Literature DB >> 16288897

Sensitivity of kinematics-based model predictions to optimization criteria in static lifting tasks.

N Arjmand1, A Shirazi-Adl.   

Abstract

The effect of eight different cost functions on trunk muscle forces, spinal loads and stability was investigated. Kinematics-based approach combined with nonlinear finite element modeling and optimization were used to model in vivo measurements on isometric forward flexions at approximately 40 degrees and approximately 65 degrees in sagittal plane with or without a load of 180N in hands. Four nonlinear (summation stress(3), summation stress(2), summation force(2) and muscle fatigue) and four linear (summation stress, summation force, axial compression and double-linear) criteria were considered. Predicted muscle activities were compared with measured EMG data. All predictions, irrespective of the cost function used, satisfied required kinetic, kinematics and stability conditions all along the spine. Four criteria (summation stress(3), summation stress(2), fatigue and double-linear) predicted muscle activities that qualitatively matched measured EMG data. The fatigue and double-linear criteria were inadequate in predicting greater forces in larger muscles with no consideration for their moment arms. Nearly the same stability margin was computed under these four cost functions. At the lower lumbar levels, the compression forces differed by <20% and the shear forces by <14% as various cost functions were considered. Smaller axial compression and anterior shear forces (by less than or approximately equal 6%) were computed when only the active components rather than the total muscle forces were taken as unknown in the summation stress(3) cost function. Overall, one single cost function of summation stress(2) or summation stress(3) rather than a multi-criteria one was found sufficient and adequate in yielding plausible results comparable with measured EMG activities and disc pressure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16288897     DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.10.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  6 in total

1.  Trunk biomechanical models based on equilibrium at a single-level violate equilibrium at other levels.

Authors:  N Arjmand; A Shirazi-Adl; M Parnianpour
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads.

Authors:  Babak Bazrgari; Aboulfazl Shirazi-Adl; Navid Arjmand
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-11-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Persons with unilateral transfemoral amputation experience larger spinal loads during level-ground walking compared to able-bodied individuals.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Brad D Hendershot; Erik J Wolf; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2015-12-04       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Biomechanical Properties of Paraspinal Muscles Influence Spinal Loading-A Musculoskeletal Simulation Study.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; C Antonio Sanchez; Stephen H M Brown; John Street; Sidney Fels; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-06-02

5.  A model-based approach for estimation of changes in lumbar segmental kinematics associated with alterations in trunk muscle forces.

Authors:  Iman Shojaei; Navid Arjmand; Judith R Meakin; Babak Bazrgari
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  A Dynamic Radiographic Imaging Study of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Morphometry and Deformation In Vivo.

Authors:  Ryan M Byrne; Ameet K Aiyangar; Xudong Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.