Stronger model, but no higher jumps

OpenSim Moco is a software toolkit to solve optimal control problems with musculoskeletal models defined in OpenSim using the direct collocation method.
User avatar
Nicholas Bianco
Posts: 962
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:09 pm

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Nicholas Bianco » Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:41 am

Hi Carlos,

What you're looking for is MocoFinalOutputGoal.
CoM velocity would need a custom goal I think. Since it is not a state of the model, I don't think it could be used in MocoOutputGoal, but you could try something like pelvis vertical velocity with MocoOutputGoal.
Not true! You can use MocoOutputGoal (and all the new related goals) with any model Output, which does not have to be a state of the system. You can find a list of the Outputs a component supports on the Doxygen documentation page for that component.

So, you can maximize the final center of mass height using MocoFinalOutputGoal with a negative weight.

-Nick

User avatar
Carlos Gonçalves
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Carlos Gonçalves » Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:17 pm

Perfect! Thanks a lot Nick!!!!

So, if I want to use the pelvis_ty value, I just use the output from bodyset/pelvis|position right into MocoOutputFinalGoal? The negative weight was something that I just thought another day about why I never used... :(

But for the CoM, how can it be done? I see the documentation on calcMassCenterPosition but does it "fit" into MocoOutputFinalGoal? What are the available options?

Maybe model|com_position ? I previous set something like this in my rowing model like this:

Code: Select all

tensionGoal = osim.MocoOutputGoal('tension', listParam[parmDict['tensionWeight']])
tensionGoal.setOutputPath('/forceset/forcaRemoErgometro|tension')
tensionGoal.setDivideByDisplacement(True)
tensionGoal.setDivideByMass(True)
problem.addGoal(tensionGoal)
I couldn't find an example in https://opensim-org.github.io/opensim-moco-site/docs/

Best regards.

Carlos

User avatar
Nicholas Bianco
Posts: 962
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:09 pm

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Nicholas Bianco » Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:58 pm

Ah dang, the link to the Moco docs on the website is out of date. I'll fix that soon!

Either way, I don't think there's an example for model-level Outputs anywhere. Model components are listed using a file directory format, but the model itself has no "directory". So it would look like this in a MocoOutputGoal:

Code: Select all

maxHeightGoal = osim.MocoFinalOutputGoal('max_com_height')
maxHeightGoal.setOutputPath('|com_position')
maxHeightGoal.setWeight(-1.0) # maximize height
maxHeightGoal.setOutputIndex(1) # the y-axis index
maxHeightGoal.setExponent(1) # keep height signed (1 is the default value)
Center of mass position is a Vec3 type, so you need to select the direction using setOutputIndex(). The weight and setExponent() will make sure you specifically maximize height.

Best,
Nick

User avatar
Ross Miller
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Ross Miller » Thu Oct 27, 2022 4:16 am

Thanks Nick!

Could use this same/similar approach to maximize CoM horizontal velocity (sprinting)? I guess I would want MocoOutputGoal for that (maximize average velocity).

Ross

User avatar
Nicholas Bianco
Posts: 962
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:09 pm

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Nicholas Bianco » Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:20 pm

Ross -- I think you could. I tried to include as many options as possible to make these goals as flexible as possible.

User avatar
Carlos Gonçalves
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Carlos Gonçalves » Thu Oct 27, 2022 5:58 pm

Thanks a lot Nick!!

Really appreciate the example code. I will use in the future with 92 muscles (double fingers crossed).

And here are the results! A lot of improvements. Thanks a lot Tom, Ross and Nick!

Both simulations took more than 10h. So I couldn't test all the scenarios discussed here, but definitely, just setting the final speed bound of pelvis_ty to zero did the trick. 100% stronger, 37.5% higher jump. On the left reference, on the right stronger model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOEch5B ... C3%A7alves
compare.png
compare.png (163.06 KiB) Viewed 532 times

I still didn't get all the muscles to "bang-bang", but I will keep digging into this.

Thanks again for all the support. Best regards.

Carlos

User avatar
Ross Miller
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Ross Miller » Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:07 am

Looks good!

I think one of the earliest jumping simulations with a complex model (Pandy et al. 1990) has an argument on why the optimal controls must be bang-on. I'm not sure if that would extend to a cost function with an effort term though. They were just maximizing take-off velocity (or more specifically, take-off height + velocity^2 / 2g).

Ross

User avatar
Carlos Gonçalves
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Stronger model, but no higher jumps

Post by Carlos Gonçalves » Mon Oct 31, 2022 6:09 pm

Thanks Ross.

Mr. Bones is getting wiser with the help from the forum.

I will continue exploring the weights for the goals, as well as comparing them to the literature. The main goal is to use this problem (jumping) to fine-tune the procedures for further clinical motions.

I just thought that looking into published research on EMG for jumping (areal phase) could guide in the selection or not of the MocoControlGoal in the future.

Best regards.

POST REPLY