A fair and EMG-validated comparison of recruitment criteria, musculotendon models and muscle coordination strategies, for the inverse-dynamics based optimization of muscle forces during gait

Table 1 Mean across subjects Pearson correlation coefficient r values between EMG vs. muscle activations (r < 0.40 underlined and r > 0.60 in italics) and computational time of the different approaches

	Mean values
	Pearson correlation coefficient r between across-subjects mean EMG vs. muscle activations
	SO-I	SO-II	SO-III	SO-IV	PHY1	PHY2	PHY3	Syn03
R. Tibialis Anterior	0.61	0.65	0.52	0.23	0.62	0.65	0.67	0.37
R. Vastus Medialis	0.68	0.67	0.67	0.55	0.79	0.79	0.75	0.73
R. Vastus Lateralis	0.68	0.70	0.70	0.63	0.79	0.79	0.82	0.66
R. Gastrocnemius Medial	0.86	0.76	0.84	0.80	0.79	0.80	0.76	0.85
R. Gastrocnemius Lateral	0.75	0.67	0.73	0.65	0.69	0.70	0.67	0.74
R. Semitendinosus	0.68	0.65	0.49	0.59	0.61	0.64	0.58	0.56
R. Biceps Femoris Long Head	0.78	0.77	0.59	0.56	0.70	0.74	0.65	0.37
R. Gluteus Maximus Middle	0.89	0.82	0.87	0.81	0.89	0.88	0.86	0.66
R. Gluteus Medius Middle	0.71	0.63	0.61	0.62	0.69	0.69	0.56	0.58
Mean	0.74	0.71	0.67	0.61	0.73	0.74	0.70	0.61
Mean computational time	2.5	27.6	16.1	19.2	225.2	3.6	3.2	48.7

ISSN: 1743-0003