Hello, every one.
I am currently investigating muscle activity during bicycle use.
As a problem, the results calculated by SO compared to actual EMG are different.
This is particularly noticeable in the gastrocnemius muscle, which is a bi-articular muscle near the knee joint. Floor reaction forces are given.
The images show the results of calculations in Opensim in the gastrocnemius and biceps femoris muscles at the same time (left) and the actual EMG (right). Thus, the error is greater in the gastrocnemius muscle.
Any advice on how to solve this problem?
Best regards.
SO and EMG results differ.
- Yuya Miyazaki
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 8:45 pm
SO and EMG results differ.
- Attachments
-
- image.png (96.35 KiB) Viewed 369 times
- Mohammadreza Rezaie
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:48 am
Re: SO and EMG results differ.
Hi, by using a muscle volume-weighted cost function and/or a power of 3 or 4, you may get better results.
viewtopic.php?f=91&t=14556&p=42087&star ... d5d#p42064
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.08.019
There are also some tools for incorporating EMG in SO: CEINMS, EMG Optimization Tool, Matlab Static Optimization
I'm interested in this topic and wondering if you inform us of your findings.
Thank you,
Mohammadreza
viewtopic.php?f=91&t=14556&p=42087&star ... d5d#p42064
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.08.019
There are also some tools for incorporating EMG in SO: CEINMS, EMG Optimization Tool, Matlab Static Optimization
I'm interested in this topic and wondering if you inform us of your findings.
Thank you,
Mohammadreza
- Yuya Miyazaki
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 8:45 pm
Re: SO and EMG results differ.
Thank you for your reply.
I would like to try the suggested methods.
I will report back if there is any improvement.
Best regards.
I would like to try the suggested methods.
I will report back if there is any improvement.
Best regards.