Back

OpenGRF: Predicting Ground Reaction Forces and Moments During Daily Living Activities in OpenSim

Di Pietro, A.; Di Puccio, F.; Modenese, L.

2025-09-29 bioengineering
10.1101/2025.09.27.678739 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background and ObjectivesGround reaction forces and moments (GRF&Ms), typically measured using force plates, are key inputs for musculoskeletal simulations. OpenSim currently lacks a tool to predict GRF&Ms directly from kinematics. This study presents OpenGRF, an OpenSim-based tool designed to estimate GRF&Ms and the centre of pressure (CoP) from joint kinematic data and validates its performance against force plate recordings. MethodsThe proposed methodology integrates calibrated foot-ground contact probes with an optimization framework based on computed muscle control, while CoP is computed accounting for both kinematic and dynamic contributions. For validation, a scaled FullBodyModel (37-DoF without muscles) was created for seven healthy adults performing six trials each of level walking, stair ascent, and stair descent, for a total of 126 marker-based trials. GRF&Ms predictions were compared to reference force plate data using normalized RMSE (nRMSE), Pearson correlation coefficients ({rho}), CoP error, and Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) ResultsResults showed high accuracy for vertical GRF (nRMSE [≤]1.5%, {rho} [≥]0.94), particularly during level walking, and good accuracy for anterior-posterior GRF (nRMSE 4.4-6.1%, {rho} = 0.81-0.91). Medio-lateral GRF was less reliable, especially in stair tasks (nRMSE up to 11.2%, {rho} down to 0.48). Free moments were the most challenging quantity to predict across all tasks (nRMSE up to 28%). In contrast, ankle moments were predicted with high fidelity (nRMSE {approx}1.7%, {rho} {approx}0.98). Median CoP errors were 21-23 mm, with largest discrepancies during double support. ConclusionsOpenGRF enables physics-consistent estimation of GRF&Ms and CoP directly from kinematics, achieving the highest accuracy for vertical GRFs and predicting ankle moments that closely match those obtained from force plate measurements.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.2%
2
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.6%
4
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.4%
7
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.5%
10
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
13
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.3%
15
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
16
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
19
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
20
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
21
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%