Similarities and differences between musculoskeletal simulations of OpenSim and AnyBody modeling system
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.
KeywordsHuman musculoskeletal simulation Kinematics and kinetics Muscle activation Electromyography
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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