4.3 Article

Benchmarking of dynamic simulation predictions in two software platforms using an upper limb musculoskeletal model

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2014.916698

Keywords

biomechanics; computational modeling; medical computing; neuromuscular; musculoskeletal

Funding

  1. Rehab R&D Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs [A4270X]
  2. Searle Funds of the Chicago Community Trust
  3. National Institutes of Health [NIH5R24HD050821-02, NIHR01EB011615]
  4. National Science Foundation [CBET-0828115, CBET-1405246]
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [1405246] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several opensource or commercially available software platforms are widely used to develop dynamic simulations of movement. While computational approaches are conceptually similar across platforms, technical differences in implementation may influence output. We present a new upper limb dynamic model as a tool to evaluate potential differences in predictive behavior between platforms. We evaluated to what extent differences in technical implementations in popular simulation software environments result in differences in kinematic predictions for single and multijoint movements using EMG- and optimization-based approaches for deriving control signals. We illustrate the benchmarking comparison using SIMM-Dynamics Pipeline-SD/Fast and OpenSim platforms. The most substantial divergence results from differences in muscle model and actuator paths. This model is a valuable resource and is available for download by other researchers. The model, data, and simulation results presented here can be used by future researchers to benchmark other software platforms and software upgrades for these two platforms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available