Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25844155›Full record

ArticleInterface focus2015

Stochastic modelling of muscle recruitment during activity.

Saulo Martelli, Daniela Calvetti, Erkki Somersalo, Marco Viceconti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interface focus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Neuromuscular control: from a biomechanist's perspective.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Hammering Does Not Fit Fitts' Law.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Saulo MartelliMedical Device Research Institute, School of Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics , Flinders University , Tonsley, South Australia 5042 , Australia ; North West Academic Centre , The University of Melbourne , St Albans, Victoria 3021 , Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0012-8122
Daniela CalvettiDepartment of Mathematics , Applied Mathematics, and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, OH 44106-7058 , USA.
Erkki SomersaloDepartment of Mathematics , Applied Mathematics, and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University , Cleveland, OH 44106-7058 , USA.
Marco VicecontiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and INSIGNEO Institute for in silico Medicine , University of Sheffield , Sheffield S1 3JD , UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2293-1530

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Muscle forces can be selected from a space of muscle recruitment strategies that produce stable motion and variable muscle and joint forces. However, current optimization methods provide only a single muscle recruitment strategy. We modelled the spectrum of muscle recruitment strategies while walking. The equilibrium equations at the joints, muscle constraints, static optimization solutions and 15-channel electromyography (EMG) recordings for seven walking cycles were taken from earlier studies. The spectrum of muscle forces was calculated using Bayesian statistics and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, whereas EMG-driven muscle forces were calculated using EMG-driven modelling. We calculated the differences between the spectrum and EMG-driven muscle force for 1-15 input EMGs, and we identified the muscle strategy that best matched the recorded EMG pattern. The best-fit strategy, static optimization solution and EMG-driven force data were compared using correlation analysis. Possible and plausible muscle forces were defined as within physiological boundaries and within EMG boundaries. Possible muscle and joint forces were calculated by constraining the muscle forces between zero and the peak muscle force. Plausible muscle forces were constrained within six selected EMG boundaries. The spectrum to EMG-driven force difference increased from 40 to 108 N for 1-15 EMG inputs. The best-fit muscle strategy better described the EMG-driven pattern (R (2) = 0.94; RMSE = 19 N) than the static optimization solution (R (2) = 0.38; RMSE = 61 N). Possible forces for 27 of 34 muscles varied between zero and the peak muscle force, inducing a peak hip force of 11.3 body-weights. Plausible muscle forces closely matched the selected EMG patterns; no effect of the EMG constraint was observed on the remaining muscle force ranges. The model can be used to study alternative muscle recruitment strategies in both physiological and pathophysiological neuromotor conditions.

Indexed as

electromyographyhuman locomotionmuscle synergyneuromusculoskeletal modellingstatistic EMG-driven muscle forcestochastic muscle recruitment

Identifiers

PMID25844155
PMCPMC4342951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.