Figures & data
Table 1. Physical characteristics of the five normally-developing children recruited to this study. BMI, body mass index.
Table 2. Parameters defining the force-producing properties of each muscle-tendon unit included in the generic juvenile (GJ) model. Symbols given in the table are defined in the text.
Figure 1. Peak isometric muscle forces normalized to body weight for the generic juvenile model (GJ), the MRI-based model of subject 1 (SSJ1), the generic child model scaled to the dimensions of subject 1 using gait marker positions (SGJ1), and the generic child model scaled to the dimensions of subject 1 using measured joint center positions (SGJ2). Peak isometric muscle forces were computed for the SGJ1 and SGJ2 models using the mass-length scaling procedure described by Correa and Pandy.9.
Figure 2. Calculated moment arms of selected muscles for the MRI-based model of subject 1 (SSJ1), the generic juvenile model (GJ), the generic juvenile model scaled to the dimensions of subject 1 using gait marker positions (SGJ1), and the generic juvenile model scaled to the dimensions of subject 1 using measured joint center positions (SGJ2). Muscle moment arms were normalized by body height and then averaged over the joint range of motion measured for normal walking. For the bi-articular muscles (HAMS and GAS) it is indicated which joint the moment arm refers to.
Figure 3. Muscle force trajectories calculated for the MRI-based model of subject 1 (SSJ1), the generic juvenile model (GJ), the the generic juvenile model scaled to the dimensions of subject 1 using gait marker positions (SGJ1), and the generic juvenile model scaled to the dimensions of subject 1 using measured joint center positions (SGJ2). Results are presented for the stance phase of gait. The filled horizontal bars below each graph represent muscle EMG activity measured for subject 1 while the empty horizontal bars are experimental EMG data reported by (CitationLieber 1986).
