Cargando…

Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?

The nervous system predicts and executes complex motion of body segments actuated by the coordinated action of muscles. When a stroke or other traumatic injury disrupts neural processing, the impeded behavior has not only kinematic but also kinetic attributes that require interpretation. Biomechanic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bahdasariants, Serhii, Barela, Ana Maria Forti, Gritsenko, Valeriya, Bacca, Odair, Barela, José Angelo, Yakovenko, Sergiy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9934618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36798166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.09.527805
_version_ 1784889920171540480
author Bahdasariants, Serhii
Barela, Ana Maria Forti
Gritsenko, Valeriya
Bacca, Odair
Barela, José Angelo
Yakovenko, Sergiy
author_facet Bahdasariants, Serhii
Barela, Ana Maria Forti
Gritsenko, Valeriya
Bacca, Odair
Barela, José Angelo
Yakovenko, Sergiy
author_sort Bahdasariants, Serhii
collection PubMed
description The nervous system predicts and executes complex motion of body segments actuated by the coordinated action of muscles. When a stroke or other traumatic injury disrupts neural processing, the impeded behavior has not only kinematic but also kinetic attributes that require interpretation. Biomechanical models could allow medical specialists to observe these dynamic variables and instantaneously diagnose mobility issues that may otherwise remain unnoticed. However, the real-time and subject-specific dynamic computations necessitate the optimization these simulations. In this study, we explored the effects of intrinsic viscoelasticity, choice of numerical integration method, and decrease in sampling frequency on the accuracy and stability of the simulation. The bipedal model with 17 rotational degrees of freedom (DOF)—describing hip, knee, ankle, and standing foot contact—was instrumented with viscoelastic elements with a resting length in the middle of the DOF range of motion. The accumulation of numerical errors was evaluated in dynamic simulations using swing-phase experimental kinematics. The relationship between viscoelasticity, sampling rates, and the integrator type was evaluated. The optimal selection of these three factors resulted in an accurate reconstruction of joint kinematics (err < 1%) and kinetics (err < 5%) with increased simulation time steps. Notably, joint viscoelasticity reduced the integration errors of explicit methods and had minimal to no additional benefit for implicit methods. Gained insights have the potential to improve diagnostic tools and accurize real-time feedback simulations used in the functional recovery of neuromuscular diseases and intuitive control of modern prosthetic solutions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9934618
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99346182023-02-17 Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers? Bahdasariants, Serhii Barela, Ana Maria Forti Gritsenko, Valeriya Bacca, Odair Barela, José Angelo Yakovenko, Sergiy bioRxiv Article The nervous system predicts and executes complex motion of body segments actuated by the coordinated action of muscles. When a stroke or other traumatic injury disrupts neural processing, the impeded behavior has not only kinematic but also kinetic attributes that require interpretation. Biomechanical models could allow medical specialists to observe these dynamic variables and instantaneously diagnose mobility issues that may otherwise remain unnoticed. However, the real-time and subject-specific dynamic computations necessitate the optimization these simulations. In this study, we explored the effects of intrinsic viscoelasticity, choice of numerical integration method, and decrease in sampling frequency on the accuracy and stability of the simulation. The bipedal model with 17 rotational degrees of freedom (DOF)—describing hip, knee, ankle, and standing foot contact—was instrumented with viscoelastic elements with a resting length in the middle of the DOF range of motion. The accumulation of numerical errors was evaluated in dynamic simulations using swing-phase experimental kinematics. The relationship between viscoelasticity, sampling rates, and the integrator type was evaluated. The optimal selection of these three factors resulted in an accurate reconstruction of joint kinematics (err < 1%) and kinetics (err < 5%) with increased simulation time steps. Notably, joint viscoelasticity reduced the integration errors of explicit methods and had minimal to no additional benefit for implicit methods. Gained insights have the potential to improve diagnostic tools and accurize real-time feedback simulations used in the functional recovery of neuromuscular diseases and intuitive control of modern prosthetic solutions. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9934618/ /pubmed/36798166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.09.527805 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
spellingShingle Article
Bahdasariants, Serhii
Barela, Ana Maria Forti
Gritsenko, Valeriya
Bacca, Odair
Barela, José Angelo
Yakovenko, Sergiy
Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
title Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
title_full Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
title_fullStr Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
title_full_unstemmed Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
title_short Does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
title_sort does joint impedance improve dynamic leg simulations with explicit and implicit solvers?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9934618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36798166
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.09.527805
work_keys_str_mv AT bahdasariantsserhii doesjointimpedanceimprovedynamiclegsimulationswithexplicitandimplicitsolvers
AT barelaanamariaforti doesjointimpedanceimprovedynamiclegsimulationswithexplicitandimplicitsolvers
AT gritsenkovaleriya doesjointimpedanceimprovedynamiclegsimulationswithexplicitandimplicitsolvers
AT baccaodair doesjointimpedanceimprovedynamiclegsimulationswithexplicitandimplicitsolvers
AT barelajoseangelo doesjointimpedanceimprovedynamiclegsimulationswithexplicitandimplicitsolvers
AT yakovenkosergiy doesjointimpedanceimprovedynamiclegsimulationswithexplicitandimplicitsolvers