Muscle-driven simulations of human and animal motion are widely used to complement physical experiments for studying movement dynamics. Musculotendon models are an essential component of muscle-driven simulations, yet neither the computational speed nor the biological accuracy of the simulated forces has been adequately evaluated. Here we compare the speed and accuracy of three musculotendon models: two with an elastic tendon (an equilibrium model and a damped equilibrium model) and one with a rigid tendon. Our simulation benchmarks demonstrate that the equilibrium and damped equilibrium models produce similar force profiles but have different computational speeds. At low activation, the damped equilibrium model is 29 times faster than the equilibrium model when using an explicit integrator and 3 times faster when using an implicit integrator; at high activation, the two models have similar simulation speeds. In the special case of simulating a muscle with a short tendon, the rigid-tendon model produces forces that match those generated by the elastic-tendon models, but simulates 2–54 times faster when an explicit integrator is used and 6–31 times faster when an implicit integrator is used. The equilibrium, damped equilibrium, and rigid-tendon models reproduce forces generated by maximally-activated biological muscle with mean absolute errors less than 8.9%, 8.9%, and 20.9% of the maximum isometric muscle force, respectively. When compared to forces generated by submaximally-activated biological muscle, the forces produced by the equilibrium, damped equilibrium, and rigid-tendon models have mean absolute errors less than 16.2%, 16.4%, and 18.5%, respectively. To encourage further development of musculotendon models, we provide implementations of each of these models in OpenSim version 3.1 and benchmark data online, enabling others to reproduce our results and test their models of musculotendon dynamics.

Tools have been used for millions of years to augment the capabilities of the human body, allowing us to accomplish tasks that would otherwise be difficult or impossible. Powered exoskeletons and other assistive devices are sophisticated modern tools that have restored bipedal locomotion in individuals with paraplegia and have endowed unimpaired individuals with superhuman strength. Despite these successes, designing assistive devices that reduce energy consumption during running remains a substantial challenge, in part because these devices disrupt the dynamics of a complex, finely tuned biological system. Furthermore, designers have hitherto relied primarily on experiments, which cannot report muscle-level energy consumption and are fraught with practical challenges. In this study, we use OpenSim to generate muscle-driven simulations of 10 human subjects running at 2 and 5 m/s. We then add ideal, massless assistive devices to our simulations and examine the predicted changes in muscle recruitment patterns and metabolic power consumption. Our simulations suggest that an assistive device should not necessarily apply the net joint moment generated by muscles during unassisted running, and an assistive device can reduce the activity of muscles that do not cross the assisted joint. Our results corroborate and suggest biomechanical explanations for similar effects observed by experimentalists, and can be used to form hypotheses for future experimental studies. The models, simulations, and software used in this study are freely available at simtk.org and can provide insight into assistive device design that complements experimental approaches.

Muscles attach to bones via tendons that stretch and recoil, affecting muscle force generation and metabolic energy consumption. In this study, we investigated the effect of tendon compliance on the metabolic cost of running using a full-body musculoskeletal model with a detailed model of muscle energetics. We performed muscle-driven simulations of running at 2–5 m/s with tendon force–strain curves that produced between 1 and 10% strain when the muscles were developing maximum isometric force. We computed the average metabolic power consumed by each muscle when running at each speed and with each tendon compliance. Average whole-body metabolic power consumption increased as running speed increased, regardless of tendon compliance, and was lowest at each speed when tendon strain reached 2–3% as muscles were developing maximum isometric force. When running at 2 m/s, the soleus muscle consumed less metabolic power at high tendon compliance because the strain of the tendon allowed the muscle fibers to operate nearly isometrically during stance. In contrast, the medial and lateral gastrocnemii consumed less metabolic power at low tendon compliance because less compliant tendons allowed the muscle fibers to operate closer to their optimal lengths during stance. The software and simulations used in this study are freely available at simtk.org and enable examination of muscle energetics with unprecedented detail.

Motor variability in gait is frequently linked to fall risk, yet field-based biomechanical joint evaluations are scarce. We evaluated the validity and sensitivity of an inertial measurement unit (IMU)-driven biomechanical model of joint angle variability for gait. Fourteen healthy young adults completed seven-minute trials of treadmill gait at several speeds and arm swing amplitudes. Trunk, pelvis, and lower-limb joint kinematics were estimated by IMU- and optoelectronic-based models using OpenSim. We calculated range of motion (ROM), magnitude of variability (meanSD), local dynamic stability (λ_max), persistence of ROM fluctuations (DFAα), and regularity (SaEn) of each angle over 200 continuous strides, and evaluated model accuracy (RMSD: root mean square difference), consistency (ICC_2,1: intraclass correlation), biases, limits of agreement, and sensitivity to within-participant gait responses (effects of speed and swing). RMSDs of joint angles were 1.7–9.2° (pooled mean of 4.8°), excluding ankle inversion. ICCs were mostly good to excellent in the primary plane of motion for ROM and in all planes for meanSD and λ_max, but were poor to moderate for DFAα and SaEn. Modelled speed and swing responses for ROM, meanSD, and λ_max were similar. Results suggest that the IMU-driven model is valid and sensitive for field-based assessments of joint angle time series, ROM in the primary plane of motion, magnitude of variability, and local dynamic stability.

Estimating kinematics from optical motion capture with skin-mounted markers, referred to as an inverse kinematic (IK) calculation, is the most common experimental technique in human motion analysis. Kinematics are often used to diagnose movement disorders and plan treatment strategies. In many such applications, small differences in joint angles can be clinically significant. Kinematics are also used to estimate joint powers, muscle forces, and other quantities of interest that cannot typically be measured directly. Thus, the accuracy and reproducibility of IK calculations are critical. In this work, we isolate and quantify the uncertainty in joint angles, moments, and powers due to two sources of error during IK analyses: errors in the placement of markers on the model (marker registration) and errors in the dimensions of the model’s body segments (model scaling). We demonstrate that IK solutions are best presented as a distribution of equally probable trajectories when these sources of modeling uncertainty are considered. Notably, a substantial amount of uncertainty exists in the computed kinematics and kinetics even if low marker tracking errors are achieved. For example, considering only 2 cm of marker registration uncertainty, peak ankle plantarflexion angle varied by 15.9°, peak ankle plantarflexion moment varied by 26.6 N⋅m, and peak ankle power at push off varied by 75.9 W during healthy gait. This uncertainty can directly impact the classification of patient movements and the evaluation of training or device effectiveness, such as calculations of push-off power. We provide scripts in OpenSim so that others can reproduce our results and quantify the effect of modeling uncertainty in their own studies.