Back

Estimating Muscle Parameters via Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

Johnson, R. T.; Yu, Y.; Darmon, Y.; Barradas, V. R.; Schweighofer, N. T.; Finley, J.

2026-07-09 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.07.08.737322 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Musculoskeletal models are widely used to relate muscle mechanics to movement patterns in biomechanics. Accurate estimation of muscle parameters is essential for building individualized models, yet most rely on generic parameters derived from cadaveric data that do not reflect subject-specific properties critical to force generation. Here, we introduce a hierarchical Bayesian framework that leverages surface electromyography (EMG) and torque data from isometric elbow tasks to estimate subject-specific muscle parameters, overcoming limitations of generic parameter sets. This approach accounts for both inter-individual variability and uncertainty in measurement and model structure. The model infers six key parameters per subject, including flexor and extensor muscle strength, tendon slack length, moment arm geometry, and nonlinear EMG-to-activation relationships. We estimated model parameters for 14 young, healthy adults performing isometric elbow flexion and extension at multiple joint angles and torque levels. The six-parameter hierarchical-Bayesian musculoskeletal model accurately reproduced measured net elbow torque (R2 = 0.96) and outperformed simpler configurations. Muscle strength parameters varied substantially across individuals, from approximately 1.0 to 3.5. On average, participants exhibited about twice those of the OpenSim 26 generic model. In contrast, tendon slack length estimates varied minimally across subjects. Bilateral testing revealed moderate correlations between left- and right-arm parameters, supporting the models ability to capture subject-specific anatomical features. Cross-validation confirmed robust predictive performance, and convergence diagnostics indicated reliable sampling. Compared to traditional EMG-driven or imaging-based personalization methods, our approach quantifies uncertainty, enables partial pooling across subjects, and avoids reliance on invasive or time-intensive measurements. The framework is extensible to dynamic tasks and adaptable to clinical populations, including individuals post-stroke. These results demonstrate that hierarchical Bayesian inference can robustly personalize musculoskeletal models and advance our understanding of biomechanics.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
15.0%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 3%
9.7%
3
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
4
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.8%
5
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
6
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.3%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.0%
9
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
10
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
11
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.6%
12
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.1%
14
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
15
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.3%
17
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
19
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
20
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
22
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
25
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%