2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.11.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a method to scale muscle strength for gait simulations of children with cerebral palsy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While generic models have the advantage of minimizing the amount of data that must be collected for any individual, they achieve this by including sample-based assumptions about geometry (e.g., muscle attachment points, and bone geometry) and muscle properties (e.g., activation delays, maximum muscle forces, and tendon lengths). These assumptions can have large impacts on estimated muscle activations (Correa et al, 2011;Ackland et al, 2012;Serrancolí et al, 2016;Roelker et al, 2017;Sartori et al, 2017;Żuk et al, 2018a;Hegarty et al, 2019) and may not represent individual properties (Zajac, 1989), especially for individuals not well represented by the population used to develop the models, such as children or individuals with CP (Barber et al, 2012;Barrett and Barber, 2013;Mudge et al, 2014;Handsfield et al, 2016). We found variable results across participants and muscles in both TD and CP groups emphasizing the limitations of generic musculoskeletal models to capture heterogeneity in our populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…While generic models have the advantage of minimizing the amount of data that must be collected for any individual, they achieve this by including sample-based assumptions about geometry (e.g., muscle attachment points, and bone geometry) and muscle properties (e.g., activation delays, maximum muscle forces, and tendon lengths). These assumptions can have large impacts on estimated muscle activations (Correa et al, 2011;Ackland et al, 2012;Serrancolí et al, 2016;Roelker et al, 2017;Sartori et al, 2017;Żuk et al, 2018a;Hegarty et al, 2019) and may not represent individual properties (Zajac, 1989), especially for individuals not well represented by the population used to develop the models, such as children or individuals with CP (Barber et al, 2012;Barrett and Barber, 2013;Mudge et al, 2014;Handsfield et al, 2016). We found variable results across participants and muscles in both TD and CP groups emphasizing the limitations of generic musculoskeletal models to capture heterogeneity in our populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Multiple methods have been developed to normalize lower extremity muscle strength, particularly in non-athletic and non-typically developing populations. 28,29,[32][33][34][35] Only one study has been conducted in the upper extremity, using percent (%) of non-dominant strength to normalize dominant strength in the shoulders of adolescent throwers. 7 Using anthropometric measures such as body mass, body mass index (BMI), height and limb length to normalize shoulder strength has not been studied.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%