Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKainz, Hen_US
dc.contributor.authorWesseling, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorPitto, Len_US
dc.contributor.authorFalisse, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorVan Rossom, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorVan Campenhout, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorDe Groote, Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorDesloovere, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorCarty, Christopheren_US
dc.contributor.authorJonkers, Ien_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-29T13:15:26Z
dc.date.available2019-05-29T13:15:26Z
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn1879-2219en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.06.142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/381939
dc.description.abstract1.. Introduction: Gait analysis together with musculoskeletal modeling can be used to calculate muscle forces and assess pathological gait [1]. No generic, pediatric musculoskeletal models are available and, therefore, linear scaling methods are commonly used to personalize a generic, adult musculoskeletal model to the child’s anthropometry. 2. Research: How different are joint kinematics, joint kinetics and muscle force estimates of generic scaled models compared to medical-imaging based models in typically developing (TD) children? 3. Methods: 3D motion capture data and magnetic resonance images (MRI) of a TD boy (age: 8 years; height: 1.23 m; weight: 20.4 kg) were collected. Two musculoskeletal OpenSim models were created: (1) a scaled generic model (M_gen), and (2) a MRI-based model, which included subject-specific musculoskeletal geometry (M_mri) [2]. Joint kinematics, joint kinetics and muscle forces were calculated for each model using OpenSim 3.3 [3]. Joint kinematics, joint kinetics, muscle force waveforms, as well as femoral anteversion angle, neck-shaft angle and hip joint centre location were compared between both models. 4. Results: Joint kinematics and joint kinetics were surprisingly similar between the M_gen and M_mri with root-mean-square-differences below 2.8° and 0.05Nm/kg for joint angles and moments, respectively (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Depending on the analyzed muscle, differences in muscle forces varied substantially (up to 230% difference) between the M_gen and M_mri (Fig. 3). Femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angles differed between M_gen and M_mri by 12 and 5 degrees, respectively. The hip joint centre position differed between both models by 5, 15 and 6 mm in the anterior/posterior, superior/inferior and medial/lateral direction, respectively.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.publisher.placeNetherlandsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom223en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto225en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissueSupplement 1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalGait & Postureen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume65en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Sciences not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHuman Movement and Sports Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode110399en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1103en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1106en_US
dc.titleO 107 - Impact of subject-specific musculoskeletal geometry on estimated joint kinematics, joint kinetics and muscle forces in typically developing childrenen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
dc.description.versionPost-printen_US
gro.rights.copyright© 2018 Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.en_US
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorCarty, Chris P.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record