Abstract
In sport and exercise biomechanics, forward dynamics analyses or simulations have frequently been used in attempts to establish optimal techniques for performance of a wide range of motor activities. However, the accuracy and validity of these simulations is largely dependent on the complexity of the mathematical model used to represent the neuromusculoskeletal system. It could be argued that complex mathematical models are superior to simple mathematical models as they enable basic mechanical insights to be made and individual-specific optimal movement solutions to be identified. Contrary to some claims in the literature, however, we suggest that it is currently not possible to identify the complete optimal solution for a given motor activity. For a complete optimization of human motion, dynamical systems theory implies that mathematical models must incorporate a much wider range of organismic, environmental and task constraints. These ideas encapsulate why sports medicine specialists need to adopt more individualized clinical assessment procedures in interpreting why performers’ movement patterns may differ.
Similar content being viewed by others
reference
Miller DI.Modelling in biomechanics: an overview.Med Sci Sports 1979; 11: 115–22
Hatze H. Quantitative analysis, synthesis and optimization of human motion. Hum Mov Sci 1984; 3: 5–25
Alexander RM. Simple models of walking and jumping. Hum Mov Sci 1992; 11: 3–9
Yeadon MR. Computer simulation in sports biomechanics. In: Riehle HJ, Vieten MM, editors. Proceedings of the XVIth International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports; 1998 Jul 21-25; Germany: University of Konstanz, 309–18
Pandy MG. Computer modeling and simulation of human movement. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2001; 3: 245–73
Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in children: aspects of coordination and control. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff; 1986: 341–60
Hatze H. A mathematical model for the computational determination of parameter values of anthropometric segments. J Biomech 1980; 13: 833–43
Hatze H. Computerized optimization of sports motions:an overview of possibilities, methods and developments. J Sports Sci 1983; 1: 2–12
Hatze H. Dynamics of the musculoskeletal system. In: Perren SM, Schneider E, editors. Biomechanics: current interdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Marjinus Nijhoff, 1985: 15–25
Hatze H. Biomechanics of sports: selected examples of successful applications and future perspectives. In: Riehle HJ, Vieten MM, editors. Proceedings of the XVIth International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports; 1998 Jul 21-25; Germany: University of Konstanz, 1998: 2–22
Hatze H. Myocybernetic control models of skeletal muscle: characteristics and applications. Pretoria: University of South Africa Press, 1981
Hatze H. The complete optimization of a human motion. Math Biosci 1976; 28: 99–135
Yeadon MR, Challis JH. The future of performance-related sports biomechanics research. J Sports Sci 1994; 12: 3–32
Hatze H. A comprehensive model for human motion simulation and its application to the take-off phase of the long jump. J Biomech 1981; 14: 135–42
Bartlett RM. Sports biomechanics: reducing injury and improving performance. London: E&FN Sport, 1999
Sprigings EJ. Sport biomechanics: data collection, modelling, and implementation stages of development. Can J Sport Sci 1988; 13: 3–7
Goffe WL, Ferrier GD, Rogers J. Global optimisation of statistical functions with simulated annealing. J Econometrics 1994; 60: 65–99
Alexander RM. Simple models of human movement. Appl Mech Rev 1995; 48: 461–9
Hubbard M. Computer simulation in sport and industry. J Biomech 1993; 26(1 Suppl.): 53–61
Yamaguchi GT. Performing whole-body simulations of gait with 3D dynamic musculoskeletal models. In: Winters JM, Woo SL, editors. Multiple muscle systems. New York: Springer, 1990: 663–79
Yeadon MR, King MA. Computer simulation modelling in sport. In: Payton CJ, Bartlett RM, editors. Biomechanical evaluation of movement in sport and exercise. London: Routledge, 2008: 176–205
Davids K, Button C, Bennett SJ. Dynamics of skill acquisition: a constraints-led approach. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2008
Staddon JER, Hinson JM. Optimization: a result or a mechanism? Science 1983; 221: 976–7
Edelman GW, Gally JA. Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 13763–8
Bernstein NA. The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1967
Kujala T, Palva M, Salonen O, et al. The role of blind humans’ visual cortex in auditory change detection. Neurosci Lett 2005; 379: 127–31
Kelso JAS, SchoÖner G. Self-organization of coordinative movement patterns. Hum Mov Sci 1988; 7: 27–46
Kugler PN, Turvey MT. Self-organization flow fields and information. Hum Mov Sci 1988; 7: 97–129
Kelso JAS. Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1995
Bernstein NA. Level of construction of movements. In: Latash ML, Turvey MT, editors. Dexterity and its development. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996: 115–70
Turvey MT, Carello CC. Dynamics of Bernstein’s level of synergies. In: Latash ML, Turvey MT, editors. Dexterity and its development. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996: 339–76
Gelfand IM, Gurfinkel VS, Tsetlin ML, et al. Some problems in the analysis of movements. In: Gelfand IM, Gurfinkel VS, Fomin SV, et al. editors. Models of the structural-functional organization of certain biological systems. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1971: 329–45
Greene PH. Problems of organization of motor systems. In: Rosen R, Snell F, editors. Progress in theoretical biology (vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1972: 303–38
Turvey MT. Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. In: Shaw R, Bransford J, editors. Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1977: 211–65
Tuller B, Turvey MT, Fitch H. The Bernstein perspective, II: the concept of muscle linkage or coordinative structure. In: Kelso JAS, editor. Human motor behavior: an introduction. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1982: 253–70
Turvey MT. Coordination. Am Psychol 1990; 45: 938–53
Latash ML, Scholz JP, Schöner G. Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2002; 30: 26–31
Kugler PN, Turvey MT. Information natural law, and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,1987
Kay B. The dimensionality of movement trajectories and the degrees of freedom problem: a tutorial. Hum Mov Sci 1988; 7: 343–64
Fitch H, Tuller B, Turvey MT. The Bernstein perspective, III: tuning of coordinative structures with special reference to perception. In: Kelso JAS, editor. Human motor behavior: an introduction. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1982: 271–81
Bingham GP. Task specific devices and the perceptual bottleneck. Hum Mov Sci 1988; 7: 225–64
Higgins JR. Human movement: an integrated approach. St. Louis (MO): C.V. Mosby, 1977
Kugler PN, Kelso JAS, Turvey MT. On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I. Theoretical lines of convergence. In: Stelmach GE, Requin J, editors. Tutorials in motor behavior. Amsterdam: North- Holland, 1980: 3–48
Clark JE. On becoming skillful: patterns and constraints. Res Q Exerc Sport 1995; 66: 173–83
Newell KM, van Emmerik REA, McDonald PV. Biomechanical constraints and action theory: reaction to G.J. van Ingen Schenau (1989). Hum Mov Sci 1989; 8: 403–9
Shemmell J, Tresilian JR, Riek S, et al. Musculoskeletal constraints on the acquisition of motor skills. In: Williams AM, Hodges NJ, editors. Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice. London: Routledge, 2004: 390–408
Newell KM, Jordan K. Task constraints and movement organization: a common language. In: Davis WE, Broadhead GD, editors. Ecological task analysis and movement. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2007: 5–23
Maynard Smith J. Optimization theory in evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1978; 9: 31–56
Mazur JE. Optimization: a result or a mechanism? Science 1983; 221: 977
Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, et al. Variation in coordination of a discrete multiarticular action as a function of skill level. J Mot Behav 2007; 39: 463–79
Newell KM. Coordination control and skill. In: Goodman D, Wilberg RB, Franks IM, editors. Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory and control. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985: 295–317
Gould SJ, Lewontin RC. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc London, Series B 1979; 205: 581–98
Jenson RK. Estimation of the biomechanical properties of three body types using a photogrammetric method. J Biomech 1978; 11: 349–58
Yeadon MR. The simulation of aerial movement, II: a mathematical inertia model of the human body. J Biomech 1990; 23: 67–74
King MA, Yeadon MR. Determining subject-specific torque parameters for use in a torque driven simulation model of dynamic jumping. J Appl Biomch 2002; 18: 207–17
Yeadon MR, King MA, Wilson C. Modelling the maximum voluntary joint torque/,angular velocity relationship in human movement. J Biomech 2006; 39: 476–82
Gruber K, Ruder H, Denoth J, et al. A comparative study of impact dynamics: wobbling mass model versus rigid models. J Biomech 1998; 31: 439–44
Gittoes MJR, Kerwin DG. Component inertia modeling of segmental wobbling and rigid masses. J Appl Biomech 2006; 22: 148–54
Umberger BR. Constraints necessary to produce realistic simulations of countermovement vertical jumping and the effects on achieved jump heights. In:Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium of Computer Simulation in Biomechanics; 2005 Jul 28-30; Cleveland (OH): Case Western Reserve University, 2005: 35–6
Wilson C, Yeadon MR, King MA. Considerations that affect simulation in a running jump for height. J Biomech 2007; 40: 3155–61
Hatze H. A myocybernetic control model of skeletal muscle. Biol Cybern 1977; 25: 103–19
Hatze H. A general myocybernetic control model of skeletal muscle. Biol Cybern 1978; 28: 143–57
Müller W, Platzer D, Schmolzer B. Dynamics of human flight on skis: improvements in safety and fairness in ski jumping. J Biomech 1996; 29: 1061–8
Wright IC, Neptune RR, van den Bogert AJ, et al. Passive regulation of impact forces in heel-toe running. Clin Biomech 1998; 13: 521–31
Hiley MJ, Yeadon MR. The margin for error when releasing the asymmetric bars for dismounts. J Appl Biomech 2005; 21: 223–35
Beek PJ, Dessing JC, Peper CE, et al. Modelling the control of interceptive actions. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 2003; 358: 1511–23
Beek PJ, Beek WJ. Stability and flexibility in the temporal organisation of movements: reaction to G.J. van Ingen Schenau (1989). Hum Movement Sci 1989; 8: 347–56
Engelbrecht SE.Minimum principles in motor control. J Math Psychol 2001; 45: 497–542
Prilutsky BI, Zatsiorsky VM. Optimization-based models of muscle coordination. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2002; 30: 32–8
Todorov E. Optimality principles in sensorimotor. Nat Neurosci 2004; 7: 907–15
Sparrow WA, editor. Energetics of human activity. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2000
Yeadon MR. What are the limitations of experimental and theoretical approaches in sports biomechanics? In: McNamee M, editor. Philosophy and the sciences of exercise,health and sport: critical perspectives on research methods. London: Routledge, 2005: 133–43
Thelen E. Motor development: a new synthesis. Am Psychol 1995; 50: 79–95
Newell KM. On task and theory specificity. J Mot Behav 1989; 21: 92–6
McGinnis PM, Newell KM. Topological dynamics: a framework for describing movement and its constraints. Hum Mov Sci 1982; 1: 289–305
Davids K, Handford C, Williams AM. The natural physical alternative to cognitive theories of motor behaviour: an invitation for interdisciplinary research in sports science? J Sports Sci 1994; 12: 495–528
Glazier PS, Davids K, Bartlett RM. Dynamical systems theory: a relevant framework for performance-oriented sports biomechanics research. Sportscience 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sportsci.org/jour/03/psg.htm [Accessed 2007 May 29]
Glazier PS, Wheat JS, Pease DL, et al. The interface of biomechanics and motor control: dynamic systems theory and the functional role of movement variability. In: Davids K, Bennett SJ, Newell KM, editors. Movement system variability. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2006: 49–69
Davids K, Glazier PS, Araújo D, et al. Movement systems as dynamical systems: the role of functional variability and its implications for sportsmedicine. Sports Med 2003; 33: 245–60
West BJ, editor. Where medicine went wrong: rediscovering the path to complexity: studies in nonlinear phenomena. Vol. 11. Hackensack (NJ): World Scientific Publishing Co., 2006
Davids K, Bennett SJ, Newell KM, et al. Movement system variability. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2006
Latash ML, Anson JG. What are ‘normal movements’: in atypical populations? Behav Brain Sci M, 1996; 19: 55–106
Acknowledgements
No funding was received in the preparation of this article and the authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to its contents.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glazier, P.S., Davids, K. Constraints on the Complete Optimization of Human Motion. sports med 39, 15–28 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200939010-00002
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200939010-00002