Validation of net joint loads calculated by inverse dynamics in case of complex movements: Application to balance recovery movements

Abstract

The joint forces and moments driving the motion of a human subject are classically computed by an inverse dynamic calculation. However, even if this process is theoretically simple, many sources of errors may lead to huge inaccuracies in the results. Moreover, a direct comparison with in vivo measured loads or with “gold standard” values from literature is only possible for very specific studies. Therefore, assessing the inaccuracy of inverse dynamic results is not a trivial problem and a simple method is still required. This paper presents a simple method to evaluate both: (1) the consistency of the results obtained by inverse dynamics; (2) the influence of possible modifications in the inverse dynamic hypotheses. This technique concerns recursive calculation performed on full kinematic chains, and consists in evaluating the loads obtained by two different recursive strategies. It has been applied to complex 3D whole body movements of balance recovery. A recursive Newton–Euler procedure was used to compute the net joint loads. Two models were used to represent the subject bodies, considering or not the upper body as a unique rigid segment. The inertial parameters of the body segments were estimated from two different sets of scaling equations [De Leva, P., 1996. Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Suleyanov's segment inertia parameters. Journal of Biomechanics 29, 1223–1230; Dumas, R., Chèze, L., Verriest, J.-P., 2006b. Adjustments to McConville et al. and Young et al. Body Segment Inertial Parameters. Journal of Biomechanics, in press]. Using this comparison technique, it has been shown that, for the balance recovery motions investigated: (1) the use of the scaling equations proposed by Dumas et al., instead of those proposed by De Leva, improves the consistency of the results (average relative influence up to 30% for the transversal moment); (2) the arm motions dynamically influence the recovery motion in a non negligible way (average relative influence up to 15% and 30% for the longitudinal force and the transversal moment, respectively).