Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Visualization of the ground reaction force at corresponding phases of the stride cycle.

(A.) Temporal events: foot-ground contact of the non-instrumented leg (FC Non-Instrumented), foot-ground contact of the instrumented leg (FC Instrumented), end of weight acceptance phase (WA End), and toe-off (Toe-Off). Analysis Window (%) starts with FC Non-Instrumented and ends with Toe-Off of the instrumented leg. (B.) Instrumented leg depicted in white. Phases of the stride cycle correspond to the Analysis Window (%) in Fig 1A.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Body segment mass and inertia changes between generic and subject-specific models.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Maximum isometric muscle forces in generic and subject-specific models.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Significant joint angle and moment differences between generic and subject-specific models.

FE, flexion/extension; AA, adduction/abduction; DPF, dorsi/plantar flexion; Generic model (GM), subject-specific model (SM), and respective variation between participants as standard deviation. Foot ground contact of the stance limb depicted as the red line. End of weight acceptance phase depicted as the blue line. Areas of significant difference, as determined by statistical parametric mapping (grey).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Significant activation and muscle force differences between generic and subject-specific models.

AM, adductor magnus; VL, vastus lateralis; Generic model (GM), subject-specific model (SM), and respective variation between participants as standard deviation. Foot ground contact of the stance limb depicted as the red line. End of weight acceptance phase depicted as the blue line. Areas of significant difference, as determined by statistical parametric mapping (grey).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 3.

Matching of joint moments predicted by CEINMS to those from inverse dynamics for generic and subject-specific models.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Significant normalized fiber length and velocity differences between generic and subject-specific models.

AM, adductor brevis; AL, adductor longus; BFLH, biceps femoris long head; BFSH, biceps femoris short head; ST, semitendinosus; Generic model (GM), subject-specific model (SM), and respective variation between participants as standard deviation. Foot ground contact of the stance limb depicted as the red line. End of weight acceptance phase depicted as the blue line. Areas of significant difference, as determined by statistical parametric mapping (grey). Each muscle’s fiber length was normalized by the respective optimal fiber length and each muscle’s fiber velocity was normalized by the respective maximum shortening velocity.

More »

Fig 4 Expand