Evaluation of ground reaction forces and centers of pressure predicted by AnyBody Modeling System during load reaching/handling activities and effects of the prediction errors on model-estimated spinal loads

Full-body and lower-extremity human musculoskeletal models require feet ground reaction forces (GRFs) and centers of pressure (CoPs) as inputs to predict muscle forces and joint loads. GRFs/CoPs are traditionally measured via floor-mounted forceplates that are usually restricted to research laborato...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of biomechanics 2024-02, Vol.164, p.111974-111974, Article 111974
Hauptverfasser: Daroudi, S., Arjmand, N., Mohseni, M., El-Rich, M., Parnianpour, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Full-body and lower-extremity human musculoskeletal models require feet ground reaction forces (GRFs) and centers of pressure (CoPs) as inputs to predict muscle forces and joint loads. GRFs/CoPs are traditionally measured via floor-mounted forceplates that are usually restricted to research laboratories thus limiting their applicability in real occupational and clinical setups. Alternatively, GRFs/CoPs can be estimated via inverse dynamic approaches as also implemented in the Anybody Modeling System (AnyBody Technology, Aalborg, Denmark). The accuracy of Anybody in estimating GRFs/CoPs during load-handling/reaching activities and the effect of its prediction errors on model-estimated spinal loads remain to be investigated. Twelve normal- and over-weight individuals performed total of 480 static load-handling/reaching activities while measuring (by forceplates) and predicting (by AnyBody) their GRFs/CoPs. Moreover, the effects of GRF/CoP prediction errors on the estimated spinal loads were evaluated by inputting measured or predicted GRFs/CoPs into subject-specific musculoskeletal models. Regardless of the subject groups (normal-weight or overweight) and tasks (load-reaching or load-handling), results indicated great agreements between the measured and predicted GRFs (normalized root-mean-squared error, nRMSEs  0.90) and between their model-estimated spinal loads (nRMSEs  0.83). These agreements were good but relatively less satisfactory for CoPs (nRMSEs 
ISSN:0021-9290
1873-2380
DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.111974