Skeletal-level control-based forward dynamic analysis of acquired healthy and assisted gait motion
Gait analysis is commonly addressed through inverse dynamics. However, forward dynamics can be advantageous when descending to muscular level, as it allows activation and contraction equations to be integrated with motion thus providing better dynamic consistency, or when studying assisted gait, as it enables the estimation of the interaction forces between subject and devices even if the motion capture process doesn’t provide enough resolution to distinguish the motions of limb and device. Control-based methods seem to be the most natural choice to carry out the forward-dynamics analysis of an acquired gait, but several options exist in their application. The paper explores such options for healthy and assisted gait, and concludes that the computed torque control of all the subject’s degrees of freedom is the alternative that provides the most accurate results. Moreover, the study of its more problematic underactuated variant accompanied by contact models showed to be connected to neighbor challenging topics as gait prediction or walking simulation of humanoids.
KeywordsMultibody dynamics Human models Gait simulation Forward dynamics Underactuated systems Contact models Assistive devices
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Research involving human participants: This study was approved by the institutional ethical committee.
Informed consent: All participants in the experiments gave their informed consent.
Funding: This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) under project DPI2015-65959-C3-1-R, cofinanced by the European Union through EFRD program.
Conflict of interest: J. Cuadrado is a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Multibody System Dynamics. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Winter, D.A.: Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (2005) Google Scholar
- 2.Abdel-Malek, K.A., Arora, J.S.: Human Motion Simulation. Academic Press, San Diego (2013) Google Scholar
- 3.Riemer, R., Hsiao-Wecksler, E.T.: Improving net joint torque calculations through a two-step optimization method for estimating body segment parameters. J. Biomech. Eng. 131(1), 011007 (2009) Google Scholar
- 6.Michaud, F., Lugris, U., Ou, Y., Cuadrado, J., Kecskemethy, A.: Influence of muscle recruitment criteria on joint reaction forces during human gait. In: ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Multibody Dynamics, Barcelona, Spain (2015) Google Scholar
- 9.Ackermann, M., Schiehlen, W.: Physiological methods to solve the force-sharing problem in biomechanics. In: Bottasso, C.L. (ed.) Multibody Dynamics—Computational Methods and Applications, pp. 1–24. Springer, Berlin (2009) Google Scholar
- 11.Dallali, H., Mosadeghzad, M., Medrano-Cerda, G.A., Docquier, N., Kormushev, P., Tsagarakis, N., Li, Z., Caldwell, D.: Development of a dynamic simulator for a compliant humanoid robot based on a symbolic multibody approach. In: IEEE Int. Conference on Mechatronics, ICM, Vicenza, Italy (2013) Google Scholar
- 13.Vaughan, C.L., Davis, B.L., O’Connor, J.C.: Dynamics of Human Gait, 2nd edn. Kiboho Publishers, Cape Town (1999) Google Scholar
- 14.Ambrosio, J.A.C., Kecskemethy, A.: Multibody dynamics of biomechanical models for human motion via optimization. In: Garcia Orden, J.C., Goicolea, J.M., Cuadrado, J. (eds.) Multibody Dynamics—Computational Methods and Applications, pp. 245–270. Springer, Berlin (2007) Google Scholar
- 15.Lugris, U., Carlin, J., Luaces, A., Cuadrado, J.: Gait analysis system for spinal cord injured subjects assisted by active orthoses and crutches. J. Multi-Body Dyn. 227(4), 363–374 (2013) Google Scholar
- 16.https://www.iftomm-multibody.org/benchmark/, Library of Computational Benchmark Problems (problem Gait 2D)
- 18.Gupta, K.C.: Mechanics and Control of Robots. Springer, New York (1997) Google Scholar
- 29.Wang, J.M., Hamner, S.R., Delp, S.L., Koltun, V.: Optimizing locomotion controllers using biologically-based actuators and objectives. ACM Trans. Graph. 31(4), 25 (2012) Google Scholar