional control point morphing (Horgan and Gilchrist 2004; Li et al. 2011) and the generation of new voxel models (Ghajari et al. 2017; Miller et al. 2016), the use of an automated process of picking and registering control points is important in generating an accurate specimen-specific model. The researcher does not have to manually select control points, which can be laborious and error-prone. Instead, all the nodes of the specimen geometry and model are used as control points, to generate a smooth, accurate morphed model automatically. A limitation of the morphing methodology for FE brain models is that it does not address the differences in internal anatomy between subjects, such as ventricle size, regional organization of brain regions, and size of the brain. The morphing methodology only registers the outside surface. Consequently, the internal anatomy is scaled according to the surface. Future methods that incorporate subject-specific morphing or model development of the brain using MRI scans are needed to accurately model and predict subject-specific brain injury.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alshareef, A., Wu, T., Giudice, J.S. et al. Toward subject-specific evaluation: methods of evaluating finite element brain models using experimental high-rate rotational brain motion. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 20, 2301–2317 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-021-01508-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-021-01508-7

Keywords

Navigation