2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.01.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring novel objective functions for simulating muscle coactivation in the neck

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These predicted activations in pathological subjects could be interpreted as optimal and minimally required activity in order to perform a given motion. In reality, patients may also present additional muscle activity in the form of antagonist or stabilizing co-activations ( Solomonow et al, 1988 ; Unnithan et al, 1996 ; Ikeda et al, 1998 ), which cannot be predicted adequately within the current musculoskeletal modeling framework ( Mortensen et al, 2018 ). For instance, different activations of the rectus femoris during the swing phase were previously observed between voluntary and obligatory toe-walking ( Romkes and Brunner, 2007 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These predicted activations in pathological subjects could be interpreted as optimal and minimally required activity in order to perform a given motion. In reality, patients may also present additional muscle activity in the form of antagonist or stabilizing co-activations ( Solomonow et al, 1988 ; Unnithan et al, 1996 ; Ikeda et al, 1998 ), which cannot be predicted adequately within the current musculoskeletal modeling framework ( Mortensen et al, 2018 ). For instance, different activations of the rectus femoris during the swing phase were previously observed between voluntary and obligatory toe-walking ( Romkes and Brunner, 2007 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach allowed for the use of physiologically plausible neck muscle forces at the time of impact, as they were not derived from any a priori assumptions. Assumed or arbitrary activation levels could result in the overestimation of intervertebral joint loads if maximal joint stiffness was the objective 29 and result in initial conditions that are not situation specific. Our proposed approach increased the fidelity of the simulations as neural recruitment strategies during impacts are still not well understood in order to apply explicit a priori objective criteria to estimate muscle activations 46,48 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…muscle and joint contact forces) and external loading conditions during which cervical spine injuries occur under inertial and compressive loading 2428 . In-silico simulations using musculoskeletal models have strengthened the theory that muscle forces affect resulting head and neck dynamics during injurious scenarios (inertial and axial impacts) 24,28,29 . However, arbitrary levels of simulated muscle activations and resulting muscle forces have been applied in these studies, which limit their representability of the event under investigation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In literature, we can find numerous biomechanical studies [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ] focused on the assessment of cervical behaviour. Many of these studies were performed using animals [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], crash dummies [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ], full-body cadavers [ 12 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], isolated cervical [ 12 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 ], head–neck complexes and computational models [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%