Primal running parameters

(This blog post was updated on 2 February 2019 due to an update of the algorithm.)

In principal component analysis (PCA), we perform a variable transformation from a set of primal and mutually correlated parameters to a set of principal components (PC) that are orthogonal and therefore uncorrelated. Each of these PCs is a mix of the primal variables, so the PCs do not necessarily have a physical interpretation. However, if they do, we tend to think that they have a more serene meaning because the orthogonality means that the significance of each of them is not expressed by any other PC or combinations of other PCs. Also, when we control the model by means of the PCs, every generated running pattern tends to be realistic because the PCs represent variations within the correlated primal parameter space. So it is hard to get something really freaky, which of course is an advantage when we want to generate realistic patterns.

In the previous blog post, I investigated the possible physical meaning of the PCs of running.

However, we often want to recreate a certain physical condition of running, such as a certain running speed, a cadence or a certain size of runner. These parameters and about 550 more are found among the primal parameters of the running model. How can we specify values of those, when the model is controlled by the PCs?

Well, to cut a long story short, the problem of honoring a subset of the primal parameters while keeping everything else “as normal as possible” results in a quadratic optimization problem with linear constraints, for which an analytical solution exists. With this solution, we can play around with models corresponding to specific primal parameters, and this is what I am going to do now.

Running speed

So, what happens, if we vary the running speed and let everything else be “as normal as possible”? The animations below show slow jog at 6 km/h and sprint at 30 km/h.

• 

  6 km/h

• 

  30 km/h

This seems to work pretty well. It is remarkable that the fast-running model reproduces some of the characteristic features of sprint, even though the set of running trials that were used to train the model did not contain sprint; the fastest running trial in the training set was 18 km/h. The anthropometry also changes because the model contains relationships between anthropometry and running style: The fast runner is almost 2m high.

Shorter runners

But how would a shorter runner cope with very fast running? Well, we can just enforce a stature of 1.50 m instead, which gives us this:

• 

• 

The shorter model seems to maintain the speed by a combination of larger joint articulations and higher cadence, the latter is 1.92 steps per second against 1.83 for the taller model.

Bouncy running

It is also possible to control movement characteristics directly, if they are characterized by any of the Fourier coefficients driving the motion. For instance, the pelvis movement in space can be adjusted this way. The body bounces twice in each running cycle, so its amplitude is predominantly controlled by the second sine and cosine terms in the Fourier series. We can amplify these to create bouncy running, and the remaining coefficients will adjust to try to keep the running style within normal.

• 

  Average running

• 

  Bouncy running

Outlook

What it this actually good for? Well, suppose I know something but not everything about how you are running. Some information I can easily find, such as your height, your body mass, and the lengths of all your individual segments can be taken with a tape measure. That’s about 30 parameters just to describe your body roughly. It is also pretty easy to measure your step length and your running cadence, and perhaps I can strap some inertial measurement units to selected points on your body to measure their accelerations when you run. This will give me another 20 or 40 parameters when those motions have been Fourier transformed.

Can I then predict how you or anyone else is running? I don’t know yet, but time will tell and the answer will come to a blog in your sphere.

Advertisements

On the parameters of running

We are making fast progress with our statistical running models, and I can now present a preview of some of the statistical findings.

How many parameters do we need to describe full-body running kinematically? Well, our primal model currently has 551 parameters (it keeps evolving). These include Fourier coefficients for all significant degrees-of-freedom and anthropometrical parameters for the runners. So far, we have not split data into male and female. When we subject these data to Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and we require 90% of the variance explained, then we end up with 39 independent principal components (PCs), each representing a scale of running differences. The figure below shows the relative influence of each parameter.

39 Principal components explaining 90% of the variance in the data set.

So, what are these parameters? Well, each principal component represents a linear combination of the primal parameters. So, when we vary a principal component, we are changing many primal parameters at the same time. To work out the influence of each component in physical/running terms, we can either look at which primal parameters take up the most space in each principal component, or we can simply vary the components to each side, create animations of the resulting models, and look at them to see differences.

In the following, we do both. The animations are made to similar scales, so you can compare the sizes of the skeletons. The slow motion is 30%, and the actual biomechanical models are – of course – developed in the AnyBody Modeling System.

Principal component  0

The 0th principal component (we are computer geeks, so we count everything from 0) is dominated by Fourier terms that control the degrees-of-freedom in the legs, so it appears to be related to leg movement. Here are the animations:

• 

  Minus 2 standard deviations of the 0’th P

• 

  Plus 2 standard deviations of the 0’th PC

This PC seems mostly express running speed. This is consistent with what we obtained from our previous data set. The fast-running model also appears to be a bit slimmer than the slow jogger, so there is a bit of anthropometry involved as well.

Principal component 1

The top-contributors to this component are the body dimensions, i.e. anthropometry. This also comes out clearly in the animations (remember, the scaling is the same in all animations).

• 

  Minus 2 standard deviations of the 1st PC

• 

  Plus 2 standard deviations of the 1st PC

Sure enough, size matters for this component, and the small one seems to be the meanest runner :).

Principal component 2

This principal component is dominated by hip, pelvis and thorax motions, so it should be related to the motions in the core of the body. Let’s see:

• 

  Minus 2 standard deviations of the 2nd PC

• 

  Plus 2 standard deviations of the 2nd PC

For sure, the upper body dynamics is more pronounced in the left runner.

Principal component 3

The data show that this component is dominated by shoulder and arm movements. We now use three standard deviations to elucidate the differences. Let’s take a look:

• 

  Minus 3 standard deviations of the 3rd PC

• 

  Plus 3 standard deviations of the 3rd PC

The significance of this PC seems very be similar to PC2, but the data reveal that the effect of PC3 is concentrated higher up on the body, i.e. in the shoulder region, where PC2 focuses on the thorax and pelvis.

Principal component 4

This is an example where the physical significance is hard to work out from the data alone. The main contributors to this PC are a mixed bag of coefficients for degrees-of-freedom from all over the body. However, the animation is very interesting if you are into running injuries.

• 

  Minus 3 standard deviations of the 4th PC

• 

  Plus 3 standard deviations of the 4th PC

The runner on the right has a more upright running style and extends the knees more, and possibly more than what would be healthy in the long – ahem – run. If somebody with this running style had knee or lower leg pain and was seen by a PT, then the recommendation would probably be to reduce the knee extension.

These were just five of the 39 principal components. There is probably more interesting stuff to find in the remaining 26 components, but we are also going to develop methods to explore this 39-dimensional space of running patterns in a more systematic way.

Kinetics

When we add ground reaction force prediction and muscles to the AnyBody models and make them kinetic, then we can also start looking for running styles that minimize or maximize loads on certain injury-prone body parts and, for instance, allow runners with initial stage osteoarthritis to continue running. This is, in fact, the aim of the research project that currently pays for the technological development: Individualized Osteoarthtis Interventions, IOI, funded by Innovation Fund Denmark, whose support is gratefully acknowledged.

Kinetic AnyBody model of a virtual runner with musculoskeletal simulation and ground reaction force prediction.

New data for statistical running

I realize that my previous post on this blog is 18 months ago. What can I say? Science takes time.

In the meantime, my colleagues and I have been working hard on setting up a framework for our statistical running models and finding better data to train the model with. The problem with the existing model is that it is based on manual processing of very heterogeneous data with varying quality, and the 90 trials we based it on were probably not enough to cover all the different ways people run.

In the meantime, we have been able to establish contact to a data source that will provide us with a flow of full-body running trials that are all collected on the same system using the same protocol. This has enabled us to automate the data processing, which does the following:

1. Processes motion capture marker trajectories through The AnyBody Modeling System to recover anthropometric data of the subject and the running motion for the trial.
2. Performs Fourier analysis of the trials to find cadence and Fourier coefficients of movements of all degrees of freedom of all trials.
3. Performs post processing to phase coordinate the trials and remove offsets that do not influence the running patterns.
4. Performs Principal Component Analysis of the streamlined data to create a parametric running model.

The beauty of this system is that it allows our model to improve dynamically as more data become available, and we eliminate the inevitable errors of manual data processing. Below, you find some examples of processed joint angles for about 100 running trials by different runners.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

It is characteristic that some – typically the main joint angles for the running motion – show great similarity between subjects, while others show much more variation. Please stay tuned for updates on this, which hopefully will come sooner than 18 months from now.

Statistical Running

I have recently taken an interest in statistical models of various sorts, where the statistics can be in terms of model anthropometry or in terms of the tasks performed by the model. Two very gifted students of mine, Brian Vendelbo Kloster and Kristoffer Iversen, developed a statistical model of running. Before I write about that model, I would like to give you some background for the whole idea.

CAE

I perceive musculoskeletal modelling as a Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) tool. More prominent representatives of CAE technology are finite element analysis for solid mechanics or heat transmission, or finite volume models of flow problems. These technologies are used to create virtual models of products before the products exist, and they have enabled much of the technological progress we have seen in recent decades. Mobile phones, modern cars and planes, and large wind turbines are just a few examples of products that would not exist in the absence of CAE.

So, what’s wrong with musculoskeletal modelling? Only the fact that most of our models require experimental input, usually in the form of motion capture data. If I want to model a complex motion like a baseball pitch or ingress into a car, then I need to feed measured motion data into my model to make it move realistically.

We have good interfaces for importing mocap data, so what’s the problem?

Well, if the model needs experimental input, then it can really only model something that happened in the past, i.e. the experiment. And the whole point of CAE tools is to create models of virtual products or situations, i.e. things that have not necessarily happened yet. It is fair to say that models are only real CAE models if they can predict the future.

ADL models

This is where a new class of musculoskeletal models comes into the picture. These models are called ADL Models, where ADL means Activity of Daily Living and can be any recognizable movement or working task that humans perform. The idea is that, if the model already knows in general how to perform the task it was developed for, then it needs only a little more input to do the task in a certain way, and this input could even be dependent on other circumstances or statistically varying within a range.

It is really much easier to explain if we use an example. Let us look at the running model that Kristoffer and Brian developed.

Running model

Watch any crowd of running people and you will quickly realize that different people run in very different ways. The running style also depends much on whether we are sprinting or running a Marathon. Despite these differences, running is a clearly distinguishable motion and we can recognize it easily when we see it. So there might be more similarity than difference to the various styles. The aforementioned two students and I decided to create an ADL model of running.

Running is also a complex motion, so it is not going to happen as a model unless we have some mocap data to begin with. Brian and Kristoffer collected 143 C3D files from various sources, and finally 90 of them turned out to produce reasonable running models. Some of the problems with the remaining models were too much marker dropout or too little of the running cycle recorded.

We then processed all of the models through AnyBody, resulting in the following:

• Anthropometric data for each subject, i.e. lengths of the segments. This comes automatically from the system’s parameter identification when it processes the marker data.
• Anatomical joint angle variations for the running cycle for each subject.

Now we could recreate each subject’s anthropometry and running pattern in the system and proceed to do some statistics on the motion patterns. We initially thought that it would not be too hard, but it turned out that there were more steps to the process than we had imagined.

Data reduction and fixing

In the true spirit of ADL models, we aimed to make a parametric model of running, so that we can recreate all sorts of running in a single model. Just one single running model is driven by thousands and thousands of numbers, so we need a vast amount of data reduction. We are going to do this by principal component analysis (PCA) but, in such cases, it is always wise to reduce complexity by smart decisions from the beginning.

The first such decision was to reduce the complexity of each joint angle variation by approximating it with an analytical function using a small number of parameters. Fourier expansions are the obvious choice because running is a cyclic motion. It turned out that all joint angle movements could be approximated precisely by just a small number of terms in the row, maximally 5, and in most cases much less. So each joint angle movement was now represented by less than a handful of numbers.

The transfer of data to Fourier rows carries some additional opportunities with it. Several of the macap trials contained less than a full running cycle, and the trials came from different labs with the subjects running in different coordinate systems. Also, some were running on treadmills, and some were running overground. With the Fourier rows, it is relatively easy to transfer all subjects into the same coordinate system, make the motions symmetrical between right and left sides, and convert all of them to be treadmill running. Of course, this means that the data set does not allow for investigation of asymmetry in running. Finally, we made sure that all movement functions for each trial had the same basic frequency. All of this process we refer to as data fixing.

If you are choking on your coffee now because you think we are messing too much with empirical data, then please remember that the point of this exercise is not to reproduce how any particular person is running, but rather to obtain a data set that spans the parameter space of running.

Ensuring foot contact

We now have parametric models of different people with different sizes running in different ways. For the further use of the model it is important to make sure that each model obtains proper ground contact with the feet. This might not automatically be the case in a parametric model, because the model is driven from the pelvis and outwards. If we, for instance, make the model shorter, then the feet might not reach the ground.

So we recorded the foot motions for each subject, performed another curve fit, and parameterized these curves such that the feet would always touch the ground in the stance phase.

PCA

We now have a big table in which each row represents a running trial, and each column is a Fourier coefficient for the trial. The running style might actually depend on anthropometry; it is not unreasonable to suspect that people with longer legs tend to take longer steps. So we added to each trial the segment dimensions of the subject in additional rows.

Despite all the reductions we were left with 197 parameters describing the running trials.We could go ahead and start playing around with each of those parameters to see how they influence the model. However, this would not be statistically sound for a couple of related reasons:

1. There is no way that 90 trials can adequately span a space of 197 parameters. We would need many more trials if we wanted the trial space to support 197 uncorrelated parameters.
2. The parameters are statistically correlated with each other. For instance, the running speed and step length are known to correlate with the elevation of the foot in the forward swing. So random variations of parameters are likely to create absurd motions that do not exist in reality.

Principal Component Analysis is the go-to method to figure out how many independent parameters we need to describe the running motion. So we ran the table of trial parameters through PCA and found that the first three components accounted for 50% of the variance in the data set, and 90% of the variance could be explained by just 12 components. This is illustrated in the figure below.

Let me briefly explain the nature of PCA to those not familiar with the technique: Each of the principal components is a vector of the original parameters; it designates a principal direction in the data set. The principal components are uncorrelated, so we can vary each one independently, i.e. travel along its direction in the parameter space. PCA also tells us how far it is reasonable to vary each vector, because it gives us the standard deviations in each component direction.

Obviously, the first one is the more interesting in the sense that it accounts for almost 30% of the variation. Let us begin the exploration by taking a look at the average running pattern. This pattern is found exactly in the centre of the parameter space of the running trials. I think you will agree that the analysis has reproduced what appears to be a mainstream running motion.

We now take the first principal component and displace it by two standard deviations in the positive direction. This seems to produce a running pattern that much less intensive than the average. This guy or girl is really jogging.

As expected, changing the first principal component two standard deviations in the opposite direction creates a fast, intensive running motion.

We can compare the slow and the fast running by overlaying a couple of keyframes, First we look at the stride:

…and then at the elevation of the heel in the forward swing:

We can see that, as expected, the strides are longer and the heel elevation is higher for fast running. There are also some surprising elements that may indicate that we have to adjust the data processing a bit. It looks like none of the models fully extend the knee. This could be due to a necessary adjustment of the assumed marker locations on the models and would have to be investigated further.

Outlook

We still have to do a lot of data mining left to figure out the physiological significance of the principal components. There is also much work remaining on automation of the data processing. Ideally, we want to create a C3D database of running trials that we can just add new trials to, and the whole processing is repeated automatically. Right now, the curve fitting and coordinate system transformations still need some manual intervention.

The applications of models like these are almost endless. With the parameter space we could:

• Identify plausible full running patterns for individuals about whom we only know a few things like their size and stride length.
• Add kinetics in the form of ground reaction force prediction, which we know that we can do reliably in AnyBody.
• Compute muscle and joint loads as a function of virtual running styles.
• Offer modellers the opportunity to investigate running without experimental input and ask the model what-if questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up to the challenge

Last week, everybody who is somebody in biomechanics gathered for the 7th World Congress of Biomechanics in the great city of Boston, Massachusetts. Several national and continental organizations serve the biomechanical community, and they all have their own congresses, but every four years all of them get together in one big and all-encompassing conference. This time, the World Congress hosted more than 5000 delegates.

For me personally, and for several of my closest colleagues, this was a very positive event. There is a much-increased interest in simulation methods in general and in the AnyBody Modeling System in particular. It has been a long time coming, and I have felt at times that we had to explain over and over why it is reasonable to believe that the laws of mechanics apply to the human body and that we would, despite challenges, get it right if we stuck to that belief and kept refining the models and software.

This year, many applications of AnyBody were presented by independent research groups, some of them by unrelated initiatives and some under a competition named “The Grand Challenge”. A visionary group of scientists headed by B.J. Fregly, Darryl D’Lima and Thor Besier have now five times published data sets containing in-vivo measurements of knee forces from an instrumented implant and challenged the simulation community to predict these forces. Every generation of data contains a new activity, and the contestants initially do not know what the correct forces are, so it is a truly blinded test. After the estimates have been submitted, the true values are revealed, and the participants are now challenged to improve their models and predictions.

For this year’s competition, my colleague Michael Skipper Andersen headed a strong group of scientists related to the TLEMSafe project, more precisely Marco Marra, Valentine Vanheule, René Fluit, Nico Verdonschot and yours truly. Not only did we win; our prediction was the closest in the history of the competition. The second place went to a Korean group also using AnyBody but with a completely different model. This should finally silence any doubt that musculoskeletal simulation indeed can simulate forces inside the body.

I often compare the evolution of musculoskeletal modeling with the development and adoption of finite element analysis. When I was a student in the 1980’ies, I was extremely fascinated by the possibilities of finite element analysis for the solution of engineering problems when, and I did my PhD in this field, developing my own shape optimization system and its associated finite element solver bottom-up in Pascal. It was quite challenging at times, due to the lack of programming tools and debuggers but also because of the lack of understanding. Many older professors completely misunderstood the project, even when the results began to appear, and I remember particularly one instant when a slightly cranky one cornered me and started shouting agitatedly into my face that “this finite element shit will never amount to anything – ever!”

Time proved him wrong and very few of the hi-tech products we use today, from mobile phones to wind turbines, could have been developed in the absence of finite element simulation in the design process. I have felt since the beginning of the AnyBody project that musculoskeletal modeling is on the same path and holds the same potential.

To accomplish that goal we must also look to the way CAE in general is used: We rarely make finite element models of bridges that are already built or last year’s car model. We make models of future bridges or the bodies of cars to be marketed in three or five years; we simulate the future. The real challenge of musculoskeletal modeling is to make the technology reliable enough to be used for prospective analysis. So far, most musculoskeletal models have simulated retrospective situations for which experimental input data, for instance from motion capture and force platforms, is available, i.e. the past. This might be interesting for research but it is not what makes the technology valuable to a large group of users in healthcare and in the industry. The real potential is simulation of situations that may happen in the future: the outcome of a possible surgical procedure, the behavior of a new type of joint prosthesis, the ergonomic quality of a new hand tool or working environment being designed.
To make this happen, we must meet at least three additional challenges:

1. Models must be able to represent individuals for healthcare applications as well as statistical cross sections of the population for product design.
2. Models must be independent of force input, typically from force platforms.
3. Models must be independent of motion input.

These three challenges will define much of the research of my group in the forthcoming years. Let me try to give a brief status on this:

Statistical shape modeling was a big topic at the WCB2014 and in the biomechanical community in general, and this will eventually benefit AnyBody models. We have also with good partners made much progress in the realm of the TLEMSafe and A-FOOTPRINT EU projects in terms of individualization of the models. We can do it, but it takes time and the workflow must be improved.

AnyBody relies on inverse dynamics, which has a legacy from classical motion analysis. It is therefore a popular misconception that force input is absolutely needed. This has never been the case due to the very general mechanical formulations used inside AnyBody, but we have used force platform input when it was available because we thought that it is better to use real data when we have them. At WCB2014, Michael Skipper Andersen with co-authors Fluit, Kolk, Verdonschot, Koopman and Rasmussen presented the paper “Prediction of Ground Reaction Forces in Inverse Dynamic Simulations”, which very convincingly shows that ground reaction forces can be predicted with great accuracy from kinematics and without increased computation time.

The final, and severest, challenge is to predict motions. Saeed Davoudabadi Farahani from the AnyBody Research Group recently had a paper accepted that convincingly predicts cycling motions, and another paper on squat jump motion prediction is under review. Stay tuned for those. The status in this field is that we can predict simple motions reliably, but the computation times are still too high and there are open questions regarding prediction of abstract working tasks.

We will not run out of scientific challenges any time soon, but we are up to them and WCB2014 shows that we have come a very long way.

I wish everybody on the Northern Hemisphere a great summer vacation.

20/20 vision

They say that hindsight is 20/20 vision; we are always so much smarter when we look back than we were when we tried to navigate forward in a difficult world. My famous compatriot, Søren Kirkegaard, said it better than anybody else: “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”

The end of the year is usually the time to look back and evaluate a little. A few years ago, I helped starting a research project called AnyBody Inside in cooperation between AnyBody Technology and the research group that I am heading at Aalborg University. The purpose of the project, funded by the Advanced Technology Foundation, was to prepare the AnyBody Modeling System to be used “inside” in several ways: Inside other software and for applications inside the human body such as surgical planning, design of joint replacements and dimensioning of trauma devices. Along the way we were also fortunate enough to get invited into several EU research projects by outstanding project coordinators: SpineFX, A-FOOTPRINT and TLEM/Safe are all projects that contributed enormously to the development of AnyBody.

Before we got to this point, we had been thoroughly discussing the direction of our research and development. The analysis showed that out of all the directions we considered, orthopedics was by far the more difficult technically and, yet, that was the way we went. In hindsight it may not look like the smartest choice to head directly towards the highest mountain we could see, but that choice says much about the resilience and determination of the people I am working with. The fact that they have now climbed the mountain says much about their unusual skills. Over the past decade, they have created a world-leading technology for musculoskeletal simulation using an amazing ingenuity and solving problems nobody have previously been able to tackle. I apologize for a bit of self-indulgence at the end of the year, but I think this is a good time to review some of those achievements: some that are already out, and some that will be published and marketed in the New Year:

We have been integrating AnyBody into workflows that are used by engineers and scientists. AnyBody is no longer a stand-alone technology. Functional environments, i.e. assemblies, can be imported from SolidWorks into AnyBody and hooked up with the human musculoskeletal model. The video below shows one of my favorite models conceived in the wonderfully curly mind of my genius colleague, Moonki Jung. I call it the Steampunk model, but it really just demonstrates how a mechanism developed in SolidWorks can be imported with kinematic constraints, CAD part geometries and even surface colors from CAD to AnyBody.

In a downstream data direction, we have also integrated AnyBody with finite element software. The idea is that most of the daily loads on the skeleton come from muscle forces, so they are essential to include in any realistic FE model of bones and joints. We even published an investigation of that importance (Wong et al. 2011). Any FE code can be fed forces from AnyBody with a small effort of user interface scripting, but if you are lucky enough to use Abaqus or ANSYS, then you can benefit from more automated interfaces. The image below is from a recent paper that analyzes the stresses in a clavicle fracture fixation device (Cronskär, Rasmussen & Tinnsten 2013).

Without going too much into technical details, I can say that the type of analysis performed by AnyBody usually requires an assumption of idealized joints, for instance a hinge for thee knee. That may be fine for ergonomics, but any anatomist will agree that the knee is far from a hinge if you look a little closer. It is much more complex and some of its movement is due to elastic deformation of soft tissue such as ligaments and cartilage. In AnyBody we have a few people exceptionally skilled in mechanics and mathematics, Michael Skipper Andersen, Michael Damsgaard and Daniel Nolte. Together they developed the necessary surface contact algorithms and an entirely new biomechanical analysis method: Force-dependent kinematics. This allows, for the first time ever, to perform analysis of very complex musculoskeletal systems with hundreds of muscles and detailed modeling of complex joints such knees, shoulders (GH joint) and tempora-manidibular joints. This is already available in the AnyBody Modeling System, and a publication about the technique is being prepared. The video below shows the deformation in a knee simulated with FDK. Notice the shift in the joint in response to the impact force at heel strike just at the beginning of the video. 2014 will bring lots of really interesting applications of this new technology.

The whole purpose of a simulation technology is to predict how the world works, in particular what will happen if we intervene in some sense: perform surgery to correct pathological gait, implant a joint replacement, change a workplace or alter the design of a bicycle. Some of these interventions will change the movement pattern, and movement is input to the type of analysis we perform in AnyBody. So how can we compute something that we need as input for the same computation? It seems like a catch 22 problem, and this is where posture and motion prediction comes into the picture. Saeed Davoudabadi Farahani is working in this field, which is still in its early days. We are trying to prove that optimality principles can predict the way we move, and the results are looking good. Below is a picture of a predicted squat jump. Stay tuned for more on this in 2014.

The final issue I want to mention is verification and validation, V&V. Any technology with aspirations to get used for serious tasks should go through these processes and particularly Morten Lund has been looking into this and has published a rather comprehensive review. One of the things we have found is that V&V is an ongoing process. You cannot just V&V a complex software system and then tick it off as done. So we have been developing what we call a validation engine. This tool runs new software versions and model library models through a comprehensive sequence of tests and compares the results with previous results as well as published experimental data. I fully expect that this will set a new standard for V&V in musculoskeletal systems in 2014.

Oh, and 20-20 vision is also what I expect from myself after a small piece of clinical biomechanics performed on my eyes on January 15th: I shall have the lenses in my eyes replaced. They have become rigid as it happens to us all around the age of 45 or 50, so I am unable to focus on more than one distance and must use glasses. An advanced laser will pulverize the stiffened contents of my current lenses, and a surgeon will remove the debris and insert a new, multifocal lens that hopefully will restore my vision to its former strength. This procedure is performed more than 15,000 times per year in Denmark alone and is a wonderful example of how science is improving the lives of ordinary people. Let’s use our biomechanical skills to do the same with osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases in 2014.

References

Cronskär, M., Rasmussen, J. & Tinnsten, M. 2013, Combined finite element and multibody musculoskeletal investigation of a fractured clavicle with reconstruction plate, Taylor & Francis.
Wong, C., Rasmussen, J., Simonsen, E., Hansen, L., de Zee, M. & Dendorfer, S. 2011, “The Influence of Muscle Forces on the Stress Distribution in the Lumbar Spine”, The Open Spine Journal, vol. 3, pp. 21-26.

Natal – coming together

Biomechanics like every scientific field has its main conferences. The International Society of Biomechanics hosts a biannual congress that attracts around 1000 researchers from literally all over the world, and these conferences are among my absolute favorite events.

This July the event was in Natal, Brazil. It had to be Brazil, of course, with its emerging economy, enormous natural resources, great advances in technology and science and wonderful weather. The country has become a megatrend lately. Biomechanics has its megatrends too, and no place is better to catch up with them than the ISB conferences. I will mention three of them here:

Me doing my stuff at the satellite symposium on computer simulation.

Muscle synergies – neuroscience meets biomechanics

It is no secret that the central nervous system is very advanced. Christof Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science has nominated the brain “the most complex object in the known universe”. Of course it is debatable how and whether we can delimit objects in the universe, and one could argue (and prove in psychological tests) that several brains together work better than one. But despite the central nervous system’s amazing abilities, when you understand a little about the complexity of the control problem that must be solved in real time just to make a human walk and stay in calculated balance (or calculated imbalance, actually) it is still rather impressive how our sensory-motor system manages, and much research is devoted to this problem.

From the neuroscience perspective, scientists are measuring signals that travel up and down the neural pathways and making detailed models of them. It was nice to see a few of those presented at the conference. From the biomechanics side we try to understand how muscle forces come together to provide exactly the amount of force at exactly the right time to keep us on our feet, considering the three-dimensional dynamics we are subject to, including friction, gravity, contact forces, perturbations, acceleration, centrifugal, gyroscopic and Coriolis forces. Setting up the equations is mind boggling to most of us, let alone solving them in real time. Neuroscientists and biomechanists are addressing the same problem from two separate sides, and they may be just about to meet in the middle.
All that analysis of neural signals has brought about a new idea that is spreading like a wildfire at the moment: muscle synergies. From a special statistical processing of the signals to different muscles it is possible to realize that they are not independent. It looks like the vast majority of the signals, and we are talking several dozens, can be described by just a few free variables. If the central nervous system can make all this happen through modulation of just a small number of variables, then perhaps it is not so strange that it can manage the complexity.

Muscle synergies were the topic of several very interesting presentations and indeed also one of the focuses of my work at the moment, so stay tuned for more info in future blog entries.

Forward, inverse, static, dynamic

Other approaches that seem to come together are the different solution methods for musculoskeletal systems. The issue is that Newton’s equations allow us to find the movement if the know the forces or find the forces if the know the movement. These two different approaches have been called forward and inverse dynamics respectively, and the latter is sometimes called static optimization, which in my opinion is misleading. I’ll try not to go off on a tangent about that but merely mention than scientists tend to like their own approaches, often just because it is a hassle to try out different approaches, so a lot of arguments have been wasted on debating whether one or the other is the best way to go. For a long time, forward dynamics seemed to be chosen by a lot of scientists, but inverse dynamics started its comeback when two of the leading scientists in the field, Anderson and Pandy, published a paper entitled “Static and dynamic optimization solutions for gait are practically equivalent” [1]. Seemingly, two paths can lead to the same goal.

What happened at this conference is that the number of successful results and new approaches based on inverse dynamics seemed to be increased compared to earlier conferences, and several predictive papers were presented. The society’s president, Ton van den Bogert, presented direct collocation methods capable of predicting motion as well as forces, i.e. both sides of Newton’s equations, and my colleague, Michael Skipper Andersen showed how we can predict ground reaction forces in inverse dynamics simulations of gait and how the predicted forces actually lead to much better estimations of hip joint reaction forces. I think these developments are going to bring much more clinical applications of musculoskeletal simulation in the near future.

Clinical applications

Speaking of clinical applications, the coolest presentation from my point-of-view was by René Fluit from the University of Twente. René presented preliminary results from the TLEM/Safe project, in which an exceptionally detailed but generic lower extremity model is made specific to each patient in a surgical planning system, building on state-of-the-art technologies like AnyBody and Mimics. The picture below shows René (barely visible in the lower part of the photo) presenting the generic model (left) and the model morphed to represent a patient with severe pelvis and hip deformation (right). I am really excited about the prospects of this technology for treatment of very disabling diseases.

Another really amazing practical application of musculoskeletal simulation was by Henrik Koblauch (picture below) from the University of Copenhagen. Henrik develops amazing models of airport cargo loaders’ work situations. These are the guys who load and unload (and accosionally break) your heavy suitcase. They work in impossible postures and under very tight space constraints. Henrik was able to identify certain working postures that are especially injury-prone.

References
1. Anderson, F. C. and M. G. Pandy. Static and dynamic optimization solutions for gait are practically equivalent. J. Biomech. 34:153-161, 2001.