4.5 Article

Why are Antagonist Muscles Co-activated in My Simulation? A Musculoskeletal Model for Analysing Human Locomotor Tasks

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 45, 期 12, 页码 2762-2774

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-017-1920-7

关键词

Musculoskeletal model; Hill-type muscle model; Simulation; Passive force; Running; Pedalling

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [2R01AR055648]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Existing off-the-shelf musculoskeletal models are problematic when simulating movements that involve substantial hip and knee flexion, such as the upstroke of pedalling, because they tend to generate excessive passive fibre force. The goal of this study was to develop a refined musculoskeletal model capable of simulating pedalling and fast running, in addition to walking, which predicts the activation patterns of muscles better than existing models. Specifically, we tested whether the anomalous co-activation of antagonist muscles, commonly observed in simulations, could be resolved if the passive forces generated by the underlying model were diminished. We refined the OpenSim (TM) model published by Rajagopal et al. (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63:1-1, 2016) by increasing the model's range of knee flexion, updating the paths of the knee muscles, and modifying the force-generating properties of eleven muscles. Simulations of pedalling, running and walking based on this model reproduced measured EMG activity better than simulations based on the existing model-even when both models tracked the same subject-specific kinematics. Improvements in the predicted activations were associated with decreases in the net passive moments; for example, the net passive knee moment during the upstroke of pedalling decreased from 36.9 N m (existing model) to 6.3 N m (refined model), resulting in a dramatic decrease in the co-activation of knee flexors. The refined model is available from SimTK.org and is suitable for analysing movements with up to 120A degrees of hip flexion and 140A degrees of knee flexion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据