Back

Validation of a multiscale Hill-type actuator against comprehensive benchmarks of motor unit and muscle force measurements

Sgarzi, A.; Caillet, A. H.; Millard, M.; Weidner, S.; Haralabidis, N.; Meranger, T.; Bolsterlee, B.; Farina, D.; Lovell, N. H.; Modenese, L.

2026-06-18 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.15.732276 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Computational Hill-type muscle models are widely used to simulate muscle force production because of their efficiency and physiological interpretability. However, their formulation relies on limiting assumptions, including debated multiscale simplifications, a simplified excitation-activation dynamics and an inability to capture slow and fast fibres. Moreover, existing Hill-type models remain insufficiently validated across physiological scales, fibre types, and contraction modes. We addressed these limitations by developing a multiscale fibre-type specific Hill-type neuromuscular actuator with mechanistic excitation-activation dynamics and systematically validated it against comprehensive experimental benchmarks. The model built upon a previously proposed motoneuron-driven actuator incorporating calcium-kinetics-based activation dynamics. The excitation-activation formulation was further refined to strengthen its physiological basis, while the contraction dynamics was extended by including an activation- and length-dependent force-velocity relationship, elastic tendon, passive elastic element, and the fibre-type-specific effects of yielding and sag. Validation was performed against four benchmark datasets spanning motor-unit and whole-muscle scales, including slow and fast fibres under both isometric and dynamic conditions. Experimental force traces were obtained from six muscles of rats and cats using a broad range of stimulation frequencies, muscle lengths, and imposed length changes, combining previous literature datasets with experiments performed ad hoc for this study. Overall, the model reproduced forces across all benchmark conditions, with mean absolute errors typically below 15% of the maximum isometric force, although larger errors were observed in specific submaximal and dynamic trials. The inclusion of physiologically based excitation-activation dynamics, together with yielding and sag, improved model performance under submaximal activation conditions. This study presents the first systematic validation of a single multiscale Hill-type neuromuscular actuator against comprehensive experimental motor unit and muscle force data, providing a benchmark framework for the development and assessment of future models. Author summarySkeletal muscles generate force through a complex sequence of events that links neural signals to muscle contraction. Because direct measurements are difficult to obtain, researchers often rely on computer models to investigate neuromuscular function and estimate muscle forces. However, most modelling approaches rely on simplifying assumptions about how force is generated across different biological scales, how muscles are activated, and how slow and fast muscle fibres behave. Moreover, they have not been validated against comprehensive experimental data. As a result, it remains unclear how accurately these models can reproduce muscle force across different physiological conditions. In this study, we established the first comprehensive set of experimental benchmarks spanning both motor-unit and whole-muscle scales, including slow and fast muscles under isometric and dynamic conditions. We used these benchmarks to validate a newly developed multiscale muscle model that explicitly represents the physiological pathway from neural stimulation to force production. The model incorporates experimentally based descriptions of calcium dynamics, activation, tendon elasticity, and fibre-type-specific contractile properties. We then compared simulated and experimental force responses across a wide range of stimulation frequencies, muscle lengths, and length-change conditions.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 1%
18.8%
2
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
3
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.6%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.6%
5
The Journal of Experimental Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
The Journal of Physiology
150 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
7
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
10
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
11
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
12
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.1%
14
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
15
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
16
Journal of General Physiology
60 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
17
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
18
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
19
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
20
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
21
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
22
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
23
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.9%
24
American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
25
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
26
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
27
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.6%
28
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%