Back

Co-contraction index improves estimates of knee joint contact forces: A musculoskeletal modelling study

Hoermann, S.; Tumer, N.; Zadpoor, A. A.; Seth, A.

2026-05-29 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.05.28.728089 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Healthy individuals are hypothesized to adopt muscle coordination strategies that minimize energy expenditure. However, under pathological conditions, these patterns often change, as patients adopt alternative strategies to enhance stability. In musculoskeletal modeling, such changes in muscle coordination are often not accounted for when estimating internal quantities such as knee joint contact forces. To address this, we adapted the objective function of a muscle redundancy solver to inform muscle activations from electromyography measurements, minimizing errors in both muscle activations and co-contraction levels. The resulting estimates of knee joint contact force were compared with in vivo measurements across three activities. The co-contraction index-informed approach achieved the lowest root-mean-square-error of 0.31 body weight, averaged across all subjects and activities, improving the results of the minimum activation solver by 7% body weight. Notably, root-mean-squared-error increased with the level of co-contraction with the minimum activation approach ({beta} = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [0.79, 2.30]), whereas the co-contraction index-informed approach remained less sensitive ({beta} = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [0.14, 1.43]). These findings suggest that objective functions based on minimum muscle activation may be insufficient to accurately estimate knee joint forces in individuals with altered muscle coordination. Incorporating co-contraction information is therefore essential to capture subject-specific adaptations.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.5%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.6%
3
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.2%
4
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.2%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.6%
7
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.2%
8
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
9
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.9%
10
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
11
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
12
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.3%
13
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
14
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
15
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
17
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.6%
18
The Journal of Experimental Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
19
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
20
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.0%
22
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
23
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.6%