Comparison of Scaled vs. Ultrasound Based Musculoskeletal Models on Knee Muscle Moments During Single-Leg Squatting

ECU Author/Contributor (non-ECU co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)

John R. Pope (Creator)

Institution

East Carolina University (ECU )

Web Site: http://www.ecu.edu/lib/

Advisor

Anthony S. Kulas

Abstract: Muscles produce force resulting in moments about a joint causing movement of the body. Muscle forces are estimated with a Hill-type model incorporating four parameters; optimal fiber length (OFL) tendon slack length physiological cross sectional area (PCSA) pennation angle and maximal isometric force (F[superscript]max) scaled to individual subjects. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if subject specific musculotendon parameters estimated in vivo using ultrasound would better estimate moments produced about a joint compared to previous scaling methods. Methods: 7 recreationally active and resistance trained males and females with no history of lower extremity injury participated. Subjects performed single-leg squats while kinematic kinetic and muscle activation data was recorded. Two models for each subject were used in SIMM to estimate knee moments activations and muscle forces: scaled (SC) and ultrasound-based (US). Ultrasound imaging of the primary knee muscles were used to derive subject-specific muscle parameters. Scaled muscle parameters were scaled from the model's generic muscle parameter values. Results: The scaled model produced approximately 50% more error compared to the ultrasound model (RMSE: US= 2.71Nm vs. SC= 6.08 Nm) when comparing inverse dynamics knee moments to each model. EMG analysis showed less error in the ultrasound vs. scaled models when compared to experimental muscle activation (RMSE: US= 0.16 mV ± .07 SC= 0.23 mV ± .09) (p< .05). Hamstring activation error was not statistically different between models (RMSE: US= 0.13 mV ± .07 vs. SC= 0.11 mV ± .04) (p> .05). Correlations between model and experimental EMG were weak to modest in both models for all muscles [Quadriceps: (US r= 0.50 mV ± .45 p< 0.01 SC r= 0.55 mV ± .27 p<0.01) Hamstrings: (US r= 0.44 mV ± .25 p< 0.01; SC r= 0.23 mV ± .30 p< .01)] Conclusion: Advances in methodologies used in the field of biomechanical musculoskeletal modeling could be applied to a variety of pathological patients enabling researchers and physicians to better understand how pathology relates with muscle function. More research is warranted in the attempt of deriving a more physiological relevant muscle modeling technique.

Additional Information

Publication

Thesis

Date: 2012

Keywords

Biomechanics, Musculoskeletal system, Ultrasounds

Subjects

Knee--Muscles

Physical measurements

Muscle contraction

Email this document to