Research Papers

An Electromyogram-Driven Musculoskeletal Model of the Knee to Predict in Vivo Joint Contact Forces During Normal and Novel Gait Patterns

[+] Author and Article Information
Kurt Manal

e-mail: manal@udel.edu

Thomas S. Buchanan

Delaware Rehabilitation Institute,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Bioengineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING. Manuscript received October 19, 2012; final manuscript received January 16, 2013; accepted manuscript posted January 18, 2013; published online February 7, 2013. Editor: Beth Winkelstein.

J Biomech Eng 135(2), 021014 (Feb 07, 2013) (7 pages) Paper No: BIO-12-1498; doi: 10.1115/1.4023457 History: Received October 19, 2012; Revised January 16, 2013; Accepted January 18, 2013

Computational models that predict internal joint forces have the potential to enhance our understanding of normal and pathological movement. Validation studies of modeling results are necessary if such models are to be adopted by clinicians to complement patient treatment and rehabilitation. The purposes of this paper are: (1) to describe an electromyogram (EMG)-driven modeling approach to predict knee joint contact forces, and (2) to evaluate the accuracy of model predictions for two distinctly different gait patterns (normal walking and medial thrust gait) against known values for a patient with a force recording knee prosthesis. Blinded model predictions and revised model estimates for knee joint contact forces are reported for our entry in the 2012 Grand Challenge to predict in vivo knee loads. The EMG-driven model correctly predicted that medial compartment contact force for the medial thrust gait increased despite the decrease in knee adduction moment. Model accuracy was high: the difference in peak loading was less than 0.01 bodyweight (BW) with an R2 = 0.92. The model also predicted lateral loading for the normal walking trial with good accuracy exhibiting a peak loading difference of 0.04 BW and an R2 = 0.44. Overall, the EMG-driven model captured the general shape and timing of the contact force profiles and with accurate input data the model estimated joint contact forces with sufficient accuracy to enhance the interpretation of joint loading beyond what is possible from data obtained from standard motion capture studies.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Andriacchi, T. P., and Mundermann, A., 2006, “The Role of Ambulatory Mechanics in the Initiation and Progression of Knee Osteoarthritis,” Curr. Opin. Rheumatol., 18, pp. 514–518. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sharma, L., Hurwitz, D. E., Thonar, E. J., Sum, J. A., Lenz, M. E., Dunlop, D. D., Schnitzer, T. J., Kirwan-Mellis, G., and Andriacchi, T. P., 1998, “Knee Adduction Moment, Serum Hyaluronan Level, and Disease Severity in Medial Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis,” Arthritis Rheum., 41, pp. 1233–1240. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lloyd, D. G., and Buchanan, T. S., 1996, “A Model of Load Sharing Between Muscles and Soft Tissues at the Human Knee During Static Tasks,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 118, pp. 367–376. [CrossRef]
Buchanan, T. S., Lloyd, D. G., Manal, K., and Besier, T. F., 2005, “Estimation of Muscle Forces and Joint Moments Using a Forward-Inverse Dynamics Model,” Med. Sci. Sports Exercise, 37, pp. 1911–1916. [CrossRef]
Manal, K., Gravare-Silbernagel, K., and Buchanan, T. S., 2011, “A Real-Time EMG-Driven Musculoskeletal Model of the Ankle,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 28, pp. 169–180. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Xiao, M., and Higginson, J., 2010, “Sensitivity of Estimated Muscle Force in Forward Simulation of Normal Walking,” J. Appl. Biomech., 2, pp. 142–149.
Sasaki, K., and Neptune, R. R., 2010, “Individual Muscle Contributions to the Axial Knee Joint Contact Force During Normal Walking,” J. Biomech., 43, pp. 2780–2784. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Herzog, W., Longino, D., and Clark, A., 2003, “The Role of Muscles in Joint Adaptation and Degeneration,” Langenbecks Arch. Surg., 288, pp. 305–315. [CrossRef]
Rudolph, K. S., Axe, M. J., Buchanan, T. S., Scholz, J. P., and Snyder-Mackler, L., 2001, “Dynamic Stability in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficient Knee,” Knee Surg. Sport Tr. A., 9, pp. 62–71. [CrossRef]
Chmielewski, T. L., Hurd, W. J., Rudolph, K. S., Axe, M. J., and Snyder-Mackler, L., 2005, “Perturbation Training Improves Knee Kinematics and Reduces Muscle Co-Contraction After Complete Unilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture,” Phys. Ther., 85, pp. 750–754.
Hubley-Kozey, C., Deluzio, K., and Dunbar, M., 2008, “Muscle Co-activation Patterns During Walking in Those With Severe Knee Osteoarthritis,” Clin. Biomech., 23, pp. 71–80. [CrossRef]
Kumar, D., Rudolph, K. S., and Manal, K., 2011, “EMG-Driven Modeling Approach to Muscle Force and Joint Load Estimations: Case Study in Knee Osteoarthritis,” J. Orthop. Res., 30, pp. 377–383. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gardinier, E., Manal, K., Buchanan, T. S., and Snyder-Mackler, L., 2013, “Altered Loading in the Injured Knee after ACL Rupture,” J Orthop Res.31(3), pp. 458–464. [CrossRef]
Manal, K., Kumar, D., Rudolph, K. S., and Buchanan, T. S., 2010, “Joint Loading During Gait in Those With Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis and Healthy Controls,” Proc. World Congress on Biomechanics, VI, CD.
Manal, K., Kumar, D., Buchanan, T. S., and Rudolph, K. S., 2010, “Joint Contact Force Comparisons Between Healthy Subjects and Those With Medial Compartment Knee Ostearthritis,” Proc. Am. Soc. Biomech.34, CD.
Gardinier, E. S., Manal, K., Buchanan, T. S., and Snyder-Mackler, L., 2012, “Gait and Neuromuscular Asymmetries After Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture,” Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 44, pp. 1490–1496. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shao, Q., Bassett, D. N., Manal, K., and Buchanan, T. S., 2009, “An EMG-Driven Model to Estimate Muscle Forces and Joint Moments in Stroke Patients,” Comput. Biol. Med., 39, pp. 1083–1088. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Buchanan, T. S., Lloyd, D. G., Manal, K., and Besier, T. F., 2004, “Neuromusculoskeletal Modeling: Estimation of Muscle Forces and Joint Moments and Movements From Measurements of Neural Command,” J. Appl. Biomech., 20, pp. 367–395. [PubMed]
Delp, S. L., Loan, J. P., Hoy, M. G., Zajac, F. E., Topp, E. L., and Rosen, J. M., 1990, “An Interactive Graphics-Based Model of the Lower Extremity to Study Orthopaedic Surgical Procedures,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 37, pp. 757–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yamaguchi, G. T., Sawa, A. G. U., Moran, D. W., Fessler, M. J., and Winters, J. M., 1990, “A Survey of Human Musculotendon Actuator Parameters,” Multiple Muscle Systems, Biomechanics and Movement Organization, J. M.Winters and S.L-Y.Woo, eds., Springer, New York, pp. 717–774.
An, K. N., Takahashi, K., Harrigan, T. P., and Chao, E. Y., 1984, “Determination of Muscle Orientations and Moment Arms,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 106, pp. 280–282. [CrossRef]
Goffe, W. L., Ferrier, G. D., and Rogers, J., 1994, “Global Optimization of Statistical Functions With Simulated Annealing,” J. Econometrics, 60, pp. 65–100. [CrossRef]
Winby, C. R., Lloyd, D. G., Besier, T. F., and Kirk, T. B., 2009, “Muscle and External Load Contribution to Knee Joint Contact Loads During Normal Gait,” J. Biomech., 42, pp. 2294–2300. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Walter, J. P., D'Lima, D. D., Colwell, C. W., and Fregly, B. J., 2010, “Decreased Knee Adduction Moment Does Not Guarantee Decreased Medial Contact Force During Gait,” J. Orthop. Res., 28, pp. 1348–1354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Transformation of raw EMG to muscle activation a(t) as an input to the EMG-driven model (from [18])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of a Hill-type muscle fiber. The musculotendon unit (shown on the left) has a muscle fiber in series with tendon. The musculotendon length lmt is the sum of the fiber length lm, adjusted for pennation angle Ø, and the tendon length lt. The muscle fiber shown on the right is comprised of an active contractile element in parallel with a passive elastic element. Fam is the force developed by active mechanisms (i.e., length-tension and force-velocity relationships). Fpm represents the passive force contribution when the muscle fiber is at a length beyond optimal (i.e., passive portion of the length-tension curve). The active and passive forces sum to yield the fiber force Fm, and when adjusted for pennation angle is equivalent to the force acting through the tendon Ft.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

EMG for muscle m at time t was transformed into muscle activation a to activate a Hill-type muscle model (muscle contraction dynamics). The force F for each muscle was then multiplied by its sagittal plane moment arm r according to the musculoskeletal geometry which is dependent on the joint kinematics for the particular trial. Individual muscle moments are then summed at each point in time to obtain a model estimated sagittal plane knee moment. The knee moment was also calculated using inverse dynamics from video-based motion data and ground reaction forces. EMG-driven model parameters including activation coefficients, optimal fiber length (OFL), resting tendon length (RTL), and the maximum isometric force for each muscle were adjusted iteratively to minimize the sum-squared difference between the model estimated moment and the moment computed from inverse dynamics. The process of optimally adjusting model parameters is depicted by the gray shaded boxes and dashed arrows.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic of the moment balancing algorithm to compute medial contact force (FMC). The external adduction moment about the lateral condyle MexternalLC must be balanced by a moment generated by muscles MmodelLC and an unknown contact force FMC acting at distance d equal to one half the width of the tibial plateau. riLC is the moment arm for muscle i relative to the lateral condyle and Fi is the force generated by the muscle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The dark lines represent the EMG-driven model's prediction of joint contact force and the gray lines are the forces measured by the instrumented knee implant (eTibia). The model captured the general shape and timing of the contact force profiles with good predictions of medial contact for the medial thrust gait and lateral contact for normal walking. The largest difference between the model predicted and measured force was for the lateral compartment during medial thrust gait.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The dark lines represent the revised force estimates for the EMG-driven model and the gray lines are the forces measured by the instrument ted knee implant (eTibia). The revised model captured the general shape and timing of the contact force profiles with good agreement in peak values. The largest difference between the model predicted and measured force was 0.13 BW for the lateral compartment during medial thrust gait. All other difference in peak values were less than 0.05 BW.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In