Volume 12, Issue 3 (11-2026)
J Sport Biomech 2026, 12(3): 606-624 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Asgari P, Zandi S, Tabatabai Ghomsheh F, Nikmohammad H. Comparison of Knee Contact Force Estimation Errors Between Two OpenSim Musculoskeletal Models During Walking and Squatting. J Sport Biomech 2026; 12 (3) :606-624
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-514-en.html
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-514-en.html
1- Department of Sport Injuries and Biomechanics, Faculty of Sports and Health Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Ergonomics, Pediatric Neurorehabilitation Research Center, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (USWR), Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Ergonomics, Pediatric Neurorehabilitation Research Center, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (USWR), Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (17 Views)
Objective Accurate estimation of musculoskeletal forces is essential for understanding joint biomechanics, improving rehabilitation strategies, and optimizing implant design. Joint reaction forces can be estimated using biomechanical measurements combined with musculoskeletal modeling approaches. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of knee joint contact force estimation between the Gait2392 and Rajagopal musculoskeletal models implemented in OpenSim.
Methods Data from six participants (five males and one female; age: 68 ± 5 years; body mass: 88 ± 12 kg; height: 173 ± 4 cm) were analyzed. Biomechanical data collected during walking and squatting tasks were used in this study. After scaling both musculoskeletal models, joint reaction force analyses were performed in OpenSim. Relative errors between predicted knee contact forces and in vivo implant-measured forces were calculated. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) paired t-tests were used to compare modeling errors between the two models at a significance level of 0.05.
Results SPM analysis revealed significantly greater estimation errors in the Rajagopal model during the stance phase of walking and across a substantial portion of the squat cycle, particularly in the vertical force component. The RMSE values for the Gait2392 model were 0.835 during walking and 1.536 during squatting, whereas the Rajagopal model demonstrated RMSE values of 1.486 and 3.371, respectively. The coefficient of determination (R²) values for the Gait2392 model were 0.665 during walking and 0.767 during squatting, while the Rajagopal model showed R² values of 0.639 and 0.750, respectively.
Conclusion The findings indicate that the Gait2392 model provides more accurate estimations of knee joint contact forces during walking and squatting tasks compared with the Rajagopal model. Therefore, the Gait2392 model may be more suitable for estimating knee joint contact forces in similar low-velocity functional activities.
Methods Data from six participants (five males and one female; age: 68 ± 5 years; body mass: 88 ± 12 kg; height: 173 ± 4 cm) were analyzed. Biomechanical data collected during walking and squatting tasks were used in this study. After scaling both musculoskeletal models, joint reaction force analyses were performed in OpenSim. Relative errors between predicted knee contact forces and in vivo implant-measured forces were calculated. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) paired t-tests were used to compare modeling errors between the two models at a significance level of 0.05.
Results SPM analysis revealed significantly greater estimation errors in the Rajagopal model during the stance phase of walking and across a substantial portion of the squat cycle, particularly in the vertical force component. The RMSE values for the Gait2392 model were 0.835 during walking and 1.536 during squatting, whereas the Rajagopal model demonstrated RMSE values of 1.486 and 3.371, respectively. The coefficient of determination (R²) values for the Gait2392 model were 0.665 during walking and 0.767 during squatting, while the Rajagopal model showed R² values of 0.639 and 0.750, respectively.
Conclusion The findings indicate that the Gait2392 model provides more accurate estimations of knee joint contact forces during walking and squatting tasks compared with the Rajagopal model. Therefore, the Gait2392 model may be more suitable for estimating knee joint contact forces in similar low-velocity functional activities.
Type of Study: Applicable |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2026/05/12 | Accepted: 2026/07/30 | Published: 2026/08/14
Received: 2026/05/12 | Accepted: 2026/07/30 | Published: 2026/08/14
References
1. Imani Nejad Z, Khalili K, Hosseini Nasab SH, Schütz P, Damm P, Trepczynski A, et al. The capacity of generic musculoskeletal simulations to predict knee joint loading using the CAMS-Knee datasets. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2020;48(4):1430-1440. [DOI:10.1007/s10439-020-02480-6]
2. Farahmand F, Hoseini SH, Seifi MM. Determining the optimum training conditions for selective strengthening of vastus medialis oblique muscle over vastus lateralis through using musculoskeletal modeling. Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 2016;2(2):65-72.
3. Mohammad Pour Koli M, Fatahi A. Modern approaches in sport biomechanics: A review paper. Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 2024;9(4):284-300. [DOI:10.61186/JSportBiomech.9.4.284]
4. Rydell NW. Forces acting on the femoral head-prosthesis: A study on strain gauge supplied prostheses in living persons. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 1966;37(Suppl 88):1-132. [DOI:10.3109/ort.1966.37.suppl-88.01]
5. Kinney AL, Besier TF, D'Lima DD, Fregly BJ. Update on grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2013;135(2):021012. [DOI:10.1115/1.4023255]
6. Schellenberg F, Oberhofer K, Taylor WR, Lorenzetti S. Review of modelling techniques for in vivo muscle force estimation in the lower extremities during strength training. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine. 2015;2015:483921. [DOI:10.1155/2015/483921]
7. Schellenberg F, Taylor WR, Trepczynski A, List R, Kutzner I, Schütz P, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of musculoskeletal simulation during squats by means of instrumented knee prostheses. Medical Engineering & Physics. 2018;61:95-103. [DOI:10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.09.004]
8. Hernandez V, Rezzoug N, Gorce P. Toward isometric force capabilities evaluation by using a musculoskeletal model: Comparison with direct force measurement. Journal of Biomechanics. 2015;48(12):3178-3184. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.003]
9. Taylor WR, Schütz P, Bergmann G, List R, Postolka B, Hitz M, et al. A comprehensive assessment of the musculoskeletal system: The CAMS-Knee data set. Journal of Biomechanics. 2017;65:32-39. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.09.022]
10. Delp SL, Anderson FC, Arnold AS, Loan P, Habib A, John CT, et al. OpenSim documentation: Gait 2392 and 2354 models. Stanford University; 2013.
11. Rajagopal A, Dembia CL, DeMers MS, Delp DD, Hicks JL, Delp SL. Full-body musculoskeletal model for muscle-driven simulation of human gait. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2016;63(10):2068-2079. [DOI:10.1109/TBME.2016.2586891]
12. Arnold EM, Ward SR, Lieber RL, Delp SL. A model of the lower limb for analysis of human movement. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2010;38(2):269-279. [DOI:10.1007/s10439-009-9852-5]
13. Catelli DS, Wesseling M, Jonkers I, Lamontagne M. A musculoskeletal model customized for squatting task. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2019;22(1):21-24. [DOI:10.1080/10255842.2018.1523396]
14. Xu H, Bloswick D, Merryweather A. An improved OpenSim gait model with multiple degrees of freedom knee joint and knee ligaments. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2015;18(11):1217-1224. [DOI:10.1080/10255842.2014.889689]
15. Falisse A, Van Rossom S, Gijsbers J, Steenbrink F, van Basten BJH, Jonkers I, et al. OpenSim versus human body model: A comparison study for the lower limbs during gait. Journal of Applied Biomechanics. 2018;34(6):496-502. [DOI:10.1123/jab.2017-0156]
16. McCain EM, Dalman MJ, Berno ME, Libera TL, Lewek MD, Sawicki GS, et al. The influence of induced gait asymmetry on joint reaction forces. Journal of Biomechanics. 2023;153:111581. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2023.111581]
17. Hicks JL, Uchida TK, Seth A, Rajagopal A, Delp SL. Is my model good enough? Best practices for verification and validation of musculoskeletal models and simulations of movement. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2015;137(2):020905. [DOI:10.1115/1.4029304]
18. Sun Y, Mei Q, Kou D, Liu J, Yang Y, Duan L, et al. Biomechanical analysis of stair walking patterns and their implications for knee health in young males. Frontiers in Public Health. 2026;13:1512345. [DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1725056]
19. Imani Nejad Z, Khalili K. A review of the most widely used lower limb musculoskeletal models to simulate squat motion using OpenSim (In Persian). Journal of Mechanical Engineering University of Tabriz. 2023;53(2):79-88.
20. Knarr BA, Higginson JS. Practical approach to subject-specific estimation of knee joint contact force. Journal of Biomechanics. 2015;48(11):2897-2902. [DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.04.020]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Journal of Sport Biomechanics
Department of Sport Biomechanics, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch, Prof. Mousivand Blvd, Imam Khomeini Blvd, Hamedan, Iran.
Journal Tel: +98 81 34494042
Website: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir
Email: sportbiomechanics@iauh.ac.ir
