2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.06.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of global and joint-to-joint methods for estimating the hip joint load and the muscle forces during walking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
24
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
24
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Gaslat, gasmed, sart, and sol forces had magnitudes and shapes similar to those in other studies [41][42][43][44]. Hamstrings (bflh, bfsh, semimem, and semiten) force, which is usually reported for all heads combined, was also generally within previously reported ranges [42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. In contrast, the vastus force, which is also usually reported for all heads together [42,44,48], was negligible for vaslat in Approach A, which is not in agreement with other studies [46].…”
Section: Musclessupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Gaslat, gasmed, sart, and sol forces had magnitudes and shapes similar to those in other studies [41][42][43][44]. Hamstrings (bflh, bfsh, semimem, and semiten) force, which is usually reported for all heads combined, was also generally within previously reported ranges [42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. In contrast, the vastus force, which is also usually reported for all heads together [42,44,48], was negligible for vaslat in Approach A, which is not in agreement with other studies [46].…”
Section: Musclessupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The contact forces were higher in the BI and BIH methods as the activation of the biarticular muscles was not constrained by a calculated joint moment. The difference in contact forces found in this study differs from those suggested by Fraysse et al 10 but this is again a function of the differences in the calculated forces. The results of this study therefore clearly demonstrate the importance of recognizing the function of the biarticular muscles when calculating internal joint forces, and in contrast to the study of Fraysse et al suggest that the difference in contact forces may be much greater, as the action of the biarticular muscles may be to increase the joint moment, which in turn permits a greater overall level of activation of both biarticular and monoarticular musculature.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 89%
“…Fraysse et al 10 have recently published study analyzing the effect of the biarticular muscles on the calculation of muscular forces during gait using the traditional 2-step approach of inverse dynamics and optimization. Their study is analogous to a comparison of the TRADM and TRADB approaches used in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Unlike the present study, Hof et al (Hof et al, 2002) and Farris and Sawicki (Farris and Sawicki, 2012) considered only the ankle joint moment when calculating ankle plantar-flexor muscle force. Omission of the knee joint would affect the calculated gastrocnemius force, as the force-producing constraint imposed on the gastrocnemius by the knee joint was not included in these studies (Fraysse et al, 2009). In addition, the simple inverse-dynamics-based approach used by Hof et al (Hof et al, 2002) and Farris and Sawicki (Farris and Sawicki, 2012) did not take into consideration the intrinsic muscle properties in predicting muscle forces.…”
Section: −1mentioning
confidence: 99%