Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Influence of the kinematic constraints on dynamic residuals in inverse dynamic analysis during human gait without using force plates

  • Published:
Multibody System Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The conventional use of inverse dynamics applied to gait analysis involves the estimation of joint forces and moments based on kinematic data, anthropometric parameters and force plate data. The procedure uses the measured ground reactions and, beginning with those segments in contact with the ground, calculates joint forces and moments at each successive segment. However, this procedure cannot always be applied. There are laboratories that do not have force platforms, or situations in which measurements must be made outside the laboratory. Force plate data only gives the ground forces and moments resultants. When using multi-segment foot models, additional assumptions must be made to distribute the resultants among the different segments in contact with ground. In these situations, a possible solution is the use of inverse dynamics based only on kinematics. This procedure usually starts with the non-contact segments (head, hands, swinging foot in single support phase) and ends with the foot or feet in contact. In the double-support phase of gait, the ground reaction forces include 12 unknowns, which makes the inverse dynamics problem indeterminate. To solve the indeterminacy, the Smooth Transition Assumption (STA) was used in this work. This algorithm is based on the assumption that the reaction forces and moments at the trailing foot decay according to a certain law that combines exponential and linear functions, reducing the number of unknowns to six. In this work, ground reaction force and moments calculated using different body pose reconstruction methods were compared to data provided by force plates. Results depend greatly on the body pose reconstruction method used. Results show that the imposition of kinematic constrains can lead to worse results in the kinetic results if the multibody model is too simplistic. To get good comparison results between inverse dynamics methods based only on kinematics and classical procedures using force plates data, dynamic residuals should be as small as possible. In the single support phase, differences will be identically equal to the dynamic residuals, but higher in the double support phase because of the errors introduced by the transition functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Winter, D.A.: Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 4th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Villeger, D., Costes, A., Watier, B., Moretto, P.: An algorithm to decompose ground reaction forces and moments from a single force platform in walking gait. Med. Eng. Phys. 36, 1530–1535 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shahabpoor, E., Pavic, A.: Measurement of walking ground reactions in real-life environments: a systematic review of techniques and technologies. Sensors 17, 2085 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Karatsidis, A., Bellusci, G., Schepers, H.M., de Zee, M., Andersen, M.S., Veltink, P.H.: Estimation of ground reaction forces and moments during gait using only inertial motion capture. Sensors 17, 75 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Koopman, B., Gootenboer, H.J., de jongh, H.J.: An inverse dynamics model for the analysis, reconstruction and prediction of bipedal walking. J. Biomech. 28, 1369–1376 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ren, L., Jones, R.K., Howard, D.: Whole body inverse dynamics over a complete gait cycle based only on measured kinematics. J. Biomech. 41, 2750–2759 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fluit, R., Andersen, M.S., Kolk, S., Verdonschot, N., Koopman, H.F.J.M.: Prediction of ground reaction forces and moments during various activities of daily living. J. Biomech. 47, 2321–2329 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lugrís, U., Carlín, J., Pàmies-Vilà, R., Font-LLagunes, J.M., Cuadrado, J.: Solution methods for the double-support indeterminacy in human gait. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 30, 247–263 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Skals, S., Jung, M.K., Damsgaard, M., Andersen, M.S.: Prediction of ground reaction forces and moments during sports-related movements. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 39, 175–195 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oh, S.E., Choi, A., Mun, J.H.: Prediction of ground reaction forces during gait based on kinematics and neural network model. J. Biomech. 46, 2372–2380 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vukobratovic, M., Borovac, B.A.: Zero-moment point–thirty five years of its life. Int. J. Humanoid Robot. 1, 157–173 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xiang, Y., Arora, J.S., Rahmatalla, S., Abdel-Malek, K.: Optimization-based dynamic human walking prediction: one step formulation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 79, 667–695 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dijkstra, E.J., Gutierrez-Farewik, E.M.: Computation of ground reaction force using Zero Moment Point. J. Biomech. 48, 3776–3781 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis, D.T., Ounpuu, S., Tyburski, D., Gage, J.R.: A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Hum. Mov. Sci. 10, 575–587 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Camomilla, V., Cereatti, A., Cutti, A.G., Fantozzi, S., Stagni, R., Vannozzi, G.: Methodological factors affecting joint moments estimation in clinical gait analysis: a systematic review. Biomed. Eng. Online 16, 106 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Allison, K., Hall, M., Wrigley, T.V., Pua, Y-H., Metcalf, B., Bennell, K.L.: Sex-specific walking kinematics and kinetics in individuals with unilateral, symptomatic hip osteoarthritis: a cross sectional study. Gait Posture 65, 234–239 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leboeuf, F., Reay, J., Jones, R., Sangeux, M.: The effect on conventional gait model kinematics and kinetics of hip joint centre equations in adult healthy gait. J. Biomech. 87, 167–171 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maeda, H., Ikoma, K., Toyama, S., Taniguchi, D., Kido, M., Ohashi, S., Kubo, S., Hishikawa, N., Sawada, K., Mikami, Y., Kubo, T.: A kinematic and kinetic analysis of the hip and knee joints in patients with posterior tibialis tendon dysfunction; comparison with healthy age-matched controls. Gait Posture 66, 228–235 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stoneham, R., Barry, G., Saxby, L., Wilkinson, M.: Measurement error of 3D kinematic and kinetic measures during overground endurance running in recreational runners between two test sessions separated by 48 h. Physiol. Meas. 40, 024002 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baker, R.J., Leboeuf, F.Y., Reay, J., Sangeux, M.: The conventional gait model – success and limitations. In: Müller, B., Wolf, S. (eds.) Handbook of Human Motion. Springer, Cham (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lu, T., O’Connor, J.: Bone position estimation from skin marker coordinates using global optimization with joint constrains. J. Biomech. 32, 129–134 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ackermann, M., Schiehlen, W.: Dynamic analysis of human gait disorder and metabolical cost function. Arch. Appl. Mech. 75(10–12), 569–594 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gholami, F., Pàmies-Vilà, R., Kövecses, J., Font-Llagunes, J.M.: Effects of foot modelling on the human ankle kinematics and dynamics. Mech. Mach. Theory 93, 175–184 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ojeda, J., Martínez-Reina, J., Mayo, J.: The effect of kinematic constraints in the inverse dynamics problem in biomechanics. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 37, 291–309 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nikravesh, P.E.: Computer-Aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems. Prentice Hall, New York (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  26. De Leva, P.: Adjustment to Zatsiorsky–Seluyanov’s segment inertia parameters. J. Biomech. 35, 1–17 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ward, S.R., Kingsbury, T.: Scaling of joint mechanics and muscle architecture in the human knee. In: Proc. Amer. Soc. Biomech. Meeting (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haug, E.J.: Computer Aided Kinematics and Dynamics of Mechanical Systems. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  29. O’Connor, C.M., Thorpe, S.K., O’Malley, M.J., Vaughan, C.L.: Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. Gait Posture 25, 469–474 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cahouet, V., Luc, M., Amarantini, D.: Static optimal estimation of joint accelerations for inverse dynamics problem solution. J. Biomech. 35, 1507–1513 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support by the Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación of the Spanish Government for the development of the project DPI2016-80796-P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquin Ojeda.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayo, J., Ojeda, J. Influence of the kinematic constraints on dynamic residuals in inverse dynamic analysis during human gait without using force plates. Multibody Syst Dyn 50, 305–321 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-020-09739-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-020-09739-9

Keywords

Navigation