Advertisement

The Biomechanics of Force Production

  • Denis Rancourt
  • Neville Hogan
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 629)

Abstract

To interact mechanically with the world and especially to use hand tools we exert force. However, the biomechanical consequences of force production can be challenging. In particular, due to the nonlinear kinematics of the mammalian skeleton and of typical hand tools, exerting force can destabilize posture, compromising the ability to control force. In this chapter we present a simplified analysis of this phenomenon that shows how the destabilizing effect of force production varies with pose and tool geometry, and how it may be offset by neuro-muscular stiffness. We also show that in some circumstances the limits of force production may, in fact, be due to a limited ability to produce stiffness rather than a limited ability to produce force. An experimental confirmation of these predictions is presented.

Keywords

Axial Force Muscle Force Force Production Rotational Stiffness Prismatic Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bober, T., Kornecki, S., Lehr, J. R. P., & Zawadzki, J. (1982). Biomechanical analysis of human arm stabilization during force production. Journal of Biomechanics, 15 (11), 825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolhuis, B.M. van, Gielen, C.C.A.M. & Ingen Schenau, G.J. van (1998). Activation patterns of mono- and bi-articular arm muscles as a function of force and movement direction of the wrist in humans. Journal of Physiology, 508, 313–324.Google Scholar
  3. Burdet, E., Osu, R., Franklin, D.W., Milner, T.E., & Kawato, M. (2001). The central nervous system stabilizes unstable dynamics by learning optimal impedance. Nature, 414, 446–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doorenbosch, C., & Ingen-Schenau, G.J. van (1995). The role of mono- and biarticular muscles during contact control leg tasks in man. Human Movement Science, 14, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldman, A. G., & Latash, M. L. (2005). Testing hypotheses and the advancement of science: Recent attempts to falsify the equilibrium point hypothesis. Experimental Brain Research, 161, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hof, A.L. (2001). The force resulting from the action of mono- and biarticular muscles in a limb. Journal of Biomechanics, 34, 1085–1089.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoffer, J. A. & Andreassen, S. (1981). Regulation of soleus muscle stiffness in premammillary cats: intrinsic and reflex components. Journal of Neurophysiology, 45(2), 267–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hogan, N. (1984). Adaptive-control of mechanical impedance by coactivation of antagonist muscles. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 29(8), 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ∗Hogan, N. (1985a). Impedance control – an approach to manipulation.1. Theory. Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control-Transactions of the Asme, 107(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ∗Hogan, N. (1985b). The mechanics of multi-joint posture and movement control. Biological Cybernetics, 52(5), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogan, N. (2002). Skeletal muscle impedance in the control of motor actions. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, 2(3&4), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ∗Hogan, N. (2006). Force control with a muscle-activated endoskeleton. In S. Kawamura & M. Svinin (Eds.), Advances in robot control: From everyday physics to human-like movements (pp. 201–216): Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Ingen-Schenau, G.J. van (1989). From rotation to translation: constraints on multi-joint movements and the unique action of biarticular muscles. Human Movement Science, 8, 301–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kornecki, S., & Zschorlich, V. (1994). The nature of the stabilizing functions of skeletal muscles. Journal of Biomechanics, 27 (2), 215–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lieber, R.L. (1990). Hypothesis: biarticular muscles transfer moments between joints. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 32, 456–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milner T.E. (2002). Contribution of geometry and joint stiffness to mechanical stability of the human arm. Experimental Brain Research, 143, 515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milner T.E., Cloutier C., Leger A.B., & Franklin D.W. (1995). Inability to activate muscles maximally during cocontraction and the effect on joint stiffness. Experimental Brain Research, 107:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A., Hogan, N., & Bizzi, E. (1985). Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 5(10), 2732–2743.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ostry, D.J., & Feldman, A.G. (2003). A critical evaluation of the force control hypothesis in motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rancourt, D., & Hogan, N. (2001). Stability in force-production tasks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 33(2), 193–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roy P.O. (1999). Étude des mécanismes de stabilisation d’une tâche de contact par le membre supérieur. Master’s thesis, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Tsuji, T., Morasso, P.G., Goto, K. & Ito, K. (1995). Human hand impedance characteristics during maintained posture. Biological Cybernetics, 72 (6), 475–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. The references marked with an asterisk (∗) are specifically recommended for further introduction or background to the topic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Génie MécaniqueUniversité de SherbrookeQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations