IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/gcmbxx/v17y2014i4p311-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of muscle force estimates using Huxley's and Hill's muscle model

Author

Listed:
  • Michala Cadova
  • Miloslav Vilimek
  • Matej Daniel

Abstract

Determination of muscle forces in individual muscles is often essential to assess optimal performance of human motion. Inverse dynamic methods based on the kinematics of the given motion and on the use of optimisation approach are the most widely used for muscle force estimation. The aim of this study was to estimate how the choice of muscle model influences predicted muscle forces. Huxley's (1957, Prog Biophys Biop Chem. 7: 255–318) and Hill's (1938, Proc R Soc B. 126: 136–195) muscle models were used for determination of muscle forces of two antagonistic muscles of the lower extremity during cycling. Huxley's model is a complex model that couples biochemical and physical processes with the microstructure of the muscle whereas the Hill's model is a phenomenological model. Muscle forces predicted by both models are within the same range. Huxley's model predicts more realistic patterns of muscle activation but it is computationally more demanding. Therefore, if the overall muscle forces are to be assessed, it is reasonable to use a simpler implementation based on Hill's model.

Suggested Citation

  • Michala Cadova & Miloslav Vilimek & Matej Daniel, 2014. "A comparative study of muscle force estimates using Huxley's and Hill's muscle model," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 311-317, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:17:y:2014:i:4:p:311-317
    DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2012.683426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2012.683426
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10255842.2012.683426?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:17:y:2014:i:4:p:311-317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/gcmb .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.