A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation

Muscle is a type of tissue able to contract and, thus, shorten, producing a pulling force able to generate movement. The analysis of its activity is essential to understand how the force is generated to perform a movement and how that force can be estimated from direct or indirect measurements....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: F. Romero, F. J. Alonso
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2016-01-01
Series:Mechanical Sciences
Online Access:https://www.mech-sci.net/7/19/2016/ms-7-19-2016.pdf
_version_ 1831737109593980928
author F. Romero
F. J. Alonso
author_facet F. Romero
F. J. Alonso
author_sort F. Romero
collection DOAJ
description Muscle is a type of tissue able to contract and, thus, shorten, producing a pulling force able to generate movement. The analysis of its activity is essential to understand how the force is generated to perform a movement and how that force can be estimated from direct or indirect measurements. Hill-type muscle model is one of the most used models to describe the mechanism of force production. It is composed by different elements that describe the behaviour of the muscle (contractile, series elastic and parallel elastic element) and tendon. In this work we analyze the differences between different formulations found in the literature for these elements. To evaluate the differences, a flexo-extension movement of the arm was performed, using as input to the different models the surface electromyography signal recorded and the muscle-tendon lengths and contraction velocities obtained by means of inverse dynamic analysis. The results show that the force predicted by the different models is similar and the main differences in muscle force prediction were observed at full-flexion. The results are expected to contribute in the selection of the different formulations of Hill-type muscle model to solve a specific problem.
first_indexed 2024-12-21T12:56:50Z
format Article
id doaj.art-a9c1c673eeb14502bf2d8eac558c52bc
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2191-9151
2191-916X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-21T12:56:50Z
publishDate 2016-01-01
publisher Copernicus Publications
record_format Article
series Mechanical Sciences
spelling doaj.art-a9c1c673eeb14502bf2d8eac558c52bc2022-12-21T19:03:18ZengCopernicus PublicationsMechanical Sciences2191-91512191-916X2016-01-017192910.5194/ms-7-19-2016A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimationF. Romero0F. J. Alonso1Department of Mechanical, Energy and Materials Engineering, University of Extremadura, Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06006 Badajoz, SpainDepartment of Mechanical, Energy and Materials Engineering, University of Extremadura, Avda. de Elvas s/n, 06006 Badajoz, SpainMuscle is a type of tissue able to contract and, thus, shorten, producing a pulling force able to generate movement. The analysis of its activity is essential to understand how the force is generated to perform a movement and how that force can be estimated from direct or indirect measurements. Hill-type muscle model is one of the most used models to describe the mechanism of force production. It is composed by different elements that describe the behaviour of the muscle (contractile, series elastic and parallel elastic element) and tendon. In this work we analyze the differences between different formulations found in the literature for these elements. To evaluate the differences, a flexo-extension movement of the arm was performed, using as input to the different models the surface electromyography signal recorded and the muscle-tendon lengths and contraction velocities obtained by means of inverse dynamic analysis. The results show that the force predicted by the different models is similar and the main differences in muscle force prediction were observed at full-flexion. The results are expected to contribute in the selection of the different formulations of Hill-type muscle model to solve a specific problem.https://www.mech-sci.net/7/19/2016/ms-7-19-2016.pdf
spellingShingle F. Romero
F. J. Alonso
A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
Mechanical Sciences
title A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
title_full A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
title_fullStr A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
title_full_unstemmed A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
title_short A comparison among different Hill-type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
title_sort comparison among different hill type contraction dynamics formulations for muscle force estimation
url https://www.mech-sci.net/7/19/2016/ms-7-19-2016.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT fromero acomparisonamongdifferenthilltypecontractiondynamicsformulationsformuscleforceestimation
AT fjalonso acomparisonamongdifferenthilltypecontractiondynamicsformulationsformuscleforceestimation
AT fromero comparisonamongdifferenthilltypecontractiondynamicsformulationsformuscleforceestimation
AT fjalonso comparisonamongdifferenthilltypecontractiondynamicsformulationsformuscleforceestimation