4.5 Article

Velocity-dependent cost function for the prediction of force sharing among synergistic muscles in a one degree of freedom model

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 657-660

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.12.013

关键词

Force prediction; Optimization; Force sharing; Task dependency; Synergistic muscles

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC of Canada)
  2. Canada Research Chair Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prediction Of accurate and meaningful force sharing among synergistic muscles is a major problem in biomechanics research. Given a resultant joint moment, a unique set of muscle forces can be obtained from this mathematically redundant system using nonlinear optimization. The classical cost functions for optimization involve a normalization of the muscle forces to the absolute force capacity of the target muscles, usually by the cross-sectional area or the maximal isometric force. In a one degree of freedom model this leads to a functional relationship between moment arms and the predicted muscle forces, such that for constant moment arms, or constant ratios of moment arms, agonistic muscle forces increase or decrease in unison. Experimental studies have shown however that the relationship between muscle forces is highly task-dependent often Causing forces to increase in one muscle while decreasing in a functional agonist, likely because of the contractile conditions and contractile properties of the involved muscles. We therefore, suggest a modified cost function that accounts for the instantaneous contraction velocity of the muscles and its effect on the instantaneous maximal force. With this novel objective function, a task-dependent prediction of muscle force distribution is obtained that allows, even in a one degree of freedom system, the prediction of force sharing loops, and Simultaneously increasing and decreasing forces for agonist pairs of muscles. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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