Neuromuscular Model for Gait Rehabilitation

  • Ye Ma
  • Shane XieEmail author
  • Yanxin Zhang


In this chapter, a patient-specific EMG-driven neuromuscular model (PENm) is proposed and evaluated for improving the effectiveness of gait training. Real-time calculation of this model is plausible because of its dynamic calculation optimisation algorithm and minimum set of patient-specific parameters, which are based on the results of a sensitivity analysis. Simulation results show that the PENm can predict accurate joint moments in real-time based on only two EMG channels, one from the extensor and one from the flexor muscle, and the minimum set of adjustable parameters. The design of advanced human-robot interaction control strategies and human-inspired gait rehabilitation robots can also benefit from the information provided by the PENm.


  1. 1.
    Zajac, F.E., Muscle and tendon: Properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 1989. 17(4): p. 359–411.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Delp, S.L., et al., An interactive graphics-based model of the lower extremity to study orthopaedic surgical procedures. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 1990. 37(8): p. 757–769.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDaid A.J., et al., Human-inspired robotic exoskeleton (HuREx) for lower limb rehabilitation, in IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, 2013: Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seth, A., et al., OpenSim: A musculoskeletal modeling and simulation framework for in silico investigations and exchange. Procedia IUTAM, 2011. 2: p. 212–232.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Noble, F.K., J. Potgieter, and W.L. Xu. Modelling and simulations of a central pattern generator controlled, antagonistically actuated limb joint. in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on. 2011. IEEE.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garner, B.A. and M.G. Pandy, The obstacle-set method for representing muscle paths in musculoskeletal models. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2000. 3(1): p. 1–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao, F., et al., Computational method for muscle-path representation in musculoskeletal models. Biological Cybernetics, 2002. 87(3): p. 199–210.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill, A.V., First and Last Experiments in Muscle Mechanics. 1970. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamaguchi, G.T. and F.E. Zajac, A planar model of the knee joint to characterize the knee extensor mechanism. Journal of Biomechanics, 1989. 22(1): p. 1–10.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buchanan, T.S., et al., Neuromusculoskeletal modeling: estimation of muscle forces and joint moments and movements from measurements of neural command. Journal of applied biomechanics, 2004. 20(4): p. 369.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buchanan, T.S., et al., Estimation of muscle forces and joint moments using a forward-inverse dynamics model. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2005. 37(11): p. 1911.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thelen, D.G., Adjustment of muscle mechanics model parameters to simulate dynamic contractions in older adults. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 2003. 125(1): p. 70–79.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yeo, S.H., et al., Phenomenological models of the dynamics of muscle during isotonic shortening. Journal of biomechanics, 2013. 46(14): p. 2419–2425.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis, G. and K.M. Shaw, Tensile properties of human tendo achillis: Effect of donor age and strain rate. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, 1999. 36(6): p. 435–445.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lloyd, D.G. and T.F. Besier, An EMG-driven musculoskeletal model to estimate muscle forces and knee joint moments in vivo. Journal of biomechanics, 2003. 36(6): p. 765–776.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, M.Q., et al., Muscle contributions to support and progression over a range of walking speeds. Journal of Biomechanics, 2008. 41(15): p. 3243–3252.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Groote, F., et al., Sensitivity of dynamic simulations of gait and dynamometer experiments to hill muscle model parameters of knee flexors and extensors. Journal of Biomechanics, 2010. 43(10): p. 1876–1883.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sartori, M., et al., EMG-driven forward-dynamic estimation of muscle force and joint moment about multiple degrees of freedom in the human lower extremity. PloS one, 2012. 7(12): p. e52618.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sartori, M., et al., Estimation of musculotendon kinematics in large musculoskeletal models using multidimensional B-splines. Journal of Biomechanics, 2012. 45(3): p. 595–601.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pau, J., S.Q. Xie, and A.J. Pullan, Neuromuscular interfacing: Establishing an EMG-driven model for the human elbow joint. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 2012. 59(9): p. 2586–2593.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walter, J.P., et al., Muscle synergies may improve optimization prediction of knee contact forces during walking. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 2014. 136(2): p. 021031.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wood, E. and P. Rosenbaum, The gross motor function classification system for cerebral palsy: A study of reliability and stability over time. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 2000. 42(05): p. 292–296.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baker, R., et al., The gait profile score and movement analysis profile. Gait & Posture, 2009. 30(3): p. 265–269.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartz, M.H. and A. Rozumalski, The gait deviation index: A new comprehensive index of gait pathology. Gait & Posture, 2008. 28(3): p. 351–359.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sutherland, D.H., The evolution of clinical gait analysis: Part II kinematics. Gait & posture, 2002. 16(2): p. 159–179.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ashworth, B., Preliminary trial of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. The practitioner, 1964. 192: p. 540.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller, F., Physical Therapy of Cerebral Palsy. Springer Science & Business Media. 2007, New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zehr, E.P., Neural control of rhythmic human movement: The common core hypothesis. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 2005. 33(1): p. 54–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of LeedsLeedsUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.Ningbo UniversityNingboChina

Personalised recommendations