<%BANNER%>

Patient-Specific Dynamic Modeling To Predict Functional Outcomes

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110218_AAAACG INGEST_TIME 2011-02-18T14:42:09Z PACKAGE UFE0013761_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 155 DFID F20110218_AABJTE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
671e48879fd251444dd165a15335e92b
SHA-1
1d1faff0ba64e76944c61fa443454d66325e6782
1053954 F20110218_AABJSQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78.tif
81d3f676b1b1b50e3d64555b5a2d6c4d
655f4ac0642fc1c66b132e6976921e2f9c0394b7
2728 F20110218_AABJTF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05.txt
721f4f92f40e61c92fb46a30a41a2de8
47fb1ee61105d79e509610252b35ed24e01a62cf
F20110218_AABJSR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79.tif
7aedfc630bb23349f7c89ea035553b6f
ed0585c44bc7ab2faea470641d1f0770f7a08798
2624 F20110218_AABJTG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07.txt
ba187425537147c9cb55985322165153
0b515c7d612e0841747e295b5bed8b327e5ee936
F20110218_AABJSS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80.tif
fb299c96f919e30e2f03cb0fc087b863
60b243754f69059bc48f62a037f23416eca7a29b
2682 F20110218_AABJTH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09.txt
2b840cd5cb06e68f017d04a833828e81
60299e0c2b339c6d73ee90e81e8dc7d9c595c9d9
F20110218_AABJST reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82.tif
d3eafcb9bed8ba43c5b2ec68705de44b
086206cfce4184bc4b0b567582b552d3147cc705
580 F20110218_AABJTI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10.txt
275fb8069ff0a4afa2750df0971eb802
afd08affe248e25b6fad86b344b11d6b16315f5b
F20110218_AABJSU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84.tif
467a6738cbe3014893b5a98b9340d60a
9c06062828a2e7f9fe3aa1ca343b8430db913773
1704 F20110218_AABJTJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11.txt
c9001b07651ef87420693b6d7b5ef97b
1ba2a7cf543613689a0bae4a5528c3e7e0b3c641
F20110218_AABJSV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85.tif
0490565659365fb111419b9b53433569
22cb9e6e1a01ff3689336008ff6a2af661b3aed7
549 F20110218_AABJTK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12.txt
db07f91c356bd9cbdaf97f1ce744b543
69ba3b9337f62828acaab46f1433718295435461
F20110218_AABJSW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86.tif
1d11bd8671f1c22894efdb01c29bbcae
0c8ad7b8c59344c2be6e8651f0146bdcc3a48144
1826 F20110218_AABJTL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13.txt
b186136d2aef57ab5899c41affa58996
61d4a6d5de8cc6079537f04b98f17cc531f30e68
F20110218_AABJSX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88.tif
36b6aca9b804f5843a203612149a466c
283545982561c6e727b3f1bd300a37ef7b64804a
1801 F20110218_AABJTM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15.txt
5ecdecfb453edf769ab1648b3a1ce996
6b5a7cd4ed797614147754d4479ab48b7d3632d2
1272 F20110218_AABJUA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32.txt
e57b8151b7596ce3e1d13d7881e0c9ee
3379f1918a6b1d3273c79bdad3d007bc54d743ee
1403 F20110218_AABJTN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16.txt
dd0b5932af2e791fb71a0bd4d934da7d
a15cd754b7828aacd9528010cfa95adf798d3a5f
F20110218_AABJSY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89.tif
18eab9f3ff6a32b17e5e156e6b619f88
77ea4435a23d5deb2f775ac0cd268268e0732a2a
584 F20110218_AABJUB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33.txt
fe5a79484017e22defecee21144a169c
4dc4619a4621257ddfc2e3137512f8de02d853ba
2064 F20110218_AABJTO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18.txt
deff85083b9191a957ead6a3fdc8011d
4145e4067ce89dc60b9c8a7cc52fdde4591cc6a2
F20110218_AABJSZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90.tif
00be6cee929e077640c857a9eb540198
601286c876b807ee83648cd73cbc40dc1fb350bf
910 F20110218_AABJUC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34.txt
e4ef6caee32848c8fe4c68c0df1c1c5a
0941f65e2a07f26593c29c3f91f277859c3fcc1a
1956 F20110218_AABJTP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19.txt
9e74b9038fcd329d2ad707563336146a
f6d371ce822de0f620434788b0d2b3d8cb6b89bb
863 F20110218_AABJUD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35.txt
c9b770688cd9bb21c2a46f72bed195e1
2f7b87c5c76f210609dc56d1d4dd49f79a0a4af4
1954 F20110218_AABJTQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20.txt
ac79532084702786bc135cc241a09f4b
05d2bdb67231e77d7b176c5ae8177a8c7ba0056a
4522 F20110218_AABJUE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37.txt
072f663923db850930925f9a173b09ad
3759f936b7184d67a02ac4a3d079746eea2f753b
1915 F20110218_AABJTR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21.txt
22e706a4640e447cffd8fd68a34b47f3
ef8ec2c7868c2448be8d58bc187222489e9d3667
104442 F20110218_AABKAA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19.jpg
044ece1f5519a54bcf5c751bd66251ca
bef959e97af660c76cd186c31caf754676f7dcf4
3950 F20110218_AABJUF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38.txt
95acabeb0a53a72790cc0800026a3612
fa93a3bb2ddb81990d634e2b7d993f0788ab87c3
1974 F20110218_AABJTS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22.txt
32eef394fd69b150f3899357472929a2
ae6f61e98b2a89d239b23e19cfe1efc0fdbcb0f7
33512 F20110218_AABKAB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19.QC.jpg
762373a433939f16f63412abf007b8c0
7f464dc603629e54f890ef8746cf52d2b952c95d
1738 F20110218_AABJUG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39.txt
a50f88e93aabdf28248de5a3e484d3ea
688fd6898f2f9c6e994c5b674528f1c42b5bae12
2037 F20110218_AABJTT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23.txt
e8b9004e216f306cbb9a63dd8d5b1a8a
d40fbf5fe87e3e5d588ecc791843ae4aa53ab1e5
104113 F20110218_AABKAC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20.jpg
107c4426d3b693d967ec1b3d7a3bb47e
141b95bc2c3f7922c8c47f45da33f06ff0e68ad1
6058 F20110218_AABJUH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40.txt
5578d71bbeedf87d3b9054bb0f4c9548
287c802c75195e033b8f25b233e732f44b7bd619
1657 F20110218_AABJTU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25.txt
e2705ebdd690220b09c1380a14515c20
4613e09a801e8431a4b73d44b2e6e317e2ff0ff9
102575 F20110218_AABKAD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22.jpg
38783aa7ff366fa76866f9ada1a2e40f
6138b58b158c5669a85a55b58319765327323491
1828 F20110218_AABJUI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42.txt
4ef4385f11be20cc91290189d3b1878e
f8a9d71f17893afe29e6f86f8a6049bc274b015b
753 F20110218_AABJTV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26.txt
a6b5c84be36c1442846f68e0688e1631
9ca61e79efecfad0d08497884470123a6a81db20
108119 F20110218_AABKAE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23.jpg
f33fe838b52c387b5c1e5c31f796100a
96aed155a1d99d86c1e6f8a847e9bfe81cd7cfbe
1952 F20110218_AABJUJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43.txt
dd82308350745140547e10bc1045d515
9858f0a093469f69011a0e6edd3cb6d46a7971be
2102 F20110218_AABJTW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27.txt
ad3ac8870fcaa22b219c4ee1710cebb2
2195148cada532490649d18b0e6bcebf092a5126
1880 F20110218_AABJUK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44.txt
4fe15d52484213127400862573cfd23c
25008a2efe3d1b654c2800928ae053d6e015858e
34649 F20110218_AABKAF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23.QC.jpg
9f545c645ccbb4142b0cfd0d748ea327
7a8e55553822cbe9c96b44686904f0a33e0f2a12
1904 F20110218_AABJUL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45.txt
2c78ca36b1a2ae354979738bdf7c87df
641de335ea296becc910f357d995edffdb1482fd
1310 F20110218_AABJTX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29.txt
098bc8de0ee8cc4bd8acab9fcc688fa0
9a84e461888cb4122ffd0d4d377207780fda4d03
89145 F20110218_AABKAG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25.jpg
9b29de030344904b745581953df626ec
cf4efb09bfe3064bfe7289d6f1152aae1ff8d1c7
2001 F20110218_AABJVA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64.txt
4d28d5cfcc8a64eab29e7ab53065973f
e9a8a1e21ba4a91ee142b25ac732a261db3549e4
1903 F20110218_AABJUM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46.txt
d26e6e5007b4438820053a3104b2a0e5
ea48740ea7d5fe91bf4a65243ca8f4a8bf0e219e
898 F20110218_AABJTY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30.txt
d7dd86a681c5f7509de40da76f39b827
0f9292c63cbf8505b4ee4cb842f842c25c75343f
29043 F20110218_AABKAH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25.QC.jpg
06204cca8df1de6dc550d8ed9141322f
19dbe6c536ebea95b8ccccf1b9fa1b1c8b846a15
1958 F20110218_AABJVB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65.txt
88218edea1422d1ab3922442d04bc3cf
71b16c00e965721d831f402085dc745a6003ba8e
443 F20110218_AABJUN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48.txt
1074dfa7414e3d79ab6ad50d5d3c47b5
c7d92c4e3be6aa922efe51b999febd14f6f1bbd2
55327 F20110218_AABKAI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26.jpg
5ba02014ae39d0999acf7987383f0776
bc290520a23685da7e931140b9bc24a4d56e05bc
1703 F20110218_AABJVC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66.txt
8f9909b1b30b175f66194ca2acf06b81
906a6bf69705a08da4c5ff9515682516fdd35439
865 F20110218_AABJUO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49.txt
da2ce8ee47d76028304e8c45a0af53eb
89117a863aed8e042c9b5079a3f0492175523d02
550 F20110218_AABJTZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31.txt
63e6dd6f831e7d9c51c2a827ec3ff53c
4f436f34175e6f91c98b4477cc355068944f5f94
19576 F20110218_AABKAJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26.QC.jpg
cf3755c8609aad174a8f8bf37a71e4b0
9e315fd1e12ef20f1e0d9d79d927342279ebdae8
1709 F20110218_AABJVD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67.txt
b25d224d38b7a98734b6a24f65c509e5
60b15313747ab81be15c59813962ba1c2a98e378
1892 F20110218_AABJUP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52.txt
93881e517d53d36173dd301e6d4f5a5b
f4a7fbeab8df553be01c34c5cb31e37f6d1ea181
67955 F20110218_AABKAK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27.jpg
abe3e9804b4e46e32c0cbc86262d01f9
4122f0035971ebdd02d8fb8acb70fd18a44b961f
1359 F20110218_AABJVE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69.txt
c47e423ab8e1c11ba59b508b553564d2
e80768dada5ed5a48a44927bf8000d1636090af7
1759 F20110218_AABJUQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53.txt
3a51449b7d9a30b09bb299e2effd0509
45d9ae67e8b8c778a915a4f18c6462a15d9f9db4
56816 F20110218_AABKAL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28.jpg
e5c0df1e6acc22b365163c17ec34a2fc
152d133732a78f3aa4c01d3637c57c50221c3e8c
2678 F20110218_AABJVF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71.txt
b11870c70417dd58ba8713162b27d9ff
882bc362c3e6363b8843840e91e3f31f113bb06c
1840 F20110218_AABJUR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54.txt
3b216ed3356e234aecefe1f9e872ef1f
eff7cd82477d4c1438eefd0ddcdf435139a118ee
20929 F20110218_AABKBA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37.QC.jpg
7481b0503e1ac7b2434952e5b58c2fcb
2c438bb212333ef6b87f570757a108838a3d759c
18603 F20110218_AABKAM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28.QC.jpg
d9362064e7fe6efd7162bf16a61821f3
1022f8f94d4b99443e22b79526f8028bc14a6ae6
1288 F20110218_AABJVG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72.txt
3af247e2616e8bb6d9c9960833f3dbc4
38a511f58543c704faa585264ba82fc98d48f208
984 F20110218_AABJUS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56.txt
f6942593a15d6cd1a74c6db5709f0c2c
dcda9c6c0b50dd296e00b931659fcd153c63e6c0
60027 F20110218_AABKBB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38.jpg
8f8a682fa4471a97d5517bcb003bb88e
a66e63064547a7c5422ea9c885fcd6093e2c9b89
46271 F20110218_AABKAN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29.jpg
d22c6e041c7163df7a6752eef4f6ecbd
a04eac697e6d5ee1b74386bebbd4b7a40dd39057
1203 F20110218_AABJVH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73.txt
700c43f38942599de42f0bfc92a4a5f2
e6f3a121eb675a106d4c31b5a314977cb41a2739
1791 F20110218_AABJUT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57.txt
d6ead7d4f99138671c74ebf4f44f54e1
a6b4a67eebfb3b3a0b776ed073b385e3a214523f
16182 F20110218_AABKBC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38.QC.jpg
53afc63e64532e510ff1f53b2d1a382a
1c9de168ea6fde33a4d4fcbd38e3a8bea93a3fe1
34033 F20110218_AABKAO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30.jpg
d39d086303916dddb20f0abb1a26c933
4e38d549cb4ea072cf5140877a6527fde3fffc17
843 F20110218_AABJVI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74.txt
b19042c8479b6b75e023ce511ed20eac
d77cfb9f9e2d7eb6bd72e966efb28255f6598a66
2009 F20110218_AABJUU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58.txt
4522ba726a89f8b358190992cade1771
6d53bbd4abd24ffd4aa29bf532745ba6df3b937b
12669 F20110218_AABKBD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39.QC.jpg
ae4c83c7c5f1d52954a9672d9f97a7cf
63ce08af1325908d905231c25ca747736922f99f
11337 F20110218_AABKAP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30.QC.jpg
a8cf82482f976e9fb3ffcf6df8d940db
57fb8fa2891d330139891e925d088dc54ede7d5c
989 F20110218_AABJVJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75.txt
45c9eea46615431c43e00dd423b54cab
c06607643eab1c86bd099e031f0775f67f242d71
1938 F20110218_AABJUV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59.txt
700ac79adbdb03f52425565bf5fe2a36
97a4649bdee4fd1d7ee5f103cc445cea077c9aaa
124880 F20110218_AABKBE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40.jpg
e4705751867667e35659b8307f731dc4
78e6b13765f001d4a68ffae68bbc6fa05162bbc7
57542 F20110218_AABKAQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31.jpg
184e6b0fd5da6c5b657eef7e7a3069be
a950515796e5dcf4fa99dfb7274b2d58934b11ae
856 F20110218_AABJVK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76.txt
ce00f2b8cae37772cf942273446b992f
ce82fa4a87935e0860d67c1660dbdaa0c503b391
2204 F20110218_AABJUW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60.txt
b3b693b0dd36c6aa60158319f2875db6
3317af8933255a32ea224db0920677ddf28ce643
110426 F20110218_AABKBF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41.jpg
7ea59d01b5d06451773819f69287c316
4a945b5b1c08db32fc83ebf7842fc775bbbabe07
18610 F20110218_AABKAR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31.QC.jpg
57fb0932d66b79c1ac9ba23c48a80c90
3a22d5ed69e17b37d5f1d254c557094dd29cb79e
1739 F20110218_AABJVL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77.txt
7eb2451ac0997e8dda5e8b6a6d7aa1aa
8d3ee15fec207ef7e24947cb8e24b1d28f30d745
1848 F20110218_AABJUX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61.txt
00ff0c963a79283a99371cfac22cafbb
995d7d2a852075f6236cd5654daaf95b0c47667f
46965 F20110218_AABKAS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32.jpg
00d444a01cb965fb1d2202659208b2d4
bd4663b64de587b3a4cf7ca17cb9374cd631665e
1537 F20110218_AABJVM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79.txt
b94ab98fd5dc6acf25de42b413579224
ec3ee17012026c009959ec5de58e6e62d5a31228
1999 F20110218_AABJUY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62.txt
75eac202f53b8590ccf1e4baf96834c3
a0a9f0b8060a362a152860791eba6b74f5d9c046
95345 F20110218_AABKBG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42.jpg
3a8e2d41c42ebe26b7120e93f78138e4
c500a10b1f5e5b3a8d0fe68bb15d35f073cdf547
1293 F20110218_AABJWA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02.pro
040dba16dc0aa755cbff873ea798564b
9e7308f7abd0cb49832ebc5a0c8cbd88624cc53d
74494 F20110218_AABKAT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33.jpg
1c968d6b975a0e26eaf03181d0aaef10
12b1e2d3d524c8654c6ba657829ed205f7690fdc
1758 F20110218_AABJVN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80.txt
7a20690f6898a7c2e01e08d9ad58100d
b6cbaf4f35c6dd95fbf17b726d32589d7a8d5461
1937 F20110218_AABJUZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63.txt
8c2da9a6756932c1d43cd0ef86c12b1c
1ed33c7a17e6340bd5bcc379db6908fb8a14fc82
30492 F20110218_AABKBH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42.QC.jpg
f12f7d565d365cc82a59ec751bf88238
c30687e62f714039b9b1d02390cec35986a06672
2537 F20110218_AABJWB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03.pro
488188dc05569112aec7bc6dd0067668
a6294ccf588092a5a583f924b7b23e0f1f8b0b8f
1962 F20110218_AABJVO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81.txt
e0e675e7e923e0adeeab495cc8792b61
dbe26f2914b59b74e02c4667b2d7168155e0dd88
102641 F20110218_AABKBI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43.jpg
1a601b315bfa8e0853fb1a7e1ae7f4b1
d93efcbf19e030b9f6c73d4d43d0317abb1cacd1
37647 F20110218_AABJWC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04.pro
f2943a7d68b03796f99bf49e2d54259e
47d1dbc5486bcc4466ed29a6bbfa224e3e11172d
44655 F20110218_AABKAU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34.jpg
0b3305a156fc8f9562cff3f9b715a773
c028f77fe0ee7b353f35de2a3c2cbbb8152d36e8
1907 F20110218_AABJVP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82.txt
690a770396c2d0ed26a547fe0d64a291
54c759407dd3087f0c191de94c2514449a407a20
35034 F20110218_AABKBJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43.QC.jpg
c00db9af18b69bae99f7d1305b0e42bc
54ccd220e9dc296acbe6d25005f5711453f3b3a2
67113 F20110218_AABJWD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05.pro
ac59a9a4728c7e09c5b79526ba7e8b47
a0740b11d7252fde44fca7477187ade3d1e78ac1
15024 F20110218_AABKAV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34.QC.jpg
f9d6cd2279192fe45a2434d1ec258c1b
d249f4af4e06ba365101aa8b4fee650c8bd681a1
1787 F20110218_AABJVQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83.txt
a1c774bd2650d81c6cee334098f1b5b1
c566c0adc05441673f268c448a41ee1a5a6ac6f9
105154 F20110218_AABKBK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44.jpg
3f534343bac60250f46e2116c5c6dc43
f541ee90036e75fc3e781efda4a3feee79a2dd91
47211 F20110218_AABJWE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06.pro
ce78ce0c23e7d3f1dd4d7b8f34f281fb
dcd24039e43becb6d15b0de216f8bd142fe3cb8e
40571 F20110218_AABKAW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35.jpg
ddc5cd5c816eb29cebd84b944e25e48a
57781cfe2308470fe9577e17732c63cad0bd2c01
1785 F20110218_AABJVR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84.txt
76a3afd653cbe8df7e99a9335b51d263
c5cd4dd18b188a0f8c89335900217cd62909e6d9
94562 F20110218_AABKCA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53.jpg
bf88fcc00bd832a5799c8d4765b2d489
ee170e69cd7ef1bc28b71cefe5c1e9fdd5a29d25
34040 F20110218_AABKBL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44.QC.jpg
dd247d2b9440df40e9f216c728eb9c09
22d583f13bd98c96fcbfcedad961e1c2ab88c42e
65177 F20110218_AABJWF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07.pro
19b4fb29e78259b0f8d90b0df8b7d3c9
a9a08fd6e17140c17ee21fa7cf3555e63f3584fb
56595 F20110218_AABKAX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36.jpg
4f6aa2b94dd4329989d40ba80653582e
fc9581342ef0a52782f315ff06c44c76398173e3
1045 F20110218_AABJVS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85.txt
db1761d3a4dcf413f852e1542331b7e2
7d1c12d250cd338df86fc6f671d03c4c4391fa83
30402 F20110218_AABKCB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53.QC.jpg
9a6455256dac0b4a0274fea89dbaf9c1
0762e7d3c922946011a3dbd29153044c46d63312
99946 F20110218_AABKBM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45.jpg
347ff35264ab83bab9c916758bd5630b
6d25434ee4ea4866ac08168c236dc8109d74b892
16395 F20110218_AABJWG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08.pro
79f24cd425b4312e2c362d569a0790c5
0907b496fe2489e80bd2b3a8433e0d7af29896bd
15955 F20110218_AABKAY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36.QC.jpg
176a38043638d39b3d1993acaf6bdd64
58ec7d153d403d8af74343583aad600457b83d94
2228 F20110218_AABJVT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86.txt
669d201798168d4931ac4edb52e649be
ea69a0261f696e96eba24e5ae497d9cc80c5f0f6
95546 F20110218_AABKCC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54.jpg
8f25c1c445ff5f1673a90dcd62aad3a7
ac8c3cf737d15005c19b2b0db532606b1bc4a259
33090 F20110218_AABKBN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45.QC.jpg
10ab5c2d166b323eba88c8ff9004ed2e
71837178e002b025407d17b817233ddbc27e925e
66239 F20110218_AABJWH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09.pro
a549a4b8e3d28c7cfe0e14c9317c0bc2
b09ca1098d0b72a26b487bb0077c7791df349029
76348 F20110218_AABKAZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37.jpg
19341685cf83f9947a304a1f6b33fa15
a5c7738024312fb366c02965bf2cf12965b8d0f3
2524 F20110218_AABJVU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87.txt
f2c7d2886f6c33a081a55810656650b6
7a6538a45ab18abc446ff3ab431034882a1f9c4f
83127 F20110218_AABKCD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55.jpg
ea6f9746707413e9110b2ebba65b4601
a56a288de2d42e804c7f61b6e9a6ca25adbc75f3
98835 F20110218_AABKBO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46.jpg
bb5e1d1cd7947ebafc5b2d8a129dc8b1
0c21c8e52652392dba9783433856e3b9b39bb6be
37939 F20110218_AABJWI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11.pro
9a6c8c0c98fbbb479198c4f8ac459cb9
17921cad54a5cc729ff5e1a850fa2e0c84dd6bf9
2504 F20110218_AABJVV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88.txt
3f6603f54098d5fdd539be48f47bb30a
295336ab371bbe8cdb511828ffdf546eab554a5d
27469 F20110218_AABKCE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55.QC.jpg
e0ca85525571ad1599fc816dd0aa0498
de35baa31d06ff66230ed7bc87f6813c3c1cc2fe
66961 F20110218_AABKBP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47.jpg
35574e58604e2ae3849d50284f3d6590
19d0f6902fb4696eea2416483d65f85e3559716b
13755 F20110218_AABJWJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12.pro
57ce8c751752deffee38694ead7000b5
b0b3ce8daca2838c103cb8c9a382a22d633b5526
2456 F20110218_AABJVW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90.txt
279031edd4785709e5d6d60311329104
5ee6f52756b0d548dbaa32a9a5b866404e735b2d
49817 F20110218_AABKCF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56.jpg
e43056d70a34019e54a90de29af8d520
7f641d16d5b8b75b127c38795d9c4987274223f0
21528 F20110218_AABKBQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47.QC.jpg
be36eb13fed1892a78c4c61f35291f9f
db0ee142a4fbb0e5adb64d8653196de97bfe71e2
43766 F20110218_AABJWK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13.pro
93b0847ac4992d3db77cdbbc5c217322
a97dbab8f94dac8d2d525ab5f068ee7adef7324b
1867 F20110218_AABJVX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91.txt
cb81c44881a30d1930edebd3b7f866de
31ca854ebbd53d0ed0140e9f0f5a6f749768b861
15269 F20110218_AABKCG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56.QC.jpg
c666f9c6a274ecf08f4d284a83678acf
a5907932f162d8a7f6f07526a88bccbbdbb4e2ed
21819 F20110218_AABKBR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48.jpg
7ea2c3c2a44dbcef7081f37b156cd79b
f6aafacd204d6493f383f1610daf6405fb4f5900
49441 F20110218_AABJWL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14.pro
35a8fda12af6ebf603aaacd870101008
53c781329b09a97a58d5ebee412f9c7499edec07
250 F20110218_AABJVY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92.txt
8452c86ce0cccf494537b73da62b286a
93b30c6dad832d31a07451c030755ccd9bc4c623
10634 F20110218_AABJXA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31.pro
fe02cb9c38c3e105b76cfb492f557955
d33a73c1913e6fb9d6869ee8e709f15242b118b9
7994 F20110218_AABKBS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48.QC.jpg
a7b7e6b35ac2f3f6670ebdc2562bb931
0926ae666066dd6962d537f1328604c2d6bd912d
34955 F20110218_AABJWM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16.pro
f382c2bb70c7860a62a7af463fde47c0
6c5a003c854c259e43f5f6d8db17e7d339b1db94
8036 F20110218_AABJVZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01.pro
1e11729d17998dbc06f16489daf65219
f7906717b354bf6353818f0b90002ce4ebf2b396
94363 F20110218_AABKCH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57.jpg
e3c6d7bedee5da9a39e6edf039fdef3d
373f99b71253ece9e0853c153a4bbd292f747596
24728 F20110218_AABJXB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32.pro
b69e3c5e03d63caf4d9884e32602a6e5
541b7ebe3531d465fcd2bb95feaa1fbb00bea27c
76418 F20110218_AABKBT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49.jpg
1fe7b8d2870cbd28ca8ebd4f8c639491
6684c9827b259de942ec282dc095444c1952cd4e
39649 F20110218_AABJWN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17.pro
c28f6ccf401e0e9f23d1e8efd0c90abf
b8e7d326650525f5a4a157efbc21ae8c148c2262
87409 F20110218_AABKCI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59.jpg
d41d908c1026e2302e0da96bf06126ba
b77af9db4c2945fc39f0bf4febbd682827101837
11431 F20110218_AABJXC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33.pro
1c5e5a3329037832a758f54ae2bfecff
217d40211d6be758c69481310157b30810b77901
23787 F20110218_AABKBU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49.QC.jpg
efc7830aaea43ebbdf07582f3aa1f62c
bd1746eb07b5a2f692aa1deeb1ef3dc4b08b2c0b
49695 F20110218_AABJWO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19.pro
8cb69e7c6f5a802f632166af7525d911
173e3b976e06ae956642452435d6be09f34b1e80
28770 F20110218_AABKCJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59.QC.jpg
cd28e73c69695dc71333dc90e443b2d6
f2c068ddb8dbc7d20b1b160186af001c559547d8
20508 F20110218_AABJXD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34.pro
be3238913968d3c3a99862547b6cc15b
664ea320b55fa915741894033622f1fe59ae8e98
77906 F20110218_AABKBV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50.jpg
faf80126fe5af68a13186e1dcbe1664d
440e84931f68639838e1c7a40c0010bf12237514
49665 F20110218_AABJWP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20.pro
2260d4f618539595364b5884114e2717
985609ef642f9a8fdb3256b04ec01311e75795cb
106002 F20110218_AABKCK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60.jpg
24765a52581cfe9df168c5cfd76771e6
ed80306c73fec1d411019f3ebfd129e0a56af953
83861 F20110218_AABJXE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37.pro
5757c722bf8a42d63361ac8115f5f454
adadbe68b2183d04634a66e5cd11181da9656305
24287 F20110218_AABKBW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50.QC.jpg
f75425a286be75839a55b66834cc6a9e
b00e4bd938438a4a72fd8d3642e440f9134f1923
47010 F20110218_AABJWQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21.pro
17947eadfe6bac5a8e0824a2572261e0
8d94678893af0abeddd968b1bd1bf20090ddc073
33534 F20110218_AABKCL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60.QC.jpg
11a0818e4e02ae48e3e4ab0b138467c8
c07eafcd3141edbfece7bdb39a55261a6cd4b4d1
69865 F20110218_AABJXF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38.pro
d7b540a561aeab96219945475a5fdf01
f84405211a01be836a6f11cc291209026081df93
28870 F20110218_AABKBX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51.QC.jpg
3a782cf7627df8d0abbc2e534ea57685
9b86ad9ac88d6090d6524b6e55e340654288c687
47456 F20110218_AABJWR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22.pro
563c28d9d184cb0c3d899c5a2cfe4706
58aa0900247fd2f0bafad94025b2b28ec28cbe72
61500 F20110218_AABKDA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71.jpg
c88f852e8ef337d6bad7d6e054b96d06
cb23e729869450577173ca3ec04abb321eed001c
31885 F20110218_AABKCM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61.QC.jpg
3564bc25a26a0b9312a14e9c248f53d9
1c378557782a8c26f1dd7f3bebd31cc358d47d09
30900 F20110218_AABJXG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39.pro
c101c6c1fe1acf7966caf5c510905706
494af080e50f111221bb6d7a0c0275dde802598e
98508 F20110218_AABKBY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52.jpg
d5c2c1862b333d2921240de7af416c9d
c1c9a1def706e6307201413bbfff2d1f2f390ba8
50759 F20110218_AABJWS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23.pro
fbd778d8e0f70f29b2ad39f8d3efc81e
2419044e73a681be9ee93d4aa8bd244c53ac03cc
17986 F20110218_AABKDB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71.QC.jpg
f1971b5cc24d45417f77d10ba401fadb
361eeacfe95f38ef3e8c2b89b8827bc8ba8042a7
108912 F20110218_AABKCN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62.jpg
f80f8952553d2ff818d93e8b80777a19
cc4603cb171f8fb66684b11dc4cc728837ede92a
106133 F20110218_AABJXH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40.pro
d0e33743ea284ad6647256049015a627
246464a336f5209a979a8163ce0c34eb257fb25c
32625 F20110218_AABKBZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52.QC.jpg
f82c098dee2366ca9223eb387ba32880
99dcef7c630bef59fa840570067253547791ca93
52278 F20110218_AABJWT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24.pro
be09e5bd54e776503a7f85001af202ae
085d2bb7ee32377444f41c2ba138f307c13f45e3
15750 F20110218_AABKDC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72.QC.jpg
eddadea8eb074333362ce593cf0c37a4
77e3f87204cc06da2ff456f718c7e77f13577101
35289 F20110218_AABKCO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62.QC.jpg
8878a79db17705200e64a480c559a1cb
8be04eaf8882846a81c404db183c1ae0ae7df968
94635 F20110218_AABJXI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41.pro
0a96c027b332e9f94a5f82865930486a
8b7994319e546a0c7232ad1be7771ea05dfcdd3c
41240 F20110218_AABJWU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25.pro
e382619306d23eaf23b4f5f3df043f3d
3d207197341e07d38f1be06a3ee8568bfd4b0d02
49060 F20110218_AABKDD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73.jpg
66daeb04718ec74fb55856daf8c282b9
050717b6769a6630f1824415964b8a2faae30216
106807 F20110218_AABKCP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63.jpg
fdb484d9f6ed552f0536fbdb39d3a2bc
cf956aee09ee7a774c3cd90d030d0c470ce38272
48280 F20110218_AABJXJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43.pro
a6430d23906c5e191af4a0f97056b266
a1d440083bec1f5dfdccde4c55e1570b90ae658e
12365 F20110218_AABJWV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26.pro
5f3b3737506c115112bb3598f4ee5144
3751face399111d650f27c0c1af07c3322ff3f59
15646 F20110218_AABKDE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73.QC.jpg
46d48e3f567f5afa6ccea297d2a849fd
b5ceed4940c17205b604d2b3cb17fdd6eeafe577
34887 F20110218_AABKCQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63.QC.jpg
6c38f6cabe288cc26413e07922678e58
7bc65ce7bba24bf22b23f8bebb525b2f90b05281
47607 F20110218_AABJXK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44.pro
d8c71b94cc53bc2deb7e318657e0bc1f
1ebab8b02ac0afb4f1c8b97c2eca53007414c1e7
39559 F20110218_AABJWW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27.pro
608f8de42a356a53fbb99963795f2b68
3a543dcc1c6e626e5b7ef2be80482a44ded9fd5a
49617 F20110218_AABKDF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74.jpg
bdf582fe5d2f37fd2cd2bf2567ff3eff
f6450f5b34fe5971cd8088778748e602e44e7738
103231 F20110218_AABKCR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64.jpg
64b2b31499d337732d6d229e08f0652a
ad65e65157b29ee4e861b45800ea7ca418fc0be7
46969 F20110218_AABJXL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46.pro
bf7945cc6a83b2014a678b05628a861c
9cc553d572a69c9b140d7637fc3eb83f35a688a1
24190 F20110218_AABJWX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28.pro
72c65aa63259ab80cd828a93575aa6c1
38194ed17c93baaea4122f5628745a74de69fdcc
15908 F20110218_AABKDG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74.QC.jpg
a594ae30dec0edc83450a5e491e5c253
f1c4ab1ac23a4e09c4527d845d8dcac236708c31
49835 F20110218_AABJYA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64.pro
55f1165f64c65259f54a5f166bc7c4e4
b8cb855e179814127cb3d827b012a5188da4f904
33588 F20110218_AABKCS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64.QC.jpg
10564c8a365dd1b208f2f9fa0a8c896d
e14457a28256cbaebbc8b4275ab7cb63d5477f0d
29851 F20110218_AABJXM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47.pro
989e9ec9277febc1f00d1218cb67ac16
ab407ba61c6141e98c77424e4a72dc67beed1e09
12866 F20110218_AABJWY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29.pro
67469181941eb8b2061684de94e113f6
f53c2286cfdddb2e22fa9b314f425ff0b22123b1
44002 F20110218_AABKDH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75.jpg
8a71d8fbaaeefe008a61dcfd2df655e7
14ce1a5c6657d936bbf547b1ceec88dee371cbac
49676 F20110218_AABJYB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65.pro
ede72edcb20eee25d1e7105468e09430
305697d950012ba92418f27a399024e803686f02
34304 F20110218_AABKCT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65.QC.jpg
69d5220edbb0fda187b6fb1fa241e168
2a3988c1f21a0ce336d9e830bf8ee9ff6be71f98
6962 F20110218_AABJXN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48.pro
8fe1266c75941e77bbaf431a8521673d
de6332e2ca24e3564a7cfda7f5ba5ceae9f9af55
17161 F20110218_AABJWZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30.pro
7833f3c0e99700301f3e1624c137b12c
c8fe39880bf09adf2fe468e6107f13f3eb626914
33099 F20110218_AABJYC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66.pro
4263a1e4217adba636185b2a3227815c
bf2ec13704a120680d3b5435681070ed43fe4e84
22697 F20110218_AABKCU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66.QC.jpg
004796beaa2f37114a6adb1295cff275
2f6cca59185bd59689125879d7d25db4b85a06e0
18103 F20110218_AABJXO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49.pro
da5095a6380ba61775a432f6cbf09dac
5a4bd5ece1f5fb5a3d6b0a8032e40fc00f2a90b5
16019 F20110218_AABKDI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75.QC.jpg
26664114a684c9cf49966087decedabb
25fef8be756a07dd71c5ba5b9c7826c658903e07
27223 F20110218_AABJYD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67.pro
b4d3d4beb0813c36fdbdee1f6e1c8fbe
14e7b9988bc9415d8cb2d97e73ac2750c73d62de
54316 F20110218_AABKCV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68.jpg
bea4ae054355db6bc15a15011f5994e9
9859456ca1751b3300610322ae6343a259404a70
19680 F20110218_AABJXP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50.pro
cab7a87789476e9ec26e8b924a67960d
1f8c98371f0719e2ac80540d8a551e67367ff9b4
35404 F20110218_AABKDJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76.jpg
112fcf719ef125638818a0f76a45be8f
3431f0e4c166a2d38b24b3216df218d3a2d9fce6
26059 F20110218_AABJYE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69.pro
e1b296b310d43e27e600fcfc456df97b
d2a8f79ef3bfe46237ebacdfde3833b3a00784f3
17537 F20110218_AABKCW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68.QC.jpg
0ac806b3ec30189127b3d8b41e468e65
9a3671394d6509a41deb38b81798c5845b53c19f
46921 F20110218_AABJXQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52.pro
d553d07f003607b0e25a5cebb6ec9e4e
08631d9e43c3be72edb08755433976ea050dcc9a
91973 F20110218_AABKDK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77.jpg
c0cbf6dffb02ab9fcb85606296708ca0
37185b7e1489ec0871e3c4e19726b6a96eb6b1e4
52935 F20110218_AABJYF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71.pro
07986ef03ab348538f91c7470cf1a7c8
3d7225fdf35d3846896518ee94d4e40c7e1672bd
54157 F20110218_AABKCX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69.jpg
65fabba5f06f1efe1c6b60f63eef50e0
791fee7c816f686e510568ec725c054520d2c0b7
44426 F20110218_AABJXR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53.pro
e959d725ff2d2c4a3152942c572b94c9
c70eeb1e2725e637fc33ab3df7bfe6d42899e81d
130483 F20110218_AABKEA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87.jpg
d52664223a2ff8e3da13d8a837658415
08efcf2e117f39f362fcc2c3ad504bcc160cd73d
90965 F20110218_AABKDL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78.jpg
ed8bf15067f1786a38526746942e965f
48f5454be821b2822090c95aafd25c87ddf87064
21905 F20110218_AABJYG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72.pro
14d0d0c730d73693693d38a5ba015c55
ea609adaa67ac7f4a4f2ae901a060328a4612efd
17198 F20110218_AABKCY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69.QC.jpg
795ad3e9979d2935ad57639bc1fdf2f9
6f6fbebcd0d3c773f7c136fb605e88f93cab72e1
39993 F20110218_AABJXS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55.pro
130adc3ff22476308e7055d3bfd148e2
a9ca543983deb825275da2b3ad79a759831b0d27
36363 F20110218_AABKEB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87.QC.jpg
381f449bccfc427b48582db8eeb4a382
4017ed2e00d69859a5422468112cbd80932e7d3b
29979 F20110218_AABKDM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78.QC.jpg
02752bf6f82dbebf7776689383f23c31
bcfa8b1e8a89ff200dad2935ed8ac90dc3f550a0
22897 F20110218_AABJYH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73.pro
8621fb5f6fbc3702cc3b229506e488ec
396c12d19b9ce1852c78f007474ae29120b5fd48
60909 F20110218_AABKCZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70.jpg
bed9509d03cc47dd77bbf939ce41050f
4b5b39b0eabffaa0c10d6299810fdf07e46e7a6d
42626 F20110218_AABJXT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57.pro
6cb9dab1596b0caece6be9051b54367e
92691914cddf9086a30b5aabde52765f38958487
124513 F20110218_AABKEC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88.jpg
ad38956840ce0b2ed09e21e60c88381b
cb00f0e6ad236fceab2b87b6acdd00d463054058
22586 F20110218_AABKDN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79.QC.jpg
94cb9d165fd2d9a3929c62dd244dac1d
2089aeef1f70cb764da51280bab082b8525b1508
11161 F20110218_AABJYI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75.pro
e3944584dc30fbfddac32ad1732db76a
7d37a6741a14f503f241e319a4149d33400f9f7f
50181 F20110218_AABJXU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58.pro
90438f1eb64a2b4a46c52666dcf86e33
6660822aae0e703a4059906c69cbf3fdd41b7862
34790 F20110218_AABKED reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88.QC.jpg
1740a72e98c7fd5ca5fd171e010c0f22
b3507aaa8a73b2efdd447728b6546f21d46d0c8d
84618 F20110218_AABKDO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80.jpg
4eb8f6826c47b7242a05bc76e79c6176
de86823d2d09585bea407e27e39a2c64002eac06
9805 F20110218_AABJYJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76.pro
2b1f46eb6b2b40f2d5335f0cf3d01d88
5b005f7fe14dffb73eec0435ab97ed81c0cd6fcd
41763 F20110218_AABJXV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59.pro
f4d140cdea9f4fad288ab161c064da5a
a085c26f57e8bb8b6b66f07136e6ebdeb6db9996
127284 F20110218_AABKEE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89.jpg
3ab675951a52a13e7e0e476f0311a6b3
d09f1f88a0f467aba6c550a6ea3d2f07faabbf57
24186 F20110218_AABKDP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80.QC.jpg
1c08983fa911850ad263d65b68cf88fa
8c1e5a02dd496621f6cb72fa010860d533014359
40974 F20110218_AABJYK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77.pro
cf0c2d08a6f0ae03b471d2639a26ed34
0294a39963822c399509d6b450d369e723af20f3
51457 F20110218_AABJXW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60.pro
3d6bba85fc753a69bc653ac6996b51a0
23d809923b2a2a255761d072cf428918a34626a7
35439 F20110218_AABKEF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89.QC.jpg
7d2590afcb8d355344794c1e448a70bb
4a168f74a807895f667ce62d75071164e5a98b84
91510 F20110218_AABKDQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81.jpg
65cb72733ee6056b781c75cd57aeefc8
95daf56398c3c0507f7b02bffc06f25f8f0c191f
43892 F20110218_AABJYL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78.pro
5a1e2461b703ea5a5b7982a8302ee23c
0bfc38e48303530f921b6588e0716004cdf7faf2
46464 F20110218_AABJXX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61.pro
2e6721bd05d42ba6e253b3a3ad1a3dd9
1db95befee1456702b13032858879e1f9ef22dae
121719 F20110218_AABKEG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90.jpg
cf66aa9486ae81e0171e13e4ae329780
5fe7d30e985a656f9f1678e7401d244c502a97bd
26018 F20110218_AABKDR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81.QC.jpg
97a3ad6516f8c4e93e59c6d68331c623
d568148cf3a95cedec68b9f1c839ad3c9cbf5157
44312 F20110218_AABJYM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80.pro
1fe2776e6cacfb39be38963a97df2719
38e6d250105db72d0cbe406d68e0c9b85c33e300
49940 F20110218_AABJXY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62.pro
cc519d4ca58da3e7bc033f0690c6c6fa
0b63379a9e8e175e9a251d0918be3357442a41cb
33529 F20110218_AABKEH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90.QC.jpg
bda00777982cc35873d7ae94d7ca65e3
0614df971e400849167bf9d04f08e5c80a92b981
7607 F20110218_AABJZA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01.QC.jpg
bac0026823904ef90cc4376f68e37271
6124bc390a54cd47c385d590055e0a6489c8f472
92713 F20110218_AABKDS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82.jpg
79a7a27808094e9aec481e73e14ff1c7
aaecd149a0126aac08cebd80957048299d59d1a2
48835 F20110218_AABJYN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81.pro
9feac7b6c8b9bcfc36254f896a25b491
9c9ffd73b15547151561e1f761ffbb04fc2e2109
49315 F20110218_AABJXZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63.pro
4d27532205862eef925251f84b275064
2a08c968676b299e078a8e2ff118bffc80cfe74a
96621 F20110218_AABKEI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91.jpg
7e0992a535d21765e1ae81867a1660c7
414e872bc16dce4f5b698eb038148aa6728245f6
4848 F20110218_AABJZB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02.jpg
3c2b06990d96bf32280e6f2e5081acef
eea5d0af411f0de57ff412d5a5ad47e1d58b3cc1
25825 F20110218_AABKDT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82.QC.jpg
09dfc5cfb4a0c743d07cbc9852ecbc80
139cee3e0a5527bdbdcce6616ef192baf6568b68
48127 F20110218_AABJYO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82.pro
6f13e9be43ff5ae9679c429b05974657
f397acd132ec3364f424ac2de7aef22eb3dfb332
1640 F20110218_AABJZC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02.QC.jpg
1592c03f2a7e0e230cb6cddd35dbd4ca
2f82dd71e6b3c9550524433e29e67e7e53474dc9
85163 F20110218_AABKDU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83.jpg
cf1a23ca5234d3bb6476301f064ff022
24c6c1c072998745557c842a08645e8e168c917a
44265 F20110218_AABJYP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83.pro
3723463e2bef2409ece8c2631b767c8d
796f70f40887456ce3cdc19d459051ed9520111a
4975 F20110218_AABKEJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92.QC.jpg
748ba0dd091e596cd7dd2e2c3b373d51
eb8c940b8f56f310bdb397c35e694ab4e86638ae
6435 F20110218_AABJZD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03.jpg
301d223cfb9b7d44679f15f8b1c05dc0
e51cb4fc1e35362164f89f55e1b45c167928cb60
25107 F20110218_AABKDV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84.QC.jpg
1ecedb66ac7b3f3be80aecdbb9b3fd7a
55d0de4b03c5f1ea670b847daa86679525133e82
44235 F20110218_AABJYQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84.pro
92d3c360b04ca0e1dc4d4104ad3c940b
0701ac42b93284d0bd11ab720607cc8533d20b99
23283 F20110218_AABKEK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01.jp2
40391ebd3540a99a5dc8a5451e29f60d
b614148ca831c8abb129f5b8cc613ce060c4a656
F20110218_AABJZE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03.QC.jpg
ac08ff086d50305d1842b607c8988315
c3ab2db68557dfa98b2e02b17d37e943b427b4d0
52112 F20110218_AABKDW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85.jpg
e07db5970ac55310003225ee20c0a73e
13322bd7e75480980191b5fc4fd0fbf69f64f39e
25329 F20110218_AABJYR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85.pro
bd17f178bec9f636d4d7b104fd5b7d5c
56cbd89ab40ae2ea5f7abf56b00c662f2a679105
1051985 F20110218_AABKFA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20.jp2
65ff0c334574eb556938f493f639bb79
e6477893227ffe4b9dde0b8c3e6de03b3a25fb86
5786 F20110218_AABKEL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02.jp2
44c669987eafb05810e044bec0036f26
c7cc7172fdea91ae98a1bc5a627648890818b36f
77277 F20110218_AABJZF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04.jpg
1c56aa1f45e0682a382f068fe3ae90ca
dcf55643c6e806cc93e8722994a37f762409c9a4
16187 F20110218_AABKDX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85.QC.jpg
b5ea7e8e2fcac75ded3c5c4960ea047d
c6ca098c0a005b8ed31113b932618a17c7c304a8
54735 F20110218_AABJYS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86.pro
a691894e7bb1fb5b61ab93e805d9d287
33d1c45328ee3af192c0a310e59cb5f725e22b1d
1051971 F20110218_AABKFB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21.jp2
c8646cd518f1f493d679c66d5848c3d0
a3d62d7e73f0a2c849e97784e52c5811412b8af9
82848 F20110218_AABKEM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04.jp2
c788d0175ba597aebd8ae3f963c97c6c
781cf19c4af8b244021f3899fa542dab8f6848de
25271 F20110218_AABJZG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04.QC.jpg
83366dfd3a45b877f44d3866720eb52f
a0b105d8612b9e83d4060dd2a6b4531e2a9469ef
110661 F20110218_AABKDY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86.jpg
a6ce37aa98347e892762dbcccf6f19ed
a9312bba674593e6c094050a823539bad9c30d3c
61974 F20110218_AABJYT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87.pro
1993797b6e6d204d3735e26c39d6430f
8ec262f34928b94fa2bc1e610062469fb7d748e0
F20110218_AABKFC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23.jp2
a8e892b7cc0f1747465dea5c2ca5b56a
683a65a3c7cd0f392220adc0ef6b2f544bc1fed5
1051974 F20110218_AABKEN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05.jp2
5619de52e0c0f8d5c44be548b09d8de0
c7001e12f9e05ef2c9322e31534f16228afc0495
21830 F20110218_AABJZH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05.QC.jpg
e3a1b73bd9eeb85733b8dc69781bfa83
818f9822f537f9d527d455eb30df9fad03c97681
30883 F20110218_AABKDZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86.QC.jpg
c213c2eb9fe55441881deb74f3f5da78
da067044e4d638e7b9bd338eb79f796486f9c85f
1051978 F20110218_AABKFD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24.jp2
71d89c1b5aaf3f0e5aa46eb4a9ef20c4
9a9431ac0bc464bb331976ef63036d670ebd035c
1051930 F20110218_AABKEO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07.jp2
0d84d6cfa9a9c8339ec261b109bcc4ff
9068c50e2150624e4c3b5ba2ce2fe78bbece7c22
57935 F20110218_AABJZI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06.jpg
4b3db1c84f45f18136bf8b523a3f62d6
ed27666da73eec30219e7276b53de5e5a5a57a06
61503 F20110218_AABJYU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88.pro
0938437f1044b31dad2e90fb92486a9d
da8a2b8adedfc1865866085fa9c8743e24a11f9b
620617 F20110218_AABKFE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26.jp2
d27044b3b4b3f42ae241887f94447917
56a5810d53ebc970753c15d9767762012358ba8e
641150 F20110218_AABKEP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08.jp2
6b5c273431fc347968263a866c23e4dd
66e97c21904e0527a34e16dafd44765817e0ea69
120790 F20110218_AABJZJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07.jpg
e9e30c14c830b61f3553fc2dfae75a67
9606b4467fc9fd40b91d97ffb7f23216e14fbb24
63671 F20110218_AABJYV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89.pro
4425a0c835245663c06b109ff50d8b65
4d3be79ed15ba93f5667ab1b23a626aab05dad50
69306 F20110218_AABKFF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27.jp2
2c6a7887c7fbb5633e182be51f97f47a
ab399c979203d36ad60df5649b5b850ed7b1f425
1051980 F20110218_AABKEQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09.jp2
85333a0aa69ec6f38c3cfd3e10b2107f
d7125bed99c5fe4b7579e1656763c1b6635f9cad
10184 F20110218_AABJZK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08.QC.jpg
66823f160eb84dbd282c21e5dfc6416a
a5f74bec62b2ea304183ac77c15410c1db3a388c
60058 F20110218_AABJYW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90.pro
d60e5e72d51569b1fed29b1c6ffc6888
59d5d4fce9e39402936a0982f15f64e84eee2109
654838 F20110218_AABKFG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28.jp2
3c7bdad6d57d5bf1b87af76f68332ba4
92cf53d5d794a4d777a4a575ee9470df485f502d
598847 F20110218_AABKER reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10.jp2
2ac80f610c2800e89305ba91d04e9854
7d32a0864b261ba3f3ac197806f4b49774f769b0
134981 F20110218_AABJZL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09.jpg
49f555aa77dc52dbfaabb2fcd9e66e01
45006b5ae9beb744f18286fe66f98e964de8cf90
46734 F20110218_AABJYX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91.pro
c0fe4da985c54c1e5ddd2ab8a18451e1
3143a45ff208c6047609326eba584c0f3d7f9ef9
617511 F20110218_AABKFH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29.jp2
c3b692944813a667a180b3c93036f9f9
db9e4c1b61092bad5104eeb1011acb8f6bb9652e
83591 F20110218_AABKES reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11.jp2
f0bf4a32c3ff4366a8a5243291bdc2cb
392d6563b3602d30db7bbeec8b2662834197e29d
31908 F20110218_AABJZM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10.jpg
295ba1cb923f0afd861ea3c58716d4c3
6feec8d0bbe9d5b1e7bc9be581d3b67a177e1b77
5149 F20110218_AABJYY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92.pro
9dc9177d2b4eaf07898261673fb9db7d
0746b5d30f4b03b683f84bbe233e35253e436add
33200 F20110218_AABKFI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30.jp2
95d285b53d1499dfc30bdcee87c91572
2bc45449aa55504228ed43fef4d8e9c7b785843c
33605 F20110218_AABKET reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12.jp2
00603ffd524f5c909056e824bd45281c
5cc2fa527da2da6a341f3d4e70a0fcac7576b5a0
9336 F20110218_AABJZN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10.QC.jpg
3ea47ec1202d7ac77a255a45abcae225
e6f1e1a0be91a0da38b70cf07555bb9658bbfa66
24477 F20110218_AABJYZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01.jpg
99283d03df89f0ea6c2a86f3bbb663a3
ae42d42aa603ea31d7c8e60c270b815570de58e9
773084 F20110218_AABKFJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31.jp2
a63e61a3cd43fef1d3b1cea12e88a375
b4e34be80d5e9162f56c0c27f859af1bace18e2b
1018860 F20110218_AABKEU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13.jp2
052ff3f49466268bfca2bebc35d9a1b8
456bd80bba83639ba65b3069ac73259a1d83ee43
80583 F20110218_AABJZO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11.jpg
9d6a7a81cf3a63591b8c97cf00b37308
d0625156cb824689fc036470b6e62cfdb092cbfa
1051965 F20110218_AABKEV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15.jp2
ca6dc4057a76b24928e625cd9729924f
627b853a090c1f11803efeafa1127125addb0f71
24457 F20110218_AABJZP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11.QC.jpg
45b99272b8545de2baee93cec75a0dc7
7e3f62c19a55cba0b1c32c69e51df224f89e7ad3
1051916 F20110218_AABKFK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33.jp2
fcba2583259d23f976f8a32d44590345
323e3446ae7f1d000c1e47f6abdd4237710cbfa4
78793 F20110218_AABKEW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16.jp2
05e57b6676871698eda0ffb83e73db3b
d102d176a2e9aa6bab0f1b8ea9da2d7995efcae4
31016 F20110218_AABJZQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12.jpg
d3908256edd042bbe8499d04cc3552ad
4ce0e5152853a3fd0aa37a69e7ead72eba8a6091
1051983 F20110218_AABKFL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37.jp2
f50bf418b3d6886d1c54dd456f4d429e
f6b131f6abcf329fa58eebb19272c46c851f6e6f
1002483 F20110218_AABKEX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17.jp2
a422389813512777154e793a41cc2848
e44bdbbf5ba5b88e487ea9934de112f3d2294f9b
10748 F20110218_AABJZR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12.QC.jpg
82d757583b02083c2df3aad4396f62a0
c57cac4f7fc7636bb0f5a3c4e297a931bba62b6b
1013181 F20110218_AABKGA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54.jp2
fb090a2bb4ee95e772e4bbe2d855b5aa
82983880bd0e8ce7593b670912005b87f6d62360
63013 F20110218_AABKFM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39.jp2
3f4f2037fe95ed15b6de015fec1c9a7b
b2814cb6b5b98f77781cb253e9a4fdabcd4a01c0
1051952 F20110218_AABKEY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18.jp2
1ee0af1a81c70f9363a618881249a9e9
4d3ce62bcc855a596c82f80a6f66a91c945ad68d
30096 F20110218_AABJZS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13.QC.jpg
8eb66bde13e4408a9b442046c43e48b6
cfff7559ad4a2123ab8e370485a479b8237847bd
89942 F20110218_AABKGB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55.jp2
14d848592167dc28f58a24edae556762
83646dfa648c0f1795989e136cfedadb13421d28
137159 F20110218_AABKFN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40.jp2
cf7641c15d08fc81b79414203ade4cb9
7a307bf826d09f8a9e620cacc28f7334af543de8
1051986 F20110218_AABKEZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19.jp2
88adcf9cfab906c0141b8c6bd07300b2
4030deb63bef7af5e37dd313723459a4c5a66e73
107866 F20110218_AABJZT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14.jpg
a718b5c8d2afb6548f1a34fbef3c7586
086100922703e87ce5e251546f866736e3efe965
46362 F20110218_AABKGC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56.jp2
09595bb74458f3282eb125f594f14e93
137a51b97f88601956b47529a8420bc5d6bd84d7
1051958 F20110218_AABKFO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41.jp2
1343be76d564bdd34846dd5b773a7ca2
32dfdb16fb6e50d0a0a1bc3edd55da55e4920fb3
34540 F20110218_AABJZU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14.QC.jpg
511ee28e975a6cb7a1662c6a83fae0e3
2ac6a17f5ff694572e97f71c9437fd2ff3ad5c4b
F20110218_AABKGD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58.jp2
a8ad8ac67d2593b52ab10ad662026eb3
26b9b340d7c701c4e3f81c23411f0a4aeb541b7c
1051977 F20110218_AABKFP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43.jp2
a358986d1584881848e06f11f8a0b5f9
f58d47f9db89e02cc065974c7c570d5a7beb2a45
31710 F20110218_AABJZV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15.QC.jpg
15f641b23664a01fdd07af75a90a8bb5
b512e24542583ca01a1f12c7827d0c92bc683793
976051 F20110218_AABKGE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59.jp2
f51c97d1b95264d0f609675bbbea90ad
c65cc92e1c2fbe0b8c493b038af19b9831d63415
1051946 F20110218_AABKFQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44.jp2
ff14a5239fa8ed2797ad24aebeafc482
aec50acbeaebd1d1327997f236f21f9a05cd781b
73037 F20110218_AABJZW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16.jpg
fada49231bcd94ba98575813d12c644c
aa50f8473d61a8c4c321bc45f4c000ff230b8022
F20110218_AABKGF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60.jp2
98bd5dd7fbff7738aad613a4662bb758
6331cf5b847dddd0f46e2eaf298d11bcfce7bc3d
87357 F20110218_AABJZX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17.jpg
691c4b6337670c09348fd22d8e37a2a2
696722d83024474c091ab421c2e62e191a623fa0
1042619 F20110218_AABKGG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61.jp2
ad11ef0db589ad4fd26b0d726eddad82
86ce06a978950dac9922589feffa207d30666b2b
F20110218_AABKFR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45.jp2
237af72f8c81cfe980b501fc468dc861
4056ede98b5d086c181d49f2e8ca78987c353f34
F20110218_AABJZY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18.jpg
412b10f94784cb5b17e0b80537bc79cb
558543bda129548799b7c4aa62bcc7ab0cda9250
F20110218_AABKGH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62.jp2
436d87f50eea9bf6e5ebcb804219d9bc
62f175bdd5e50ae29642f3199d7d7397b7ce8ddb
F20110218_AABKFS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46.jp2
3b3950dd882977261c9d09b893c40f2f
971fdc4b3c86b2141f5ab5de5eeba33f2ddf4f7a
36698 F20110218_AABJZZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18.QC.jpg
4f836bbac8e96aac061f91cee0a849c5
5a56850f6aaa0e2884cafa2de7c4e6c9c0ce9605
F20110218_AABKGI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63.jp2
923101c438a6c796fe14070d4632eca2
e3bb46889ab293c8801ad745860a58319b51f06b
781413 F20110218_AABKFT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47.jp2
2a2134953203a6ee8c362084ec359305
7034cc78b6548729cd2b9dd5ec2d427619899858
1051914 F20110218_AABKGJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64.jp2
51a3f2c1120f77eec69cfdd6cd921258
673dc9161390438123b2b0d62de13b9b309ecb38
185454 F20110218_AABKFU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48.jp2
b84ee4a8ada51fd454636994fddee6ce
88c32c5935dd5614d2a75298adda869f21ed4c91
F20110218_AABKGK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65.jp2
1936f7891afccaac0bed627859a32749
72613757bb376a6d739b5ccec8b759da19920e68
787331 F20110218_AABKFV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49.jp2
bd8aae724a30d88a0c87ec99f589d4bb
c2a28bceb4a4fec8db5a04822ca4a77928b4a326
806655 F20110218_AABKFW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50.jp2
5b3fc8ac86e37b69fc27696282bb246f
afad65aeeca27b05eeb8517d77de67b97ebbf668
55931 F20110218_AABKHA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85.jp2
e239f9d6f1cef2b69476514eb407c59c
419a509a5fb5ee4bc6cf533f259a32beedb92152
70232 F20110218_AABKGL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66.jp2
59a6c0bf0b37dd3da0f07170d0599818
af33a74c004f73c21609d3b93de5a9e9558c4b88
977101 F20110218_AABKFX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51.jp2
cb76f2bd0d466f8f14c5cc1563e4aeb1
08760b25259941678866d422c386432bd7c9e46f
1051956 F20110218_AABKHB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87.jp2
48a6eba29241ffd6aaba72954e17a430
4458e1fa7372e2f89820b5fdd76bdc888b132895
49320 F20110218_AABKGM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67.jp2
ef998cecf113961cf6d7d26199aa37eb
9ee61d6685fbf3718e35ca206d86c955ccc6ffb2
1051964 F20110218_AABKFY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52.jp2
1d2f9c0aacf6afbb400d80e8f282f053
c23596003004ab0fdf6c8b24e7d74063809b3465
128828 F20110218_AABKHC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90.jp2
6201308a16b4fc494caeecae17cb1aff
6199eafd8be313fce8cbe314657bd1e820345cf0
54899 F20110218_AABKGN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68.jp2
425f0f5ed22d66348fcdf3a182a5edde
5de7cedd5ab100c2f79d6b1d1d2e5ef788451a23
1025567 F20110218_AABKFZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53.jp2
9442b655496cb930b7a1036d926a297b
9b0968ab9791d57626e97ad1aee1963516ec8e7e
101607 F20110218_AABKHD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91.jp2
25e18b8bfdc5e3b84727846ca0f15920
bafec17da5342aaf3d126c7dc1562dd1229badb9
55190 F20110218_AABKGO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69.jp2
61cb4180642680f50736e10f63f3e66e
b2cfed68aadeb7c0b60dd225e6a8e49e73e9abe3
13851 F20110218_AABKHE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92.jp2
58f9ef65bf85ef30b3fb2081be9b3411
c884f43395bd9912337d6f5b35da35c32e45de95
93170 F20110218_AABKGP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70.jp2
3c9808f7a8cd9c4e16c31ece78a8d267
2fb8dfb326e67f727f2678efcba3793a237ab8af
2118 F20110218_AABKHF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01thm.jpg
fd02a77443b55366ab80228756bc6ce0
c5074c1babeb39d4b7768ff1e9396d72e36d41ef
93556 F20110218_AABKGQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71.jp2
7731c2115f5ba49a328a766bd0118e85
17fb476af8e27ef9bcc46fd6c5c8bdd0f3477f97
630 F20110218_AABKHG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02thm.jpg
bc314d5860d1777f1070895ba4487794
d1cdb31179d08f489df18dfc97e9e54829eae5f6
1013551 F20110218_AABKGR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73.jp2
449236a9f0207e6304f0a118bcbbb0b7
cddcb96a86c3ada37b825ef510ca46bdd80b789a
732 F20110218_AABKHH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03thm.jpg
35b1f5fd27df8acfb300084b7c73da9f
597f9ab22d739296cf3ce93c086c4b4249c1e339
968892 F20110218_AABKGS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74.jp2
38c7734bc2be567f76f27d802017784c
efcf3236f6f8313979bcf019799ff3cfdfaa433b
5672 F20110218_AABKHI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05thm.jpg
3c83e43b2aa8a2ae22554656ef0f8127
9448104ffe17c217d6a557bf7ceef4b29527c3d0
434571 F20110218_AABKGT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75.jp2
ff0ecdae7923a7ca8fff953e805cfcbe
72222ff1b540bd53c47cfc87ec8f43e02b9e5b0d
3462 F20110218_AABKHJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06thm.jpg
4446dc1daa44393a9226b06638cb2723
7075be57bb3044b5aa97c5ea2f08addf7234e89a
337403 F20110218_AABKGU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76.jp2
98e92c145e0044001a4131ef939ad35f
89c876ed61bb1388ec2323fa2a1b801ee3357ca2
7750 F20110218_AABKHK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07thm.jpg
d5f745ac00d2c94ec9c609a660f8eb5d
006521d7b57f9ee7980eed8509858d6101c7bebe
1051982 F20110218_AABKGV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77.jp2
f1ce20a2766a78517059d41751e76e98
9be293aef3d6924dac682eefa3afe4e9eabb43ac
2852 F20110218_AABKHL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08thm.jpg
cf88230dbd03c1ddb7e8f8a0aee69c26
a1d4ff3ecb9fa8f12ce4edff546ba331373d9e68
81266 F20110218_AABKGW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79.jp2
7a57693184b7f88126b8460d58dcd552
b5c1c14d57f13cb399b65ce23118d8b7779275aa
91940 F20110218_AABKGX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80.jp2
e00249a82249fef98e1e957b6c8ecba4
f21fa5b04713b1c4293e3b4c768f7a24a507ce97
5682 F20110218_AABKIA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27thm.jpg
f00004186a668468f843f1fc97ae7323
8824e027f2a38733fd805e7f50afee02dcd8be5d
6050 F20110218_AABKHM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11thm.jpg
5d99498bfb055d1f1b7125c774b676e6
9341486063fdd56fa225f63665bfcf2a9590d2c3
100065 F20110218_AABKGY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82.jp2
9cdc50684de8a28a2e824e93ddd361e9
69eb71c8fcb681e19ea72063e6832bc70b3dc5d3
5702 F20110218_AABKIB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28thm.jpg
966ff6f71c83c115388f46b29f9d5f17
2888ea3aa96a74e8afb61ee2b08ad48e2ecb9bb7
2652 F20110218_AABKHN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12thm.jpg
69d5177c1a2f6d8db07006a340b8f7f6
6e5d1a16725fd0b73df104761c8183eddb29a067
92441 F20110218_AABKGZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84.jp2
5cb3e43996acc66c6c59ee7645705bac
15a34650b92bc28de2671b1fd5112283750ae894
4552 F20110218_AABKIC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29thm.jpg
1c7a30d894a9870eeb2833b4157db3a2
074049b5857519fc53a066763327a35b1b9af3a3
7672 F20110218_AABKHO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13thm.jpg
1d2f699fe9a83fec3da4c2dd255b7f96
493c4adfa9d702c13a9c191b9cf7c9e9819cf7cf
2787 F20110218_AABKID reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30thm.jpg
1bfb41eb0739f782f97258f88ac0f04e
1b5550e4ce3bdb8528b4f2eaff44ef2caedc6d59
8723 F20110218_AABKHP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14thm.jpg
f6228d5fa2c3c1f592a614d8b3c420f1
92b4532bf140fcd3574b5d4befa5842284f6d13f
3723 F20110218_AABKIE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32thm.jpg
45ea7603e14cacf255cbc6c5ea042163
4220f3ca8e6a3cbc22282b781daa6b8d9aecd2d7
8256 F20110218_AABKHQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15thm.jpg
cec01edf1bdfb3ac780f11c9cb9b2f70
52d7bfb98f28174f70bc4138de8eae2e771c7020
7303 F20110218_AABKIF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33thm.jpg
30ac5f2bf084787212c101a250abe467
8d7b96f8a041bd5e86d572961105612e6fa5cc46
6137 F20110218_AABKHR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16thm.jpg
d0a3d229e05c1d1d3e58ada20b7205b1
059ff50280ab4c9b42c92728f75eb5e6ab0298f6
4852 F20110218_AABKIG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34thm.jpg
875b1240dcf4ff25bcd149c199b0ef23
b3d74856c45201a0a7356d811b4e6d1104b6f4bd
7232 F20110218_AABKHS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17thm.jpg
f2a2e3823a7b4388fb587b35c81fb2ba
1aa33b49f538d36097d2f1d573060e15f8a19a76
4765 F20110218_AABKIH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35thm.jpg
c2ec44335e5811ee66c2bc6cbe844c7e
75ce04b5937397587d44f78103b2d0df076cb6b0
8755 F20110218_AABKHT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18thm.jpg
b1910c38fad2d39d8a80b0bc6991e1e2
1300e9720b756c0dffd2736d467a1254f19d8c19
3898 F20110218_AABKII reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36thm.jpg
14431e2da191190dce212097b0bb18b0
46d01195d8f8ed70be32dc84619423370c6f919e
8787 F20110218_AABKHU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20thm.jpg
ca23cd23ac881c17287e5b26b3ec1cb2
58a965b496dea17aef7d08cfbe483df138db61bc
5472 F20110218_AABKIJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37thm.jpg
75574c0a55351c434e47dcdb72e46a63
890224c5b896592bfa5c635a5707e1603a721d66
8199 F20110218_AABKHV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21thm.jpg
eeb2970aee18f740fb177374188f672a
8dfa70e72a26e17d6ed349924d0bcd1093b68642
4782 F20110218_AABKIK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38thm.jpg
fdbcfd4b42b6f0bf5932c8610d667feb
c731bb358e4547af37f540305854ff76b9727ad3
8617 F20110218_AABKHW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22thm.jpg
cb56327f68ec0096f1f32b73cc6178c4
4b48d826d289541fcdfadd527c3d386efb953c09
3533 F20110218_AABKIL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39thm.jpg
2bd47bf60dc4043b8d7f338a27a8a18e
b76b12497acbfeab13cf9d21717e494c3136e849
8851 F20110218_AABKHX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24thm.jpg
0773b460c2a779c4b59263ef1bcc4f96
1b0ddd3478fbb3c726bf2989e971d313a092824b
4225 F20110218_AABKJA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56thm.jpg
25c137f3320752f053bc92e3e2007c70
9a49f2a1cebfc218d90dbdcc3c0e7fb3ee39f25a
8123 F20110218_AABKIM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40thm.jpg
682fccf112143f4ff0b2b3c7511e6f2a
484782efd37d466b0dc3977bba26ce4234c55570
7195 F20110218_AABKHY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25thm.jpg
b90d0a9545da13b6645665a792851910
ab29ed86dffe8abda9687e770ec635e63a982a23
7675 F20110218_AABKJB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57thm.jpg
4209c5204eaa8d86812d4d0c1f424509
79a80230e82d1cd52e91dd22eccd321ec627ae0e
6568 F20110218_AABKHZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26thm.jpg
a79727ef8a87bd7fc3eb8422ec18ef5a
8b8704f59fd08cee7645c8e1387feae949fee82c
8869 F20110218_AABKJC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58thm.jpg
4a0b65cab504ef5e242a991ed6d39f29
41204d060d6e1e8b598d5a3faff6ed96b9f90f8b
7106 F20110218_AABKIN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41thm.jpg
5b61dd433371f5165a0e4df71fa2fe8a
88bdd9467a68e62273c89bde97637715f405a530
7549 F20110218_AABKJD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59thm.jpg
f13dad0aed73cd18d6e4db1b052b1057
3f9661adac3fde14de7cb557734656ebef1a1e42
7826 F20110218_AABKIO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42thm.jpg
470f13d2619ebfa29d9bebd3a09e1467
e387726d55c408ce5dbd9e30872c522d641567d9
8530 F20110218_AABKJE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60thm.jpg
8d8134f6919be4064d50e5164b3ebe4e
1f6f97498dae56e230989e5eb73b8b2cf053cec0
8595 F20110218_AABKIP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44thm.jpg
5b127a62ec1c6d5fee8fbdb0c61a9b02
5a33de0fae3bd883f659d256c98466b6b038ce98
8567 F20110218_AABKJF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62thm.jpg
531b1af9bd1ee6593ed854536ec7146f
abe2c3ce3243cbbc5610493cf405e3a4b07fced9
8154 F20110218_AABKIQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45thm.jpg
7b8969e0a7deec9c9875bff3086a58ae
221f3e186367c3a76e02e65b869d6a994ddb10dd
8765 F20110218_AABKJG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63thm.jpg
3547ed0661430ff1ad721e139025e875
039ab1da96016f8013a9e8acb2c452f68c738cd4
8317 F20110218_AABKIR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46thm.jpg
141cb0c9a2f9386ddc26c740b7893cd2
2894463907f23a2a0a61ac67a54a87a4c702bd6d
8328 F20110218_AABKJH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64thm.jpg
49177e5dcee1b4ba55c910a784e4e52a
ca4487cb97a18fd9e687fad743c88928c0fb3a9a
5349 F20110218_AABKIS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47thm.jpg
16035983769f1c0296680a0ea4029d3f
0b5f079cdc271a66b47530c9a34b2f0b3e52c571
8866 F20110218_AABKJI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65thm.jpg
66f79947b7198cd7c01373d2a07a50d6
bc0ebfb7e7779d75ca41d90b882bbbb1090c83c5
3005 F20110218_AABKIT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48thm.jpg
f1f3074f472bfd282d5d0f7c2f4263de
91b303f71022c29452c486ab9ddf2eb8eda3d12a
5782 F20110218_AABKJJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66thm.jpg
2b369f1ef109a25358cfe5fa7915712f
2e6b1b73257101aabe1c05d9da48aee26dc9f0a1
6299 F20110218_AABKIU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49thm.jpg
55dc99d95c09a28c566cc562372ff680
77e2a97531dbb87398c0a5e1275d8e32f8803c75
5251 F20110218_AABKJK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67thm.jpg
2dd83a9359e41c2f85bf9b67fa24ffd7
dcadd939f3117f748d01c50475c4e6889690049a
6692 F20110218_AABKIV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50thm.jpg
da54abab90130e9258750df257a9cf14
d6fdd3d5f81cee8539b325a20a406d1152d7e5af
4974 F20110218_AABKJL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68thm.jpg
5599e0022ab9b182d68ea836789fcd23
6876db30cb03ee87b63748e729add81ff23ac71c
7233 F20110218_AABKIW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51thm.jpg
3b48ea125d33342c3197e3b63bc205fa
9b4478bf025dee17b3ed4fb9e7e26a25fe07c148
8801 F20110218_AABKKA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87thm.jpg
bdef07dc08e0c96ec5d88d3b1e5cf554
cbf3e37c8eedc417e70d1f81d716dc1d1de69e22
4933 F20110218_AABKJM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69thm.jpg
35c9f0518c61a211f1fb01288ab1f62a
1243a5191281facab6bcc072bb775485a5e5ef5e
8136 F20110218_AABKIX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52thm.jpg
2d17b936c0f5986c6ded2ade2a7a4ac7
34b65deec9af0051a256ec6b46b54207cbbf95b8
8642 F20110218_AABKKB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88thm.jpg
9cdae7181e61e481d9a8b8c34fbee13e
8eafb40dd5981826315c2b1922aa018aa5cdd8f2
4750 F20110218_AABKJN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70thm.jpg
2312b7c0c76efe2ada7e37275f433799
5811c39ee0ea20e524ef39986af300f818116d15
7632 F20110218_AABKIY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54thm.jpg
83cdcf55d509704b8f72d5fba02faedb
ded6de7c5c9bfbbd814c2aca9aa74b520c9075b1
8381 F20110218_AABKKC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89thm.jpg
0aaf9b1e74b22b8b20dd2d3bf67590ea
f67332e4ffaff0793733d1f1e89d731407d2a48e
6527 F20110218_AABKIZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55thm.jpg
e5781b48ed423a416a76043902e1aa5f
0c0df3525ec31b267169512a6ebcd0cf96a2135d
8463 F20110218_AABKKD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_90thm.jpg
847bf297113f0ae6cbdab51f2e20e2e3
91705048ac28fdb3a016a979f8549de7c7fced92
4795 F20110218_AABKJO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71thm.jpg
4178cc36ab81f7dfda4d3fc99b06ddf1
7c571639bf88608accc85bb18b8c23f1aeb38cad
7717 F20110218_AABKKE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91thm.jpg
dacca4e67fdbc754bc832b8706d1a3ba
324f886840c973b1272dd4b8d33636c7ddde4b6a
4746 F20110218_AABKJP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72thm.jpg
7dfc9cb24ca336cee737ee305b00356b
316b4b2fc1f4bf65d592fb78bd3a2cd697da03ac
9633555 F20110218_AABKKF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction.pdf
29205d5258ad163c9b1594c57dd453f9
270598de7a5d97bafd9ef33166ea65853f3d70a1
4719 F20110218_AABKJQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73thm.jpg
7d0ea36dfd4491e537b6264da846cd69
23e856d71c402cd8578942a3139abe6933dd1963
115956 F20110218_AABKKG UFE0013761_00001.mets FULL
40130188bacdbc4d276802fb3a334452
52bc4b0478dafa2544e6bc6af100a15515c3a845
4923 F20110218_AABKJR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75thm.jpg
d8e81de4163692eb85db3e75cd478b51
764a656df4ae82367a9d3e0f26880bfdd0d904e9
3905 F20110218_AABKJS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76thm.jpg
eead61c7a45099b9bd44a7886c909405
312606d0d8a98a7586c35a1a3d898298041b1b5e
7350 F20110218_AABKJT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78thm.jpg
d435c3868edb1b066cd42d189a1f02ec
8068f96fa86df6e948982c278ba03d5d3190ab91
6634 F20110218_AABKJU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_80thm.jpg
00ef3145ae79e6fe034b7643a8484401
d6e04cff64e0ef19a5282faedabb2748909af416
6922 F20110218_AABKJV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81thm.jpg
bcacde9eb5ae2a0e9669ec0d427e5662
3089f42d25f54cd34b7032f5db074735ce70bf99
6565 F20110218_AABKJW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_82thm.jpg
5a891deb53b6ddacb9aac8b615a4e1a0
c12b228d10eeedf4c89ad00564f8bd67a7032e58
6521 F20110218_AABKJX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83thm.jpg
9e376922ba40234c8b4ee1ca2cabd27b
40bebd19f969d6d97dcc74326c6ca14f15fd5a01
6758 F20110218_AABKJY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84thm.jpg
466d8135b7a469ed0aa89c0b9f3e27a3
6b4dee87fdd9da29c2aba978059ef326148d78bb
4635 F20110218_AABKJZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_85thm.jpg
7a0e36f79332a87464a19b578ce335e4
8cb3078af2b42069d3dd2518ce2c71d3f94abf36
29923 F20110218_AABJLI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57.QC.jpg
dc27af2c4fa6801ee36b29212b85d350
1500e8d93ba889d3797bfd4b0de384a3f2dbb35c
8679 F20110218_AABJLJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23thm.jpg
d26c049fd80b916099bae5da02593a7c
36ef6bb9c3db8595f65f7d6e9dade86f037c6431
23606 F20110218_AABJLK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33.QC.jpg
ff2538503d5d449d423fadc4d49447b3
f5d7b28a1eb7bf578924a7f8ea590721f024a5d6
34413 F20110218_AABJLL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08.jpg
0395552842b08c525a15adf2c6e89d89
ba2d1342a2dc459ad0f37015ba64457ddc9e3282
25271604 F20110218_AABJMA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18.tif
bb6452e6f677abe4b3fa1d93134c5fa1
8073733e92161af0d92337054828b03d1c6792f6
2113 F20110218_AABJLM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36.txt
f2978a7f34d813c4f47d69a479c9d559
a71efcc5fdcb17669969503888da51a34477f9ad
14392 F20110218_AABJLN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10.pro
fe52392c3b31d3045ab3e9955022c034
785f6d77adc271bc5372a12b9040cdca37620ad2
40840 F20110218_AABJMB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51.pro
63706fd0b6fd4641407f1000b8d26911
c8705cb389ae402ce82ffb4a7820170fe598cedc
28034 F20110218_AABJLO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17.QC.jpg
cfb114b73355137a94295a8b8794fbe8
944444c023963e7a56bb61fa413b506bdd56f989
5517 F20110218_AABJMC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31thm.jpg
9f8938dfd86067e4c39c4b2ecae6e1af
e6e4e9fb3d5066b465be3cd23fa3e7b24b3a5690
97414 F20110218_AABJLP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61.jpg
774287121a8ae75610e82f32a8c9bdda
ee6cb96ccd99ad2aaab47c25ee33ef20d0a5bdf2
8093 F20110218_AABJMD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09thm.jpg
baa87a1ac92fe308e4337ae8be864deb
28f77fe522d816561e36bfd26f6747a8774951de
6141 F20110218_AABJLQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41.txt
c29cb9c444f9d0d3d14570b2fd4dc26a
2fccabbd73367fd1cdc3b632c1b2c7e9f56c6d8d
F20110218_AABJME reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81.tif
0e60fbff659340eadfbe132d9bd10f28
5709ab996788cc4e736eb34ca56249269e20dd21
108118 F20110218_AABJMF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58.jpg
dd1d6a6f7bbfbce14a9326e95cd81b62
b1e79125e22a14227e402c8619d8a75cc10140e2
20759 F20110218_AABJLR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56.pro
8c6ce551045689867bad2dae3626efbe
8f0d8c9079123cfe75a4fc77bc2a37f8101d8e97
1743 F20110218_AABJMG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78.txt
ddb6f4d385d12314837008cb9880ad7b
1dfcfad5de0829f762fdaefb7bc366b37f5cdd5f
1666 F20110218_AABJLS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17.txt
3cdb1bbab7d70ae2f6117acf6210786b
64916729008fa0c6104b136c0827a9d69f216ade
7831 F20110218_AABJMH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53thm.jpg
b51a7d348f39fa4b60b37ea6b98d5682
5dbf62f678dd97180caf8987b1282561684e91f2
2664 F20110218_AABJLT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70.txt
c04458fe0edae6842195448742c6cf9a
d8a46c0f7043cb1e182cac01fb197e5e45ab788d
F20110218_AABJMI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50.tif
196f3539dc3b6a34af7fe03c221d7b11
990528696f4fa9c3bbd421312b8e0637dcf49fca
1323 F20110218_AABJLU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92thm.jpg
b2c92875c8aa96e8f8454e7e964b8944
a677266a4ebdb37194d3c5bf5c05ad8bb6241aed
89663 F20110218_AABJMJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36.jp2
10561f8cbcd9462078b53809fa987da7
0812936136e877fec108816cd08043284c65b6df
1051960 F20110218_AABJLV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14.jp2
e5e5049f28e575477ec2ee323bf10136
85cc9966a7f0d4a1b3a22ea4bb902ef3e7d089fe
43679 F20110218_AABJMK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39.jpg
315730ebf0e81b7ef5f3abfbba17d267
60681ce05d13b50cccb9c6701169dd0b651a2652
1970 F20110218_AABJLW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14.txt
cd6afed7aba4e7a240cffa65ad8997f4
795f7663aebefd26fcc7783794e9ce51ab8c1dd8
101241 F20110218_AABJML reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_81.jp2
fe6ebf3ffcadd45c4b930fb94786e433
f49b4fee9723fdaf27eb2bc25c56477c383ee4a7
F20110218_AABJLX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_48.tif
57af1eefb320a74d99708d5ac41faa7e
ac267834bd5ea20d6902fcf6ce5baae486ea9e26
49274 F20110218_AABJNA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72.jpg
b32ecc1af4200445825784f851f9067f
b5c6fc4a23cd11b8f0f52b905d090493febdc47f
12590 F20110218_AABJMM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76.QC.jpg
4a601d26f3df82eeaa3fbf81c0752c42
e7cbd5959f90e1c0141677d7ac975eddbcb57f2f
44074 F20110218_AABJLY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42.pro
282fe13d84a4b4aa8e7d27d330e6548e
8a5672f68344f7d901501a04ac9b131ea5b2a4aa
6763 F20110218_AABJNB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04thm.jpg
f19dcb6aee2d6bb6ac6838544c70fded
2546fc95b361f20a14ad1db8c2a8fb2cc7d7a92f
35145 F20110218_AABJMN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24.QC.jpg
40fa2fa75b6f9ae7bcb8264aec8609f0
35b439c13a5f13ef43e44a140d1e08bba2317b83
8297 F20110218_AABJLZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61thm.jpg
1ed03ae6d723ecf45dde0b5812e32baa
23e0246953c1eda208a7d4461abc0d260a7e345c
2582 F20110218_AABJNC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89.txt
b2713db210e836c2c3267f766bc52009
bfb66dddaaf66725130fce2ac0719d3886632331
47639 F20110218_AABJMO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32.jp2
5e14e77203aea0b34f8095bb770edd21
3526ccd00898f05aef1e598a6d1c356a2cc10c32
135581 F20110218_AABJND reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_89.jp2
79b054a683322b883a7c685dc11cdeb4
f72dc02a6f913c37d5d1e9ff4da1da61e7749d70
44241 F20110218_AABJMP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15.pro
bab5a0ebbbf2497c1772a0c07eacfbc6
be7f853197cfa3d0692c202f765743f300a0a94c
1008146 F20110218_AABJNE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06.jp2
024dffd902c5ed23af90394c12e6d5f2
eee9d4e6e0fb889bb25add3839af71f48e502dea
F20110218_AABJMQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42.jp2
fe6aef18d73ba95047869b08bc5f5a92
b093756b76e5aeb2397caf1f19b99fb3c64c8da8
35105 F20110218_AABJNF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09.QC.jpg
304da66a7810216e574426cb64845bfb
0c91237b721ff0b866d691d4a9552ebb34c2a70e
132678 F20110218_AABJMR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_88.jp2
22fbf94a2d8d710886de42a47e6e59e7
ddb8ef5d68596039a04ae87ab6cf533a9e5b4ec3
106089 F20110218_AABJNG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65.jpg
e138e3c3b980428a171e246e36f51e88
5faafd7fd011a8f92a8792b978389f82d1d64936
18967 F20110218_AABJNH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35.pro
1c8e43c98d1690bf71d7ea6739758e0d
9ad8055750e5ab76d6ff11a6d98d6d9a23b9e70f
92118 F20110218_AABJMS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83.jp2
a975e2daf63ae4261047b8fbc0a2cfd5
6cd050d49a70f88010a2e62073ffd2c7ba31c49e
945 F20110218_AABJNI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_50.txt
f5ae13e710d6c5bab71fd6e31e16be42
7c462aa6608fa0ed92f58e47b635125cbbf5b982
F20110218_AABJMT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05.tif
d2e9c8d7d1f335010385f24d0c40e830
32f719b33289e2063242071f15a53acbbd79e700
96633 F20110218_AABJNJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15.jpg
fe09515c09a06c23462aa599e37a3866
dcff323052974d33a5f051e7c7d1162f722c7867
51691 F20110218_AABJMU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_18.pro
9a564a80f3e6ded6212a42c251350457
78681d44b4db0c0afa333f77f212df6bb6137f74
2497 F20110218_AABJNK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10thm.jpg
81abbddbdba90378a52cb3cdaa02d2db
3aba6df9c5e93c796195c8a31b5b2774b0f5f103
14891 F20110218_AABJMV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29.QC.jpg
96f29bd730039816b5af89669820adac
e2d65f13c43840e205295647fe108c503d3fd720
32681 F20110218_AABJNL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46.QC.jpg
0f34231f6371b5b7805fb8a3328e6b96
80bc905c7165b2ca9699b174042b0cb488a31400
13899 F20110218_AABJMW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35.QC.jpg
9db973a91b8f8cc4ba70ad33ef3b3f56
0e97a818ae7fd10cd0dd4859f8713ef9a6fae260
980891 F20110218_AABJOA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25.jp2
e0ac25c94361b36570d7b7b40d62d943
5adfb1d067a37d87748670b5a98519a447a809be
30272 F20110218_AABJNM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41.QC.jpg
fd376b6d9a0ff19c8a79b2f18a9364d8
ca0267cd1743560cc419848dc6941d46462aa8e0
31202 F20110218_AABJMX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91.QC.jpg
9841a4ae894b94d5779683a0bae40c92
b9ac980427021ecdf2710cf5d07f4915930d8b6a
F20110218_AABJOB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32.tif
6de1af41369d4478f6084b793c5f2f9d
78dd6726f489ceea456d145aaf5cfb3a2e1340ad
1013124 F20110218_AABJNN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72.jp2
216bf8904df3330ac690e59575513ae1
04edf6195fe4d2b0f7f2c92d90edae1cee5e2f55
15522 F20110218_AABJMY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74.pro
59ebe46877e956a010c36f41379d202b
dee44de03b83d7504891b5d18cf62bcce0d2dbac
F20110218_AABJOC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83.tif
d48abe3fbde1e2f2510e943ec767825f
8249c47b8b145a287d73a491536ab5f2d5bb9f1e
52586 F20110218_AABJNO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70.pro
fc8f6cb16c57b6e53cb6975f78d825e8
6321574ae0f01b9d953eed483310fe77f3a0ed2d
660 F20110218_AABJMZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08.txt
b34f95d6954d755fdec4b01964fed382
89a903735bde5c5ca2d2d44f315db76761331e85
F20110218_AABJOD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24.txt
23b501fb4db5a865aeef904c878b2296
c5316cf51c269ec80eec828688f272aca3339deb
870769 F20110218_AABJNP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34.jp2
993a5774bdfdb5b7752508a53c593448
6e02d121693afa3c2ea21156484ffc3aabf87d75
18034 F20110218_AABJOE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67.QC.jpg
cf4b429e78250e09ebeaa5ff56d3078b
7991dd31e7e56573cfa0c5c9dd0846d0ade109bf
4924 F20110218_AABJNQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74thm.jpg
a6c3a1bc7e1382b420c6d1ba50ece709
b0e9040ef77ce6ccc10f54267e4a2b0f9f714121
F20110218_AABJOF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_87.tif
a55a9eb66aba0a85bbf5665d4fd4b68b
f5991f1eaf1cea9a9f95cdb3c94607dcecab7101
96405 F20110218_AABJNR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21.jpg
4e2e1f03543bc3046a04a91dbd5d241e
10628f705ef36bdf5ea85f71b2c129187bd7300c
89394 F20110218_AABJOG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51.jpg
1a16ed6a5afd4ab92e027799ea2e312e
63ed3e31035b5c3c6ce28f0c7909ed0ed5bc71bc
F20110218_AABJNS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58.tif
b003ece57844dbad8c63933a3ddd7a44
7a13459ae30271adfaba3dd2b5707b113b39d6bc
F20110218_AABJOH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_15.tif
5e4693831b9eb925d5d52ccbbe1db82f
7691e0f4ef032c0ec91cb9c40736c87a847faf87
1882 F20110218_AABJOI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06.txt
cd5c2e9e61583cd1c28082c8772e2112
f573253bdbfaf1a38a523a46ad3493959d970db2
1284 F20110218_AABJNT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28.txt
ba668f0426cc5e0a623c973bf8267eac
c7961ab30df479724c93ac2b00d756cc8302536c
33717 F20110218_AABJOJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22.QC.jpg
9ea686816408af406606386caa789c4c
cfbdfac21649aa177d8b5c83f89ffa1fe43f88d2
1185 F20110218_AABJNU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47.txt
ae61463bf19fda712bef260f4639f755
183072fb0301a4088831e9f4d7fdc57c894106f1
28674 F20110218_AABJOK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77.QC.jpg
0411630b54a3040cab8a66341cc9cf06
38cd20ebd2d75eba03da808207fa6790e394fe1b
13110 F20110218_AABJNV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92.jpg
c45703dfbd0c969107cc7e1bfdaf7f78
d574425d15283ad71284ae5c805730d8a2e6082b
23712 F20110218_AABJOL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16.QC.jpg
cbc24fb32f6414d4a08bd1a22b4314f3
11f54301ee2576af0b269514c0dfdd7915580d4b
6218 F20110218_AABJNW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79thm.jpg
00b258b031289f276e1e461b20252c72
a66fa302c7223df1ab02fd11e59affb8cc88f52e
33862 F20110218_AABJOM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20.QC.jpg
9da104c6c70db6302fc77f6808bc7d1d
1db66f15028fa701cee3c34d7c8e94a8bd2bde01
25939 F20110218_AABJNX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68.pro
620c5c5dffa719849019873a359606cb
9bae23e90697858dd6d8bc61da7205b21569294b
8821 F20110218_AABJPA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19thm.jpg
4d0aab7e719153cfb382eb5874fc36ba
2dd652ef5b536f76bfb8f7a0527bfc1ea8a345b0
8349 F20110218_AABJON reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43thm.jpg
d89331092449de17333ab2df66de43ea
aaa69e2178f61821d7113c6bed069df06eca685f
F20110218_AABJNY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_44.tif
34e251e3eb5156cfb892318fc506e97c
e6b889b428d42b0df9b58c32d9effc99b8d9de8b
F20110218_AABJPB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57.tif
8c379e34c4e2a1a0415ba5162125dbeb
ee76969e2470c1ff63452d760e3eb0c3b92b128b
50669 F20110218_AABJOO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67.jpg
64c6aec83605a1462ea0ad6da555c75d
b8dedc7b69a65f3bfb447ed0500a15be03531eef
15275 F20110218_AABJNZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_32.QC.jpg
5b46867597305657fee2b4d58886e452
96af27e4046a122c231e522cb39500b1886d134d
8629 F20110218_AABJPC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03.jp2
8cea65520222c832abb57681c4a1e3fa
b64d4ba1ef71f2d86890fc5e85243062d26a4a5b
93754 F20110218_AABJOP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_05.jpg
3056866465b77d900dca6e92a2432c5e
744420050022b64d6ed1c3560f6d98e025cf6952
24079 F20110218_AABJPD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_83.QC.jpg
252287fb68d4f26fd06eb8a0e3b0e83c
04f40bf2c7597e65d7b03bdbe3e3b801be98fcba
1724 F20110218_AABJOQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51.txt
f2664bde249acad8824b3510f21b2fb9
c2c1d03acb49c2f89daeb8bee3812714a3b7250a
70366 F20110218_AABJPE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66.jpg
e8bbc1d49f615390c26e7bda2c52a3de
385bf8b7389204a27d45c64ae8f9122c78ba8684
754077 F20110218_AABJOR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35.jp2
9c5eb3348e0baafff932dbf0745116a1
5b8d06595d3f603a8605443de4ef90fbffd72792
1554 F20110218_AABJPF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04.txt
ea740d39608ccb794a9148f8f13c63b6
4403396a4cb9486a663c311e689fd9c8164c011f
43365 F20110218_AABJOS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36.pro
89e68beae8481ad67f453e72d8638e8c
ff954023943f36e689c98e53cb345ec2738819ff
7449 F20110218_AABJPG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86thm.jpg
fb9f80d754f9e47c98bffae379be8fa4
80248efd3b8e51e412ed1bb03c32482297010ca5
12931 F20110218_AABJOT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06.QC.jpg
93459330c12ce880bb659bdbdc5de63b
657fd2b02c147e6c6acff98397de979bb83f9a17
75161 F20110218_AABJPH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79.jpg
24dc77fce803f1528e75dd38476acedd
41862a8b781820024fe5d63cf08230788f76e55a
17721 F20110218_AABJPI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70.QC.jpg
4757be43a452ab04dc075453135931da
80bb18f612a6b1bde20f7ec5962ef60db78dbf3b
94031 F20110218_AABJOU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13.jpg
b736bcb008a66172d71a79f204be51b3
aa8004dc30e60cbd9caebfb40673a273d868284b
32773 F20110218_AABJPJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07.QC.jpg
8ef851caf3a8d4533fa946c65c8527e5
2fda8163347a101c0dec3174940045fed6b69555
96730 F20110218_AABJOV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_78.jp2
58c095cc13ca9eb7dc1737183bdcc455
60e88475b2e6e91a444a8e39d58a96520700477a
38596 F20110218_AABJPK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_79.pro
bf315dd02ce11fe08d98877f4c107805
98169ef933f6efaaf44fad5cddb5416b4d41ac53
1051968 F20110218_AABJOW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22.jp2
11c139e2ee8e6cb4de421329d120cd0d
27bdaace957f6fb58f0c32b177bebed350c34aa0
8423998 F20110218_AABJPL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_75.tif
ba3d2ca3aabd76de9a3f7c23aba3d355
64bc83b39fda3e160fa5aa9f4842eb7a420496fb
F20110218_AABJOX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_17.tif
bca72ca5f4296abcfb8bb4a4e26213da
6b0a0d70123b40b5ed37000d36f3c26ae68229ab
F20110218_AABJQA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55.txt
d40df861367bff8f5acbc4adfabae190
82729f6b6ec2fa83b9e51abd9bebab11654a32a8
32449 F20110218_AABJPM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21.QC.jpg
e96e8a46a1efad540813abe89ec1235b
3f764dc393ab7b50dda9f1610d1671425fe91c94
1051932 F20110218_AABJOY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_57.jp2
3d2887b92986cdaaa4a8ac899a3c1a35
13c2f87cc958d30d6ead7aa806f6d10caa7401e8
159150 F20110218_AABJQB UFE0013761_00001.xml
5106359fdb9db67b62f7735c8d26a2e1
4bcc7e3dd7239673bf6bb8acd62b41c02cb3314c
30414 F20110218_AABJPN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54.QC.jpg
2d805247deda9d7f0c50604d35d9610a
b9b3250d1af9ed07244aa2b478e436a905794f42
1354 F20110218_AABJPO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68.txt
d2dc6a26ae1897f8eeb90efec61df793
4ab8da054253346486e88f217d153d5117e56c25
34164 F20110218_AABJOZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40.QC.jpg
dbd90fd953364d3aa895bde4e6a4c4c7
6120feeb2b82c5780065cb5544b84e82b2d5a16f
21726 F20110218_AABJPP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27.QC.jpg
cc55f8d6f20623311a12f1e54574baf8
17ba518d4e2e61dba8e2cc6d409634a0b3ff4c8b
F20110218_AABJQE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01.tif
4ba166ef99f8cb8235dda0e0d7804328
fbf942105408f9da8e412d3b8507aa49f579a1bb
F20110218_AABJPQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_28.tif
89cc53a67a55a47101b47122e0984e71
26ef07199dc18955a61efade52214dc9346d3b77
F20110218_AABJQF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02.tif
56d1885cb1c497946b56f9525cb94331
845e25510db1584a98295706a88caaf3dab3c5d6
F20110218_AABJPR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38.jp2
9ffb8bdb45ad7b64816e98f5fb1024bb
529ed293a5c3a47c1eed2e85c3ae76da9d266369
F20110218_AABJQG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_03.tif
12f1e668dc7b963dc82bf4ec134bc73d
ed457d9773534c63bfea91470f7beaf0413a6c1d
117404 F20110218_AABJPS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_86.jp2
931a6bf3576163cc03f2b07b67aad26b
33ad36dc0460a6b3dd14f76573c02fff2cbff541
F20110218_AABJQH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_04.tif
9ac114b8138016accafa0a5d16fb506b
09129deb92b28f3358247669cfdd61c53171dac3
47053 F20110218_AABJPT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45.pro
2dc5e4fa6d23cd5203dc17db613f3ee1
32979f3102339e81ea88ee65fa48399e29c17f4f
F20110218_AABJQI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_06.tif
ef0e9517a42e248645c41db4e56fde1a
d7788d421277ca27492b1d116a8d8cbeec5d1a7e
86516 F20110218_AABJPU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_84.jpg
33e0e85e1054822a6d859635528629a5
d5b6207f4891942b7a008b09c18913f7dca2fcd7
F20110218_AABJQJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_07.tif
1fa2a4d2ef06c5aadabb9c8b8e069b96
f64a7d2671b4d76bfb9655e7bf93c66c10ff2f7b
F20110218_AABJQK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_08.tif
c1664564735023d1a898b9ed163bfa61
14605cb98ccced26d32e2f901740a15658e46bad
F20110218_AABJPV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_29.tif
418c7e00a52538c6d988aef7ff98f665
12860bf8ddeb0dbdcc7d99fc092b92d88d925698
F20110218_AABJQL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_09.tif
a44220bfa8fc1b042e5200bf6469004b
c6b258203b4a5acbf426ffbdee04c5c6dfbbb273
108477 F20110218_AABJPW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24.jpg
500ea0c5b804b7810c27c014d821e1e4
a3850dc4ca7fd9a981c1f193305e86733427e6f7
F20110218_AABJQM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_10.tif
77e90303d78a24666a752bef88d2419e
f0c07e912730d247e04e8807966b59599e6d40e9
44550 F20110218_AABJPX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54.pro
1084bf7cb979533ab3d43d5cdcee704f
263859cf173295d2919708587dde5f3bcc90ae0d
F20110218_AABJRA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_27.tif
ae629958c86e6739ec537e177f6ca044
2bd778401dd745f9cbb0c6a199656da09205af8a
F20110218_AABJQN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_11.tif
4f552582637c89ee793388d11706d603
668f73ed1bacab2820a4c379d101e63efd5ec097
35778 F20110218_AABJPY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_58.QC.jpg
03ced5fd3c4ea35beeeb36eb8f5b2508
432a529dd935b8df22a2c3bbc8e006343aea9f11
F20110218_AABJRB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_30.tif
aed27d4bc30d1aae6107b3dab8c15970
48d6f2c2cdc6a27e1bdc03316faadb47e250c261
F20110218_AABJQO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_12.tif
02e26843b4ff8f8e2f82dadc00d82dee
5a6273b0085a2486d9789ea778de319232f566e6
7479 F20110218_AABJPZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77thm.jpg
cb5680f0ffb73e1f90e8af982aae0d30
1ad3fde8860d99fbf160544a8da9aa24d4f79b91
F20110218_AABJRC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_31.tif
eb4919e4c3734a774f7e13be1c04c77c
d9e6b528178723f57dd457b7fe37a262b5f8b3a6
F20110218_AABJQP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_13.tif
fdf29146b17b9c33d77ec1c3de9dd807
a6c3cf61db8a8a94530ca2530df5dcfc465cd8ee
F20110218_AABJRD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_33.tif
3bc08402b4eedcba1ad8fd31732ceef8
8c0f4af537d94b0ca72dd88f3de9432079b7d442
F20110218_AABJQQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_14.tif
4ddbb78335f10505a21cc2738ea0f188
4627e922362d7ca438ed80e422d77dc422c16b8a
25265604 F20110218_AABJRE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_34.tif
1385b31790a617c43d7e3bbfa9d8a803
08f10f03d9f68a13e767375c923d29fc3117f3fd
F20110218_AABJQR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_16.tif
06c9ec1d960b31d018dd225a7286b71e
bc5bccc052e229d7ad638668c34929f8d5f56fab
F20110218_AABJRF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_35.tif
5d03261d0eed2f4efa95e1ba3473e9a8
ec72baad1f1ac84d3b5c5b86db145f452146a108
F20110218_AABJQS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_19.tif
e121dc2bd6585782c8798dfc38f77b4f
85ead1dd6344c79bcb070f39a1fee92a0575acbf
1054428 F20110218_AABJRG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_36.tif
2c89b4572f1221d6d7f0c238941e410c
e382006c3114ef65691e7b2576f5014489c31002
F20110218_AABJQT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_20.tif
ade0820c0e63fced5c580e52e641aaa7
d4dfc0adee07e4e7796f82e02ad8ba318b5961dc
F20110218_AABJRH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_37.tif
1cb7d73650f3a13a24d8e307e685f821
c40e786ffb8d15bc46c78cf2ff0b857b02aadd1e
F20110218_AABJQU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_21.tif
9ed2afe5075aa11b0d189ccbf2d00f14
fd8cb1576a218f5f787ad5aff1c58a3b9cf72c55
F20110218_AABJRI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_38.tif
1f4e6fff54f0d596c8a7551ea1ac18ba
ca5d0eac59dfebe7ff4867ee9fc66d59dd7724e1
F20110218_AABJQV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_22.tif
2c8e826f2e6eb2d1b0907a5d35c66528
810b1102c9c37dec8a09841d452a901f880b3231
F20110218_AABJRJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_39.tif
c4fdf9f6b2b6b8f507cff136f70a994a
790db327884e6627815193d19cc83ed498d31cf8
F20110218_AABJRK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_40.tif
96178c604afd40113365a304350e3487
f30fea0ff23132ce828cf198ab14a76e5ef33f6a
F20110218_AABJQW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_23.tif
47cbc1ed94758e5d4c8a88cf4764627f
66bf092845765d2c1b071eb771e9fd08466aac9e
F20110218_AABJRL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_41.tif
cf339c5c441bae8ae6a128fd43fb6087
19711cff939d5b89d298d1b9abe9f23894d5f0b2
F20110218_AABJQX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_24.tif
c50bef647dad4a17a1277b11c0923fea
0eb67ac9e713ef290a1c215e1ad3b9b619539980
F20110218_AABJSA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_61.tif
dbdc55bac1c92389d41ca715fc349607
86e03ae430b80c043a818c5438fb8f0705b4e166
F20110218_AABJRM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_42.tif
a4d97a112aa2bc707adb5c3635104a7b
b4991fdac2cf258f348e3dc90735e936e6705777
F20110218_AABJQY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_25.tif
57656e0f6f1fe0c0e600e316af4bc7e3
fd3916eadc3e8aa22cdb3962a0b5d5974822a421
F20110218_AABJSB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_62.tif
c8e47da8d8a4ea02ca22a9f55a103c86
21ae1a1569e8707c6ff4e3713aedad2499d5233c
F20110218_AABJRN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_43.tif
3e6d7c14679fd7a19c3fddade29954e6
0702de77cc0bdb1e53d57c374bba6d009e0fa3ec
F20110218_AABJQZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_26.tif
231e17b53a63d0aeab723cb564dc7b20
342b8b85d42590652449703f9bece75602e35f0c
F20110218_AABJSC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_63.tif
7398b121d6fdbb2898e76c9c49ec7900
b0b3122cb01400370002d678740411c206f83b85
F20110218_AABJRO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_45.tif
11ce0419f775959363426a71e6186505
c0094f09f72bd02905326c4b26118563e332aa9d
F20110218_AABJSD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_64.tif
41a495836662fe42d621eae333509d8d
b83fab27d75cadb127f93c4826c78bf26d5bd083
F20110218_AABJRP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_46.tif
1b521ac3bfd4a97955f44add1729b6ec
b990a5001110ad6052ca0c9c674551f81255c0c5
F20110218_AABJSE reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_65.tif
b2c50a595d9c58eeb7404f40fdd62ba2
87f708689d732849139a6db15f8a7324e9379f38
F20110218_AABJRQ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_47.tif
2616d6db2048bf3f15d6fedbb1ede228
261221d798032c9ff101eea24561d4c6007cb567
F20110218_AABJSF reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_66.tif
a0a9dd380ebf046d7013af68793922c0
c9b085289f0e04eddb08785b882d0a52a228cb09
F20110218_AABJRR reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_49.tif
a0807e1bbdf17d22a30b7239b6b274a9
5523b41d09eb97032822c5f46ac7c2c8a8235825
F20110218_AABJSG reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_67.tif
5c86a6f573c3d38246ec49e9dd7b8994
581a79e6cd4859bf2673dc7eb34e38ef3105e23d
F20110218_AABJRS reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_51.tif
60015f3dbb5923930240c96bff1c2f44
6b6c99b652e1b6bfcb0f6bd6d44b75cca7a6abe6
F20110218_AABJSH reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_68.tif
83be0d17c5b6b962aebfd185273e083a
bb2d7b183d123e3c36db6d5b981aab9aebe6475f
F20110218_AABJRT reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_52.tif
73a7df0881458b082cda4fd567b5dbca
c9ad6b9c3a59d343b51bd1c52f7745bdac93e3a9
F20110218_AABJSI reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_69.tif
0c1e49e12de96d11960946a493379422
c3346ea46217ef8e0fbcf230aaefeb50b77eeddf
F20110218_AABJRU reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_53.tif
cce1416139ab3b74225b85981ef998d1
37c591b404867f6bdfe586b0cbdb747009d29654
F20110218_AABJSJ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_70.tif
03960f7527f852102f81432ce0cbc8e2
b9f699df874c88c61f0f315c80e71b65adfb1330
F20110218_AABJRV reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_54.tif
4941c0621436ce250ca83629a543ccee
ac8042967f18db4327e4c92ab994078bf472ecb1
F20110218_AABJSK reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_71.tif
c9f14193e632bddcaecd941f592c4846
a2226b9ce83c530cc418754f93a1d5dd980a524a
F20110218_AABJRW reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_55.tif
589006baa5c35301bfe753b1a6870959
43c0f28a12acbecec8203cef98b6ace4f2f9d056
F20110218_AABJSL reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_72.tif
932a8c67435b6828d97c4805c28db139
a2f99539c7c34c69eacc81c6c5e104988d679c4f
F20110218_AABJTA reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_91.tif
07380986c05552001bccdce53c852d42
877f604735dec696fad3381baf6470d83eadb799
F20110218_AABJSM reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_73.tif
4bea688b7efe0def466c77105c410cdf
47675f4c23fedf8f12184d289c7f26389577b38a
F20110218_AABJRX reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_56.tif
97d8b68a0797d7661450c55f7922170e
79303d0b6ec2fa09c2bbed73083a8059ead763d7
F20110218_AABJTB reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_92.tif
979d8f17493a3b5729f6f04f74ff8089
b03e082b302b558bf98ee2ab3611252c686b2b9f
F20110218_AABJSN reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_74.tif
9c9e2674394d666fd48cc38afb384eb9
497d7f5b789b7f7f02d5b552bd96ce3abc775ae4
F20110218_AABJRY reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_59.tif
5aaa64c3a5a4fc9dcea4cd096b470611
0b65c5fd38cf48c3ccaac4dcfcab25008d3c5d1b
411 F20110218_AABJTC reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_01.txt
1d110e9b8ff3922de2bb8634b02f81ec
1e383600392a85397c91e2ca7ec985bf241f009b
F20110218_AABJSO reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_76.tif
1f5cfd5cd4dd50049271274460523f41
effa79542ac877e9393904c83705c65aa1987348
F20110218_AABJRZ reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_60.tif
fb33184fc3d4f05c5b20c080374fbad5
93882374a99688da3086627e8bdcb08fec7e724b
117 F20110218_AABJTD reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_02.txt
3270b3cebdfa03543089806d9d7a55f2
198fb59869d9df0616c31019ddf852765216ea7b
F20110218_AABJSP reinbolt_j_NoRestriction_Page_77.tif
ad1eee240304d708f6daebbf85572ed6
02a2db989348b8c89f1e694b8fd7cd70c8874b17



PAGE 1

PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELING TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES By JEFFREY A. REINBOLT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Jeffrey A. Reinbolt

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to my lovi ng wife, Karen, and our wonderful son, Jacob.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I sincerely thank Dr. B. J. Fregly for his support and leadership throughout our research endeavors; moreover, I truly rec ognize the value of his honest, straightforward, and experience-based advice. My life has been genuinely influenced by Dr. Freglys expectations, confiden ce, and trust in me. I also extend gratitude to Dr. Raphael Haftka, Dr. Carl Crane, Dr. Scott Banks, and Dr. Steven Kautz for their de dication, knowledge, and instructi on both inside and outside of the classroom. For these reasons, each was selected to serve on my supervisory committee. I express thanks to all four individuals for their time, contribution, and fulfillment of their committee responsibilities. I collectively show appreciation for my family, friends, and colleagues. Unconditionally, they have provided me with en couragement, support, and interest in my graduate studies and research activities. My wife, Karen, has done more for me than any person could desire. On several occasions, she has taken a leap of faith with me; more importantly, she has been directly beside me. Words or actions cannot adequa tely express my grat efulness and adoration toward her. I honestly hope that I can provide her as much as she has given to me. I thank God for my excellent health, inquisitive mind, strong faith, valuable experiences, encouraging teachers, loving family, supportive friends, and remarkable wife.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Arthritis: The Nations Lead ing Cause of Disability...................................................1 Need for Patient-Specific Simulations..........................................................................2 Background...................................................................................................................3 Motion Capture......................................................................................................3 Biomechanical Models..........................................................................................3 Kinematics and Dynamics.....................................................................................4 Optimization..........................................................................................................4 2 CREATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS FROM THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOVEMENT DATA USING OPTIMIZATION.............5 Background...................................................................................................................5 Methods........................................................................................................................6 Results........................................................................................................................ .10 Discussion...................................................................................................................11 3 EFFECT OF MODEL PARAMETER VARIATIONS ON INVERSE DYNAMICS RESULTS USING M ONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS......................30 Background.................................................................................................................30 Methods......................................................................................................................31 Results........................................................................................................................ .33 Discussion...................................................................................................................34 4 BENEFIT OF AUTOMATIC DIFFEREN TIATION FOR BIOMECHANICAL OPTIMIZATIONS.....................................................................................................39

PAGE 6

vi Background.................................................................................................................39 Methods......................................................................................................................40 Results........................................................................................................................ .42 Discussion...................................................................................................................43 5 APPLICATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES....................................................................................45 Background.................................................................................................................45 Methods......................................................................................................................46 Results........................................................................................................................ .50 Discussion...................................................................................................................52 6 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................65 Rationale for New Approach......................................................................................65 Synthesis of Current Work and Literature..................................................................65 GLOSSARY......................................................................................................................67 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................74 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................79

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1. Descriptions of the model degrees of freedom.........................................................15 2-2. Descriptions of the hip joint parameters..................................................................16 2-3. Descriptions of the knee joint parameters................................................................18 2-4. Descriptions of the ankle joint parameters...............................................................20 2-5. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) joint parameter and marker distance errors produced by the phase one optimi zation and anatomic landmark methods for three types of movement data.............................................................................24 2-6. Comparison of joint parameters pred icted by anatomical landmark methods, phase one optimization involving individua l joints separately, and phase one optimization involving all joints simultaneously.....................................................25 2-7. Differences between joint parameters predicted by anatomical landmark methods and phase one optimizations......................................................................26 2-8. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) inerti al parameter and pelvis residual load errors produced by the phase two optimi zation and anatomic landmark methods for three types of movement data.............................................................................27 2-9 Comparison of inertial parameters pr edicted by anatomical landmark methods and phase two optimizations....................................................................................28 2-10. Differences between inertial parame ters predicted by an atomical landmark methods and phase two optimizations......................................................................29 4-1. Performance results for system identi fication problem for a 3D kinematic ankle joint model involving 252 design va riables and 1800 objective function elements....................................................................................................................44 4-2. Performance results for movement prediction problem for a 3D full-body gait model involving 660 design variables and 4100 objective function elements.........44 5-1. Descriptions of cost function weig hts and phase 3 control parameters...................54 5-2. Summary of fixed offsets added to norm al gait for each prescribed foot path........54

PAGE 8

viii 5-3. Comparison of cost function weight s and phase 3 control parameters....................55 5-4. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) e rrors for tracked quantities for toeout gait........................................................................................................................... .56 5-5. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) e rrors for tracked quantities for wide stance gait.................................................................................................................57 5-6. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) e rrors for predicted left knee abduction torque quantities for toeout and wide stance gait.....................................................55

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1. Illustration of the 3D, 14 segment, 27 DOF full-body kinematic model linkage joined by a set of gimbal, universal, and pin joints..................................................14 2-2. Illustration of the 3 DOF right hip jo int center simultaneously defined in the pelvis and right femur segments and the 6 translational parameters optimized to determine the functional hi p joint center location....................................................16 2-3. Illustration of the 1 DO F right knee joint simultaneous ly defined in the right femur and right tibia segments and the 4 rotational and 5 translational parameters optimized to determine th e knee joint location and orientation.............17 2-4. Illustration of the 2 DOF right ankle joint complex simultaneously defined in the right tibia, talus, and foot segments and the 5 rotational and 7 translational parameters optimized to determine th e joint locations and orientations..................19 2-5. Illustration of the modified Cleveland Clinic marker set used during static and dynamic motion capture trials..................................................................................21 2-6. Phase one optimization convergence illustration series for the knee joint, where synthetic markers are blue, model marker s are red, and root-mean-square (RMS) marker distance error is green..................................................................................22 2-7. Phase two optimization convergence illust ration series for the knee joint, where synthetic masses are blue, model masses are red, and root-mean-square (RMS) residual pelvis forces and torques are orange and green, respectively.....................23 3-1. Legend of five sample statistics pres ented by the chosen boxplot convention........36 3-2. Comparison of root-mean-square (RMS) leg joint torques and marker distance error distributions.....................................................................................................37 3-3. Comparison of mean leg joint torques and marker distance error distributions......38 5-1. Comparison of left knee abduc tion torques for toeout gait......................................60 5-2. Comparison of left knee abduction torque s for wide stance gait, where original (blue) is experimental normal gait, simu lation (red) is predicted toeout gait, and final (green) is experi mental toeout gait..................................................................61

PAGE 10

x 5-3. Comparison of left knee abduction tor ques for simulated high tibial osteotomy (HTO) post-surgery gait...........................................................................................62 5-4. Comparison of mean (solid black line ) plus or minus one standard deviation (gray shaded area) for experiment al left knee abduction torques............................63 5-5. Comparison of mean (solid black line ) plus or minus one standard deviation (gray shaded area) for simulated left knee abduction torques..................................64

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELING TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES By Jeffrey A. Reinbolt May 2006 Chair: Benjamin J. Fregly Major Department: Mechanic al and Aerospace Engineering Movement related disorders have trea tments (e.g., corrective surgeries, rehabilitation) generally characterized by va riable outcomes as a result of subjective decisions based on qualitative analyses using a one-size-fits-all healthcare approach. Imagine the benefit to the h ealthcare provider and, more importantly, the patient, if certain clinical parameters may be evalua ted pre-treatment in order to predict the post-treatment outcome. Using patient-specif ic models, movement related disorders may be treated with reliable outcomes as a resu lt of objective decisions based on quantitative analyses using a patient-specific approach. The general objective of the current work is to predic t post-treatment outcome using patient-specific models given pre-treatment data. The specific objective is to develop a four-phase optimization approach to identify patient-specific model parameters and utilize the calibrated m odel to predict functional out come. Phase one involves identifying joint parameters describing the pos itions and orientations of joints within

PAGE 12

xii adjacent body segments. Phase two involves identifying inertial parameters defining the mass, centers of mass, and moments of in ertia for each body segment. Phase three involves identifying control parameters repres enting weighted components of joint torque inherent in different walking movements. Phase four involves an inverse dynamics optimization to predict function outcome. This work comprises a computational framework to create and apply patient-specific models to predict clinically significant outcomes.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Arthritis: The Nations Leading Cause of Disability In 1997, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 43 million (or 1 in 6) Americans suffered with arthritis. A 2002 CDC study showed that 70 million (a 63% increase in 5 years; or 1 in 3) Americans have arthritis (CDC, 2003 ). Approximately two-thirds of individuals with arthritis are under 65 years old. As the population ages, the number of people with arthri tis is likely to incr ease significantly. The most common forms of arthritis are osteoa rthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and gout. Osteoarthritis of the knee joint accounts for roughly 30% ($25 billion) of the $82 billion total arthritis costs per year in the United States. Knee osteoarthritis symptoms of pain a nd dysfunction are the primary reasons for total knee replacement (TKR). This pr ocedure involves a resurfacing of bones surrounding the knee joint. The end of the fe mur is removed and covered with a metal implant. The end of the tibia is removed and substituted by a plastic implant. Smooth metal and plastic articulation replaces the irregular and painful arthritic surfaces. Approximately 100,000 Medicare patients alon e endure TKR procedures each year (Heck et al. 1998 ). Hospital charges for unilateral TKR are more than $30,000 and the cost of bilateral TKR is over $50,000 (Lane et al. 1997 ). An alternative to TKR is a more conser vative (both economically and surgically) corrective procedure known as high tibial os teotomy (HTO). By changing the frontal plane alignment of the tibia with a wedge of bone, a HTO shifts the weight-bearing axis

PAGE 14

2 of the leg, and thus the mechanical stresses from the diseased portion to the healthy section of the knee compartment. By transfer ring the location of mechanical stresses, the degenerative disease process may be slowed or possibly reversed. The advantages of HTO are appealing to younger and active patien ts who receive recommendations to avoid TKR. Need for Patient-Specific Simulations Innovative patient-specific models and simulations would be valuable for addressing problems in orthopedics and sports medicine, as well as for evaluating and enhancing corrective surgical procedures (Arnold et al. 2000 ; Arnold and Delp, 2001 ; Chao et al. 1993; Chao and Sim, 1995 ; Delp et al. 1998 ; Delp et al. 1996 ; Delp et al. 1990 ; Pandy, 2001 ). For example, a patient-specifi c dynamic model may be useful for planning intended surgical parameters a nd predicting the outcome of HTO. The main motivation for developing the following patient-specific dynamic model and the associated multi-phase optimization appr oach is to predict the post-surgery peak internal knee abduction moment in HTO pa tients. Conventional surgical planning techniques for HTO involve choosing the am ount of necessary tibial angulation from standing radiographs (or x-rays). Unfortuna tely, alignment correction estimates from static x-rays do not accurately predict long-term clinical outcome after HTO (Andriacchi, 1994 ; Tetsworth and Paley, 1994 ). Researchers have identif ied the peak external knee adduction moment as an indica tor of clinical ou tcome while investigating the gait of HTO patients (Andriacchi, 1994 ; Bryan et al. 1997 ; Hurwitz et al. 1998 ; Prodromos et al. 1985 ; Wang et al. 1990 ). Currently, no movement simulations (or other methods for that matter) allow surgeons to choose HTO surgical parameters to achieve a chosen post-surgery knee abduction moment.

PAGE 15

3 The precision of dynamic analyses is fundame ntally associated with the accuracy of kinematic and kinetic model parameters (Andriacchi and Strickland, 1985 ; Challis and Kerwin, 1996 ; Cappozzo and Pedotti, 1975 ; Davis, 1992 ; Holden and Stanhope, 1998 ; Holden and Stanhope, 2000 ; Stagni et al. 2000 ). Understandably, a model constructed of rigid links within a multi-link chain and simple mechanical approximations of joints will not precisely match the human anatomy and fu nction. The model should provide the best possible agreement to experimental motion da ta within the bounds of the dynamic model selected (Sommer and Miller, 1980 ). Background Motion Capture Motion capture is the use of external devi ces to capture the movement of a real object. One type of motion-capture technology is based on a passive optical technique. Passive refers to markers, which are simply spheres covered in reflective tape, placed on the object. Optical refers to the technol ogy used to provide 3D data, which involves high-speed, high-resolution vide o cameras. By placing passive markers on an object, special hardware records the pos ition of those markers in ti me and it generates a set of motion data (or marker data). Often motion capture is used to create synt hetic actors by capturing the motions of real humans. Special effects companies have used this technique to produce incredibly realistic animations in movies such as Star Wars Episode I & II Titanic Batman and Terminator 2 Biomechanical Models Researchers use motion-capture technology to construct biomechanical models of the human structure. The position of extern al markers may be used to estimate the

PAGE 16

4 position of internal landmarks such as joint cen ters. The markers also enable the creation of individual segment reference frames that define the position and orientation of each body segment within a Newtonian laboratory re ference frame. Marker data collected from an individual are used to prescribe the motion of the biomechanical model. Kinematics and Dynamics Human kinematics is the study of the positions angles, velocities, and accelerations of body segments and joints during motion. With kinematic data and mass-distribution data, one can study the forces and torques requ ired to produce the recorded motion data. Errors between the biomechanical model and the recorded motion data will inevitably propagate to errors in the force and torque results of dynamic analyses. Optimization Optimization involves searching for the minimum or maximum of an objective function by adjusting a set of design variables. For exampl e, the objective function may be the errors between the biomechanical model and the recorded data. These errors are a function of the models generalized coordina tes and the models kinematic and kinetic parameters. Optimization may be used to m odify the design variables of the model to minimize the overall fitness errors and identify a structure that matches the experimental data very well.

PAGE 17

5 CHAPTER 2 CREATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS FROM THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOVEMENT DATA USING OPTIMIZATION Background Forward and inverse dynamics analyses of gait can be used to study clinical problems in neural control, rehabilitation, orthopedics, and sports medicine. These analyses utilize a dynamic skeletal model that re quires values for joint parameters (JPs joint positions and orientati ons in the body segments) and in ertial parameters (IPs masses, mass centers, and mome nts of inertia of the body segments). If the specified parameter values do not match the patients anatomy and mass di stribution, then the predicted gait motions and loads may not be indicative of the clinical situation. The literature contains a vari ety of methods to estimate JP and IP values on a patient-specific basis. Anatomic landmark methods estimate parameter values using scaling rules developed from cadaver studies (Bell et al. 1990 ; Churchill et al. 1998 ; Inman, 1976 ; de Leva, 1996 ). In contrast, optimization methods adjust parameter values to minimize errors between model predictions and experimental measurements. Optimizations identifying JP values for three-dimensional (3D) multi-joint kinematic models have a high computational cost (Reinbolt et al. 2005 ). Optimizations identifying IP values without corresponding optimizations identifying JP values have been performed with limited success for planar models of running, jumping, and kicking motions (Vaughan et al. 1982 ).

PAGE 18

6 This study presents a computationally-e fficient two-phase optimization approach for determining patient-specific JP and IP values in a dynamic skeletal model given experimental movement data to match. The fi rst phase determines JP values that best match experimental kinematic data, while the se cond phase determines IP values that best match experimental kinetic data. The approach is demonstrated by fitting a 3D, 27 degree-of-freedom (DOF), parametric fu ll-body gait model possessing 98 JPs and 84 IPs to synthetic (i.e., computer generate d) and experimental movement data. Methods A sample dynamic model is needed to demonstrate the proposed two-phase optimization approach. For this purpose, a parametric 3D, 27 DOF, full-body gait model whose equations of motion were derived w ith the symbolic manipulation software, Autolev (OnLine Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA), was used (Figure 2-1 Table 2-1 ). Comparable to Pandy's (2001) model structur e, 3 translational and 3 rotational DOFs express the movement of the pelvis in a Ne wtonian reference frame and the remaining 13 segments comprised four open chains bran ching from the pelvis. The positions and orientations of joint axes within adjacent segment coordinate systems were defined by unique JPs. For example, the knee joint axis is simultaneously established in the femur and tibia coordinate systems. These parameters are used to designate the geometry of the following joint types: 3 DOF hip, 1 DOF knee, 2 DOF ankle, 3 DOF back, 2 DOF shoulder, and 1 DOF elbow. Each joint prov ides a simplified mechanical approximation to the actual anatomic articulations. Anatom ic landmark methods were used to estimate nominal values for 6 hip (Bell et al. 1990 ), 9 knee (Churchill et al. 1998 ), and 12 ankle (Inman, 1976 ) JPs (Figure 2-2 Table 2-2 Figure 2-3 Table 2-3 Figure 2-4 Table 2-4 ). The segment masses, mass centers, and moments of inertia were described by unique IPs.

PAGE 19

7 Anatomic landmark methods were used to estimate nominal values for 7 IPs per segment (de Leva, 1996 ). Parameters defining the structure of the m odel were referenced to local coordinate systems fixed in each body segment. These coordinate systems were created from a static motion capture trial (see below). Mark ers placed over the left anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), right ASIS, and superior sacrum were used to define the pelvis segment coordinate system (Figure 2-2 ). From percentages of the inter-ASIS distance, a nominal hip joint center location was es timated within the pelvis segment (Bell et al. 1990 ). This nominal joint center served as th e origin of the femur coordinate system, which was subsequently defined using marker s placed over the medial and lateral femoral epicondyles (Figure 2-2 ). The tibia coordinate system originated at the midpoint of the knee markers and was defined by additional markers located on the medial and lateral malleoli (Figure 2-3 ). The talus coordinate system was created where the y-axis extends along the line perpendicular to bot h the talocrural joint axis and the subtalar joint axis (Figure 2-4 ). The heel and toe markers, in combin ation with the tibia y-axis, defined the foot coordinate system (Figure 2-4 ). Experimental kinematic and ki netic data were collected from a single subject using a video-based motion analysis system (Mo tion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA). Institutional revi ew board approval and informed consent were obtained prior to th e experiments. As described above, segment coordinate systems were created from surface marker locations measured during a static standing pose (Figure 2-5 ). Unloaded isolated joint motions were performed to exercise the primary functional axes of each lower ex tremity joint (hip, knee, and ankle on each

PAGE 20

8 side). For each joint, the subject was instru cted to move the distal segment within the physiological range of motion so as to exercise all DOFs of the joint. Three trials were done for each joint with all tr ials performed unloaded. Mult iple cycles of standing hip flexion-extension followed by abduction-a dduction were recorded. Similar to Leardini et al. (1999 ), internal-external rotation of the hip wa s avoided to reduce skin and soft tissue movement artifacts. Multiple cycles of knee flexion-extension were measured. Finally, multiple cycles of simultaneous ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion and inversion-eversion were recorded. Gait motion and ground reac tion data were collected to investigate simultaneous motion of all lower extremity joints under load-bearing physiological conditions. To evaluate the proposed optimizati on methodology, two types of synthetic movement data were generated from the expe rimental data sets. The first type was noiseless synthetic data gene rated by moving the model th rough motions representative of the isolated joint and gait experiments. The second type was synthetic data with superimposed numerical noise to simulate skin and soft tissue movement artifacts. A continuous noise model of the form t A sin was used with the following uniform random parameter values: amplitude (0 A 1 cm), frequency (0 25 rad/s), and phase angle (0 2 ) (Chze et al. 1995 ). The first phase of the optimization proce dure adjusted JP values and model motion to minimize errors between model and experimental marker locations (Equation 2-1 Figure 2-6 ). For isolated joint motion trials, the design variables were 540 B-spline nodes ( q ) parameterizing the generalized coordi nate trajectories (20 nodes per DOF) and 6 hip, 9 knee, or 12 ankle JPs ( pJP). For the gait trial, the nu mber of JPs was reduced to 4

PAGE 21

9 hip, 9 knee, and 4 ankle, due to inaccuracies in determining joint functional axes with rotations less than 25 (Chze et al. 1998 ). The initial value for each B-spline node and JP was chosen to be zero to test the robustn ess of the optimization approach. The JP cost function ( eJP) minimized the errors between model ( m ) and experimental ( m ) marker locations for each of the 3 marker coordinates over nm markers and nf time frames. The JP optimizations were perfor med with Matlabs nonlinear least squares algorithm (The Mathworks, Natick, MA). 2 11 3 1 ) ( min nf i nm jk JP ijk ijk JPm' mJPq p eq p The second phase of the optimization proce dure adjusted IP values to minimize the residual forces and torques acting on a 6 DOF ground-to-pelvis joint (Equation 2-2 Figure 2-7 ). Only the gait trial was used in this phase. The design variables for phase two were a reduced set of 20 IPs ( pIP 7 masses, 8 centers of mass, and 5 moments of inertia) accounting for body symmetry and lim ited joint ranges of motion during gait. The initial seed for each IP was the nominal value or a randomly altered value within + 50% of nominal. The IP cost function ( eIP) utilized a combinati on of pelvis residual loads ( F and T ) calculated over all nf time frames and differe nces between initial ( p IP) and current ( pIP) IP values. The residual pelvis forces ( F ) were normalized by body weight ( BW ) and the residual pelvis torques ( T ) by body weight times height ( BW H ). IP differences were normalized by their respectiv e initial values to create nondimensional errors. The IP optimizations also were pe rformed with Matlabs nonlinear least squares algorithm. Once a IP optimization converged, the final IP values were used as the initial (2-1)

PAGE 22

10 guess for a subsequent IP optimization, with this processing being repeated until the resulting pelvis residual loads converged. 2 1 3 1 2 2 ) ( ) ( min IP IP IP nf ij IP ij IP ij IPH BW T BW FIPp' p' p p p ep The JP and IP optimization procedures were applied to all three data sets (i.e., synthetic data without noise, synthetic data with noise, and experimental data). For isolated joint motion trials JPs for each joint were determined through separate optimizations. For comparison, JPs for all three joints were determined simultaneously for the gait trial. Subsequently, IPs were de termined for the gait tria l using the previously optimum JP values. Root-mean-square (RMS ) errors between orig inal and recovered parameters, marker distances, and pelvis re sidual loads were used to quantify the procedures performance. All optimizations were performed on a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 PC. Results For phase one, each JP optimization us ing noiseless synthetic data precisely recovered the original marker trajectories a nd model parameters to within an arbitrarily tight convergence tolerance (Table 2-5 Table 2-6 ). For the other two data sets, RMS marker distance errors were at most 6.62 mm (synthetic with noise) and 4.04 mm (experimental), which are of the same order of magnitude as the amplitude of the applied continuous noise model. Differences between experimental data results and anatomic landmark methods are much larger than differenc es attributed to noise alone for synthetic data with noise (Table 2-7 ). Optimizations involving the isol ated joint trial data sets (i.e., 1200 time frames of data) required between 108 and 380 seconds of CPU time while the gait trial data set (i.e., 208 time frames of data) required between 70 and 100 seconds of (2-2)

PAGE 23

11 CPU time. These computation times were orders of magnitude faster than those reported using a two-level optimization procedure (Reinbolt et al. 2005 ). For phase two, each IP optimization using noiseless synthetic data produced zero pelvis residual loads and recove red the original IP values to within an arbitrarily tight convergence tolerance (Table 2-8 Table 2-9 ). For the other two data sets, pelvis residual loads and IP errors remained small, with a random initial seed produc ing nearly the same pelvis residual loads but slight ly higher IP errors than when the correct initial seed was used. Differences between experimental data results and anatomic landmark methods are small compared to differences attributed to noise and initial seed for synthetic data with noise (Table 2-10 ). Required CPU time ranged from 11 to 48 seconds. Discussion The accuracy of dynamic analyses of a particular patient depends on the accuracy of the associated kinematic and kinetic m odel parameters. Parameters are typically estimated from anatomic landmark methods. The estimated (or nominal) values may be improved by formulating a two-phase optimization problem driven by motion capture data. Optimized dynamic models can provide a more reliable foundation for future patient-specific dynamic analyses and optimizations. This study presented a two-phase optimi zation approach for tuning joint and inertial parameters in a dynamic skeletal m odel to match experimental movement data from a specific patient. For the fullbody gait model used in this study, the JP optimization satisfactorily reproduced patient-specific JP values while the IP optimization successfully reduced pelvis residu al loads while allowing variation in the IP values away from their initial guesses. Th e JP and IP values found by this two-phase optimization approach are only as reliable as the noisy experimental movement data used

PAGE 24

12 as inputs. By optimizing over all time fr ames simultaneously, the procedure smoothes out the effects of this noise. An optimi zation approach that modifies JPs and IPs simultaneously may provide even further reductions in pelvis residual loads. It cannot be claimed that models fitted w ith this two-phase approach will reproduce the actual functional axes and inertial propert ies of the patient. This is clear from the results of the synthetic data with noise, where the RMS errors in the recovered parameters were not zero. At the same time the optimized parameters for this data set corresponded to a lower cost f unction value in each case than did the nominal parameters from which the synthetic data were generate d. Thus, it can only be claimed that the optimized model structure provides the best pos sible fit to the impe rfect movement data. There are differences between phase one a nd phase two when comparing results for experimental data to synthetic data with noise. For the JP case, absolute parameter differences were higher for expe rimental data compared to synthetic data with noise. This suggests that noise does not hinder the pr ocess of determining JPs. However, for the IP case, absolute parameter differences we re higher for synthetic data with noise compared to experimental data. In fact, noi se is a limiting factor when identifying IPs. The phase one optimization determined pati ent-specific joint parameters similar to previous works. The optimal hip joint cente r location of 2.94 cm (12.01% posterior), 9.21 cm (37.63% inferior), and 9.09 cm (37.10% la teral) is comparable to 19.30%, 30.40%, and 35.90%, respectively, of the interASIS distance (Bell et al. 1990 ). The optimum femur length (42.23 cm) and tibia length ( 38.33 cm) are similar to 41.98 cm and 37.74 cm, respectively (de Leva, 1996 ). The optimum coronal pl ane rotation (8 7.36) of the talocrural joint correlates to 82.7 3.7 (range 74 to 94) (Inman, 1976 ). The optimum

PAGE 25

13 distance (0.58 cm) between the ta locrural joint and the subtal ar joint is analogous to 1.24 0.29 cm (Bogert et al. 1994 ). The optimum transverse plane rotation (34.79) and sagittal plane rotation (31.34) of the subtalar joint correspon ds to 23 11 (range 4 to 47) and 42 9 (range 20.5 to 68.5), respectively (Inman, 1976 ). Compared to anatomic landmark methods reported in the lit erature, the phase one optimization reduced RMS marker distance errors by 17% (hip), 52 % (knee), 68% (ankle), and 34% (full leg). The phase two optimization determined patient-specific inertial parameters similar to previous work. The optimum masses we re within an average of 1.99% (range 0.078% to 8.51%), centers of mass within range 0.047% to 5.84% (mean 1.58%), and moments of inertia within 0.99% (0.0038% to 5.09%) from the nominal values (de Leva, 1996 ). Compared to anatomic landmark methods re ported in the litera ture, the phase two optimization reduced RMS pelvis residual loads by 20% (forces) and 8% (torques). Two conclusions may be drawn from these comparisons. First, the similarities suggest the results are reasonabl e and show the extent of agre ement with past studies. Second, the differences between values indicate the extent to which tuning the parameters to the patient via optimization methods would change their values compared to anatomic landmark methods. In all cases, the two-pha se optimization successfully reduced cost function values for marker distance errors or pelvis residual loads below those resulting from anatomic landmark methods.

PAGE 26

14 2-1. Illustration of the 3D, 14 segment, 27 DOF full-body kinematic model linkage joined by a set of gimbal, universal, and pin joints. Figure

PAGE 27

15 2-1. Descriptions of the model degrees of freedom. DOF Description q1 Pelvis anterior-posterior position. q2 Pelvis superior-inferior position. q3 Pelvis medial-lateral position. q4 Pelvis anterior-posterior tilt angle. q5 Pelvis elevation-depression angle. q6 Pelvis internal-external rotation angle. q7 Right hip flexion-extension angle. q8 Right hip adduction-abduction angle. q9 Right hip internal-ext ernal rotation angle. q10 Right knee flexion-extension angle. q11 Right ankle plantarflexi on-dorsiflexion angle. q12 Right ankle invers ion-eversion angle q13 Left hip flexion-extension angle. q14 Left hip adduction-abduction angle. q15 Left hip internal-external rotation angle. q16 Left knee flexion-extension angle. q17 Left ankle plantarflexi on-dorsiflexion angle. q18 Left ankle inversion-eversion angle q19 Trunk anterior-posterior tilt angle. q20 Trunk elevation-depression angle. q21 Trunk internal-external rotation angle. q22 Right shoulder flexion-extension angle. q23 Right shoulder adduction-abduction angle. q24 Right elbow flexion angle. q25 Left shoulder flexion-extension angle. q26 Left shoulder adduction-abduction angle. q27 Left elbow flexion angle. Table

PAGE 28

16 2-2. Illustration of the 3 DOF right hip jo int center simultaneously defined in the pelvis and right femur segments and th e 6 translational parameters optimized to determine the functional hip joint center location. 2-2. Descriptions of th e hip joint parameters. Hip Joint Parameter Description p1 Anterior-posterior loca tion in pelvis segment. p2 Superior-inferior locatio n in pelvis segment. p3 Medial-lateral locati on in pelvis segment. p4 Anterior-posterior loca tion in femur segment. p5 Superior-inferior loca tion in femur segment. p6 Medial-lateral location in femur segment. Figure Table

PAGE 29

17 2-3. Illustration of the 1 DO F right knee joint simultaneous ly defined in the right femur and right tibia segments and the 4 rotational and 5 translational parameters optimized to determine the knee joint location and orientation. Figure

PAGE 30

18 2-3. Descriptions of the knee joint parameters. Knee Joint Parameter Description p1 Adduction-abduction rotation in femur segment. p2 Internal-external rotation in femur segment. p3 Adduction-abduction rotati on in tibia segment. p4 Internal-external rotation in tibia segment. p5 Anterior-posterior loca tion in femur segment. p6 Superior-inferior loca tion in femur segment. p7 Anterior-posterior loca tion in tibia segment. p8 Superior-inferior location in tibia segment. p9 Medial-lateral location in tibia segment. Table

PAGE 31

19 2-4. Illustration of the 2 DO F right ankle joint complex simultaneously defined in the right tibia, talus, and foot segments and the 5 rotational and 7 translational parameters optimized to determine the joint locations and orientations. Figure

PAGE 32

20 2-4. Descriptions of the ankle joint parameters. Ankle Joint Parameter Description p1 Adduction-abduction rotation of ta locrural in tibia segment. p2 Internal-external rotation of talocrural in tibia segment. p3 Internal-external rotation of subtalar in talus segment. p4 Internal-external rotation of subtalar in foot segment. p5 Dorsi-plantar rotation of s ubtalar in foot segment. p6 Anterior-posterior location of talocrural in tibia segment. p7 Superior-inferior location of talocrural in tibia segment. p8 Medial-lateral location of talocrural in tibia segment. p9 Superior-inferior lo cation of subtalar in talus segment. p10 Anterior-posterior location of subtalar in foot segment. p11 Superior-inferior lo cation of subtalar in foot segment. p12 Medial-lateral location of subtalar in foot segment. Table

PAGE 33

21 2-5. Illustration of the modified Cleveland Clinic marker set used during static and dynamic motion capture trials. No te: the background femur and knee markers have been omitted for clarity and the medial and lateral markers for the knee and ankle are removed following the static trial. Figure

PAGE 34

22 2-6. Phase one optimization convergence illustration series for the knee joint, where synthetic markers are blue, model markers are red, and root-mean-square (RMS) marker distance error is green. Given synthe tic marker data without noise and a synthetic knee flexion angle = 90, A) is the initial model knee flexion = 0 a nd knee joint parameters causing joint dislocation, B) is the model knee flexion = 30 and improved kn ee joint parameters, C) is th e model knee flexion = 60 and nearly correct knee joint parameters, and D) is the fina l model knee flexion = 90 and ideal knee joint parameters. Figure

PAGE 35

23 2-7. Phase two optimization convergence illustration series for th e knee joint, where synthetic masses are blue, model masses are red, and root-mean-square (RMS) residual pelvis forces and torques are orange an d green, respectively. Given synthetic kinetic data without noise and a synthetic knee flexion motion, A) is th e initial model thi gh and shank inertial parameters, B) is the improved thigh and shank inertial parameters, C) is the nearly correct thigh and shank inertial parameters, and D) is the final mode l thigh and shank inertial parameters. Figure

PAGE 36

24 2-5. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) jo int parameter and marker distance errors produced by the phase one optimization and anatomic landmark methods for three t ypes of movement data. Experimental da ta were from isolated joint and gait motions measured using a video-based motion analysis system with three surface markers per body segment. Synthetic marker data were generated by applyi ng the experimental motions to a nomi nal kinematic model with and without superimposed numerical noise. The isolat ed joint motions were non-weight bearing and utilized larger joint excursions than did the gait motion. For the an atomical landmark method, only the optimization involving model motion was performed since the joint parameters were speci ed. The individual joint optimizations used isolated joint motion data while the full leg optimization used gait motion data. Movement data Method RMS error Hip only Knee only Ankle only Full leg Marker distances (mm) 9.82e-09 3.58e-08 1.80e-08 2.39e-06 Orientation parameters () n/a 4.68e-04 6.46e-03 5.45e-03 Synthetic without Noise Phase one optimization Position parameters (mm) 4.85e-05 8.69e-04 6.35e-03 1.37e-02 Marker distances (mm) 6.62 5.89 5.43 5.49 Orientation parameters () n/a 0.09 3.37 3.43 Synthetic with Noise Phase one optimization Position parameters (mm) 0.55 0.59 1.21 3.65 Phase one optimization Marker distances (mm) 3.73 1.94 1.43 4.04 Experimental Anatomical landmarks Marker distances (mm) 4.47 4.03 4.44 6.08 Table

PAGE 37

252-6. Comparison of joint parameters predicted by anatomical la ndmark methods, phase one optim ization involving individual joints separately, and phase one optimiza tion involving all joints simultaneously. Body segment indicates the segment in which the associated joint parameter is xed. For a graphical depiction of th e listed joint parameters, consult Figure 2 Figure 3 and Figure 4 Single joint optimization Full leg optimization Joint Joint parameter Body segment Anatomical landmarks Synthetic without noise Synthetic with noise Experimental Synthetic without noise Synthetic with noise Experimental Anterior position (mm) Pelvis -53.88 -53.88 -53.84 -32.62 -53.89 -53.35 -29.41 Superior position (mm) Pelvis -83.26 -83.26 -82.76 -106.53 -83.25 -76.40 -92.15 Lateral position (mm) Pelvis -78.36 -78.36 -79.30 -90.87 -78.36 -79.30 -90.87 Anterior position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 0.49 8.88 -0.01 4.35 27.08 Superior position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 0.47 -25.33 0.02 5.55 -11.59 Hip Lateral position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.46 -18.13 0.00 -0.45 -18.13 Frontal plane orientation () Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -4.39 0.01 -0.33 -7.59 Transverse plane orientation () Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.09 -2.49 0.00 -1.07 -3.96 Frontal plane orientation () Shank 4.27 4.27 4.13 -0.15 4.28 3.52 -0.98 Transverse plane orientation () Shank -17.11 -17.11 -17.14 -18.96 -17.11 -18.11 -23.34 Anterior position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.74 3.01 0.00 2.32 10.97 Superior position (mm) Thigh -419.77 -419. 77 -420.20 -410.44 -419 .79 -425.80 -408.70 Anterior position (mm) Shank 0.00 0.00 -0.18 0.52 0.00 7.63 7.22 Superior position (mm) Shank 0.00 0.00 -0.53 2.68 -0.02 -4.49 10.13 Knee Lateral position (mm) Shank 0.00 0.00 -0.84 -6.79 0.00 -1.63 2.67 Frontal plane orientation () Shank -12.22 -12.21 -16.29 -11.18 -12.22 -12.81 -2.64 Transverse plane orientation () Shank 0.00 0.01 3.84 -23.89 0.00 8.79 -18.12 Anterior position (mm) Shank 0. 00 0.01 0.24 4.14 0.00 -2.09 -3.29 Superior position (mm) Shank -377.44 -377. 45 -379.20 -395.73 -377 .45 -379.99 -393.29 Ankle (talocrural) Lateral position (mm) Shank 0.00 -0.01 2.03 7.08 0.00 2.03 7.08 Transverse plane orientation () Talus -35.56 -35.56 -40.56 -27.86 -35.56 -40.57 -27.86 Transverse plane orientation () Foot -23.00 -23.00 -23.34 -34.79 -23.00 -23.34 -34.79 Sagittal plane orientation () Foot 42.00 42.00 42.59 31.34 42.00 42.59 31.34 Superior position (mm) Talus -10.00 -10.00 -9.22 -5.77 10.00 -9.22 -5.77 Anterior position (mm) Foot 93.36 93.36 93.95 87.31 93.36 93.95 87.31 Superior position (mm) Foot 54.53 54.52 53.34 39.68 54.52 53.34 39.68 Ankle (subtalar) Lateral position (mm) Foot -6.89 -6 .89 -6.06 -3.80 -6 .89 -6.06 -3.80 Table

PAGE 38

262-7. Differences between joint parameters predicted by anat omical landmark methods and phase one optimizations. Body segment indicates the segment in whic h the associated joint parameter is xed. For actual joint parameter values, consult Table 2-6 For a graphical depiction of th e listed joint parameters, consult Figure 2 Figure 3 and Figure 4 Single joint optimization Full leg optimization Joint Joint parameter Body segment Synthetic difference Experimental difference Synthetic difference Experimental difference Anterior position (mm) Pelvis 0.03 21.26 0.53 24.47 Superior position (mm) Pelvis 0.51 -23.27 6.86 -8.89 Lateral position (mm) Pelvis -0.94 -12.51 -0.94 -12.51 Anterior position (mm) Thigh 0.49 8.88 4.35 27.08 Superior position (mm) Thigh 0.47 -25.33 5.55 -11.59 Hip Lateral position (mm) Thigh -0.46 -18.13 -0.46 -18.13 Frontal plane orientation () Thigh -0.01 -4.39 -0.33 -7.59 Transverse plane orientation () Thigh -0.09 -2.49 -1.08 -3.96 Frontal plane orientation () Shank -0.14 -4.42 -0.76 -5.25 Transverse plane orientation () Shank -0.03 -1.85 -1.01 -6.23 Anterior position (mm) Thigh -0.74 3.01 2.32 10.97 Superior position (mm) Thigh -0.43 9.33 -6.04 11.07 Anterior position (mm) Shank -0.18 0.52 7.64 7.22 Superior position (mm) Shank -0.53 2.68 -4.49 10.13 Knee Lateral position (mm) Sha nk -0.84 -6.79 -1.63 2.67 Frontal plane orientation () Shank -4.08 1.04 -0.59 9.58 Transverse plane orientation () Shank 3.85 -23.89 8.79 -18.12 Anterior position (mm) Sh ank 0.24 4.14 -2.09 -3.29 Superior position (mm) Shank -1.76 -18.29 -2.54 -15.85 Ankle (talocrural) Lateral position (mm) Shank 2.03 7.08 2.03 7.08 Transverse plane orientation () Talus -5.01 7.70 -5.01 7.70 Transverse plane orientation () Foot -0.34 -11.79 -0.34 -11.79 Sagittal plane orientation () Foot 0.59 -10.66 0.59 -10.66 Superior position (mm) Talus 0.78 4.23 0.78 4.23 Anterior position (mm) Foot 0.59 -6.05 0.59 -6.05 Superior position (mm) Foot -1.19 -14.85 -1.19 -14.85 Ankle (subtalar) Lateral position (mm) Foot 0.82 3.09 0.82 3.09 Table

PAGE 39

27 2-8. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) inertial parameter a nd pelvis residual load erro rs produced by the phase two optimization and anatomic landmark methods for three types of movement data. Experiment al data were from a gait motion measured using a video-based moti on analysis system with three surface markers per body segment. Synthetic marker data were generated by applyi ng the experimental motion to a nomina l kinematic model with and without superimposed numerical noise. RMS error Movement data Method Force (N) Torque (N*m) Inertia (kg*m2) Mass (kg) Center of mass (m) Synthetic without Noise Phase 2 optimization 8.04e-10 2.16e-10 5.13e-13 1.22e-10 7.11e-13 Synthetic with Noise (correct seed) Phase 2 optimization 16.92 4.93 5.67e-03 1.08 6.64e-03 Synthetic with Noise (random seeds) Phase 2 optimization 16.96.44 5.24.23 7.45e-02.81e-02 1.33.39 2.16e-02.92e-03 Phase 2 optimization 27.89 12.66 n/a n/a n/a Experimental Anatomical landmarks 34.81 13.75 n/a n/a n/a Table

PAGE 40

28 2-9 Comparison of inertial parameters pr edicted by anatomical landmark methods and phase two optimizations. Body segm ent indicates the segment in which the associated inertial parameter is xed. Direction indicates the means in which the associated inertial parameter was applied. Synthetic with noise Category Body segment Direction Anatomical landmarks Synthetic without noise Correct seed Random seeds (10 cases) Experimental Pelvis 0 7.69 0 7.69 0 8.11 0 6.98.87 0 7.63 Thigh 0 9.74 0 9.74 10.76 11.19.02 0 8.91 Shank 0 2.98 0 2.98 0 3.25 0 3.37.39 0 2.95 Foot 0 1.26 0 1.26 0 1.37 0 1.40.29 0 1.29 Head & trunk 26.99 26.99 23.61 23.88.34 26.82 Upper arm 0 1.86 0 1.86 0 1.82 0 1.56.49 0 1.87 Mass (kg) Lower arm & hand n/a 0 1.53 0 1.53 0 1.63 0 1.75.47 0 1.53 Anterior -9.36e-02 -9.36e-02-9.63e -02 -1.00e-01.29e-02 -9.33e-02 Superior -2.37e-02 -2.37e-02-2.33e -02 -2.49e-02.44e-03 -2.37e-02 Pelvis Lateral 0.00 -2.35e-13 6.57e-13 8.06e-13.02e-13 6.07e-13 Anterior 0.00 1.54e-13 4.02e-13 7.76e-13.06e-13 4.86e-13 Superior -1.68e-01 -1.68e-01-1.65e -01 -1.58e-01.84e-02 -1.59e-01 Thigh Lateral 0.00 -1.49e-14 1.58e-12 2.41e-12.05e-13 8.91e-13 Anterior 0.00 1.22e-14-5.41e-13 -1.91e-13.20e-13 7.62e-13 Superior -1.72e-01 -1.72e-01-1.89e -01 -1.89e-01.48e-02 -1.80e-01 Shank Lateral 0.00 6.59e-14 3.15e-13 5.65e-13.72e-13 4.56e-13 Anterior 9.21e-02 9.21e-02 8.73e-02 8.17e-02.90e-02 9.27e-02 Superior -1.60e-04 -1.60e-04-4.19e -04 -4.12e-04.19e-04 -1.60e-04 Foot Lateral 0.00 -1.81e-14 1.26e-14 9.35e-14.93e-14 1.85e-14 Anterior 0.00 1.92e-13-8.33e-13 -8.96e-13.35e-12 8.21e-13 Superior -1.44e-01 -1.44e-01-1.69e -01 -1.87e-01.38e-02 -1.42e-01 Head & trunk Lateral 0.00 -2.56e-14 1.66e-12 2.34e-12.09e-13 4.45e-13 Anterior 0.00 4.74e-14-3.21e-13 -2.69e-13.60e-13 6.15e-13 Superior -1.84e-01 -1.84e-01-1.86e -01 -1.95e-01.96e-02 -1.84e-01 Upper arm Lateral 0.00 -1.79e-14 3.51e-13 4.19e-13.45e-13 7.92e-13 Anterior 0.00 5.59e-14 1.45e-13 2.32e-13.58e-13 9.22e-13 Superior -1.85e-01 -1.85e-01-1.97e -01 -1.89e-01.36e-02 -1.85e-01 Center of mass (m) Lower arm & hand Lateral 0.00 -3.85-e14 2.86e-13 4.13e-13.59e-13 7.38e-13 Anterior 6.83e-02 6.83e-02 6.83e-02 6.60e-02.30e-02 6.83e-02 Superior 6.22e-02 6.22e-02 6.21e-02 5.98e-02.81e-02 6.22e-02 Pelvis Lateral 5.48e-02 5.48e-02 5.47e-02 5.25e-02.64e-02 5.48e-02 Anterior 1.78e-01 1.78e-01 1.80e-01 1.67e-01.39e-02 1.78e-01 Superior 3.66e-02 3.66e-02 3.65e-02 3.71e-02.35e-02 3.66e-02 Thigh Lateral 1.78e-01 1.78e-01 1.74e-01 2.06e-01.31e-02 1.78e-01 Anterior 2.98e-02 2.98e-02 2.97e-02 3.06e-02.19e-02 2.98e-02 Superior 4.86e-03 4.86e-03 4.86e-03 4.01e-03.04e-03 4.86e-03 Shank Lateral 2.84e-02 2.84e-02 2.86e-02 2.75e-02.65e-03 2.84e-02 Anterior 2.38e-03 2.38e-03 2.29e-03 2.27e-03.45e-04 2.38e-03 Superior 4.56e-03 4.56e-03 4.58e-03 4.90e-03.29e-03 4.56e-03 Foot Lateral 3.08e-03 3.08e-03 2.99e-03 3.02e-03.57e-04 3.08e-03 Anterior 9.51e-01 9.51e-01 9.18e-01 8.96e-01.35e-01 9.51e-01 Superior 2.27e-01 2.27e-01 2.27e-01 1.93e-01.62e-02 2.27e-01 Head & trunk Lateral 8.41e-01 8.41e-01 8.37e-01 9.99e-01.68e-01 8.41e-01 Anterior 1.53e-02 1.53e-02 1.53e-02 1.44e-02.65e-03 1.53e-02 Superior 4.71e-03 4.71e-03 4.71e-03 4.57e-03.29e-03 4.71e-03 Upper arm Lateral 1.37e-02 1.37e-02 1.37e-02 1.56e-02.29e-03 1.37e-02 Anterior 1.97e-02 1.97e-02 1.97e-02 2.06e-02.97e-03 1.97e-02 Superior 1.60e-03 1.60e-03 1.60e-03 1.41e-03.02e-04 1.60e-03 Moment of inertia (kg*m2) Lower arm & hand Lateral 2.05e-02 2.05e-02 2.04e-02 2.41e-02.78e-03 2.05e-02 Table

PAGE 41

29 2-10. Differences between inertial parame ters predicted by an atomical landmark methods and phase two optimizations. Body segment indicates the segment in which the associated joint parameter is xed. Direction indicates the means in which the associated inertial parameter was applied. For actual joint parameter values, consult Table 2-9 Synthetic differences Category Body segment Direction Correct seed Random seeds (10 cases) Experimental differences Pelvis 4.28e-01 -7.01e-01.87 -5.66e-02 Thigh 1.02 1.45.02 -8.29e-01 Shank 2.69e-01 3.89e-01.86e-01 -3.11e-02 Foot 1.29e-01 1.62e-01.95e-01 3.53e-02 Head and trunk -3.38 -3.11.34 -1.75e-01 Upper arm -4.62e-02 -3.05e-01.85e-01 1.46e-03 Mass (kg) Lower arm and hand n/a 1.01e-01 2.15e-01.67e-01 -1.89e-03 Anterior -2.69e-03 -6.51e-03.29e-02 2.30e-04 Superior 4.13e-04 -1.24e-03.44e-03 1.12e-05 Pelvis Lateral 6.57e-13 8.06e-13.02e-13 6.07e-13 Anterior 4.02e-13 7.76e-13.06e-13 4.86e-13 Superior 3.48e-03 1.01e-02.84e-02 9.81e-03 Thigh Lateral 1.58e-12 2.41e-12.05e-13 8.91e-13 Anterior -5.41e-13 -1.91e-13.20e-13 7.62e-13 Superior -1.66e-02 -1. 73e-02.48e-02 -7.65e-03 Shank Lateral 3.15e-13 5.65e-13.72e-13 4.56e-13 Anterior -4.83e-03 -1.04e-02.90e-02 6.30e-04 Superior -5.25e-08 7.39e-06.19e-04 9.50e-13 Foot Lateral 1.26e-14 9.35e-14.93e-14 1.85e-14 Anterior -8.33e-13 -8.96e-13.35e-12 8.21e-13 Superior -2.47e-02 -4.31e-02.38e-02 1.66e-03 Head and trunk Lateral 1.66e-12 2.34e-12.09e-13 4.45e-13 Anterior -3.21e-13 -2.69e-13.60e-13 6.15e-13 Superior -2.40e-03 -1.15e-02.96e-02 1.10e-04 Upper arm Lateral 3.51e-13 4.19e-13.45e-13 7.92e-13 Anterior 1.45e-13 2.32e-13.58e-13 9.22e-13 Superior -1.29e-02 -4.21e-03.36e-02 3.70e-04 Center of mass (m) Lower arm and hand Lateral 2.86e-13 4.13e-13.59e-13 7.38e-13 Anterior 5.53e-05 -2.24e-03.30e-02 1.95e-04 Superior -1.11e-04 -2. 41e-03.81e-02 -9.03e-04 Pelvis Lateral -1.21e-04 -2.28e-03.64e-02 -1.19e-05 Anterior 2.06e-03 -1.14e-02.39e-02 2.86e-03 Superior -7.14e-05 5.67e-04.35e-02 -1.45e-04 Thigh Lateral -4.56e-03 2.73e-02.31e-02 -9.06e-03 Anterior -9.91e-05 8.51e-04.19e-02 -5.98e-04 Superior 6.80e-07 -8.49e-04.04e-03 1.85e-06 Shank Lateral 2.09e-04 -9.19e-04.65e-03 4.15e-04 Anterior -5.94e-07 -1.73e-05.45e-04 -9.07e-08 Superior -8.59e-08 3.16e-04.29e-03 -6.41e-07 Foot Lateral 3.06e-06 2.87e-05.57e-04 1.36e-05 Anterior -3.30e-02 -5.56e-02.35e-01 -3.08e-02 Superior -6.15e-04 -3. 37e-02.62e-02 -2.87e-03 Head and trunk Lateral -4.13e-03 1.59e-01.68e-01 -1.73e-02 Anterior -1.62e-05 -9.11e-04.65e-03 -1.37e-04 Superior -1.79e-07 -4. 14e-05.29e-03 -9.40e-07 Upper arm Lateral -7.90e-07 1.97e-03.29e-03 -1.60e-06 Anterior -1.63e-05 8.91e-04.97e-03 -1.09e-04 Superior -8.95e-08 -1. 95e-04.02e-04 -7.50e-07 Moment of inertia (kg*m2) Lower arm and hand Lateral -5.84e-05 3.59e-03.78e-03 -1.15e-05 Table

PAGE 42

30 CHAPTER 3 EFFECT OF MODEL PARAMETER VARIATIONS ON INVERSE DYNAMICS RESULTS USING M ONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS Background One of the most valuable biomechanical variables to have for the assessment of any human movement is the time history of the moments of force at each joint (Winter, 1980 ). There are countless appli cations involving the inves tigation of human movement ranging from sports medicine to pathological gait. In all cas es, the moment of force, or torque, at a particular joint is a result of several factors: muscle forces, muscle moment arms, ligament forces, contact forces due to articular surface geometry, positions and orientations of axes of rotation, and iner tial properties of body segments. A common simplification is muscles generate the entire joint torque by assuming ligament forces are insignificant and articular contact forces act through a chosen joint center (Challis and Kerwin, 1996 ). Individual muscle forces are estimated from resultant joint torques often computed by inverse dynamics analyses. In the end, inverse dynamics computations depend upon chosen model parameters, namely positions and orientations of joint axes parameters (JPs) and inertial property parameters (IPs) of body segments. The literature contains a vari ety of methods investigating the sensitivity of inverse dynamics torques to JPs and IPs. Two el bow joint torques were analyzed during a maximal speed dumbbell curl motion as one or more parameters were changed by the corresponding estimated uncertainty value up to 10mm for joint centers and 10% for inertial properties (Challis and Kerwin, 1996 ). The knee flexion-extension torque has

PAGE 43

31 been studied for multiple walking speeds while changing the knee center location by mm in the anterior-posterior direction (Holden and Stanhope, 1998 ). Hip forces and torques have been examined for gait as planar leg inertial properties were individually varied over nine steps within % (Pearsall and Costigan, 1999 ). Knee forces and torques were evaluated for a planar harmoni c oscillating motion as inertial properties varied by % (Andrews and Mish, 1996 ). Directly related to knee joint torque, knee kinematics were investigated during gait when the rotation axes varied by (Croce et al. 1996 ). This study performs a series of Monte Carl o analyses relating to inverse dynamics using instantiations of a three-dimensional (3D) full-body gait model with isolated and simultaneous variations of JP and IP values. In addition, noise para meter (NP) variations representing kinematic noise were implemente d separately. Uniform distribution of each parameter was chosen within bounds consistent with previous studies. Subsequently, kinematics were identified by optimizing the fitness of the model motion to the experimental motion. The number of instanti ations was sufficient for convergence of inverse dynamics torque values. Methods Experimental kinematic and kinetic gait da ta were collected fr om a single subject using a video-based motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA ). Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments. A parametric 3D, 27 degree-of-freedom (DOF), full-body gait model (Figure 2-1 Table 2-1 ) was constructed, whose equations of mo tion were derived with the symbolic manipulation software, Autolev (OnLine Dyna mics, Sunnyvale, CA). The pelvis was

PAGE 44

32 connected to ground via a 6 DOF joint and th e remaining 13 segments comprised four open chains branching from the pelvis. The positions and orientations of joint axes within adjacent segment coordinate system s were defined by unique JPs. The segment masses, mass centers, and mome nts of inertia were described by unique IPs. Anatomic landmark methods were used to esti mate nominal values for 84 IPs (de Leva, 1996 ) and 98 JPs (Bell et al. 1990 Churchill et al. 1998 Inman, 1976 ). Select model parameters were identified via optimization as de scribed previously in Chapter 2 (Reinbolt and Fregly, 2005 ). A series of Monte Carlo an alyses relating to invers e dynamics were performed using instantiations the full-body gait model w ith isolated and simultaneous variations of JP and IP values within 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the associated maximum. Uniform distribution of each parameter was chosen within bounds consistent with previous studies. Joint center locatio ns were bounded by a maximum of mm (Challis and Kerwin, 1996 Holden and Stanhope, 1998 ). Joint axes orientations were bounded by a maximum of (Croce et al. 1996 ). Inertial properties were bounded by a maximum of % of their original values (Andrews and Mish, 1996 Challis and Kerwin, 1996 Pearsall and Costigan, 1999 ). New kinematics were identified by optimizing the fitness of the model motion to the experimental motion similar to Chapter 2 (Reinbolt et al. 2005 ). The number of instantiations (e.g., 5000) was sufficient for convergence of inverse dynamics torque values The mean and coefficient of variance (100*SD/mean) of all joint torque s were within 2% of the final mean and coefficient of variance, respectively, for the la st 10% of instantiations (Fishman, 1996 Valero-Cuevas et al. 2003 ).

PAGE 45

33 A separate set of Monte Carlo inverse dynamics analyses were performed with variations of NP values within 25%, 50% 75%, and 100% of the maximum. The NP represent the amplitude of simulated skin m ovement artifacts. The relative movement between skin and underlying bone occurs in a continuous rather than a random fashion (Cappozzo et al. 1993 ). Comparable to the simulate d skin movement artifacts of Lu and OConnor (1999 ), a continuous noise model of the form t A sin was used with the following uniform random parameter values: amplitude (0 A 1 cm), frequency (0 25 rad/s), and phase angle (0 2 ) (Chze et al. 1995 ). Noise was separately generated for each 3D coordinate of the marker trajectories. Similar to the lower-body focus of Chapter 2, the distributions from each Monte Carlo analysis were compared for the left leg joint torque errors and marker distance errors (e.g., difference between model marker s for the inverse dynamics simulation and true synthetic data cases). Results The distributions of mean inverse dynami cs results are best summarized using a boxplot presenting five sample st atistics: the minimum (or 10th percentile), the lower quartile (or 25th percentile), the median (or 50th percentile), the upper quartile (or 75th percentile) and the maximum (or 90th percentile) (Figure 3-1 ). RMS and mean hip torque errors were computed in the flexion-extension, abduction-adduction, and internal-e xternal rotation directions (Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 ). Mostly due to JPs, the hip flexion-exte nsion and abduction-adduction torques showed more variation than the internal-external rota tion torque. The IPs ha d insignificant effect on range of hip torques. The NPs had slight ly larger effects compared to IPs. The

PAGE 46

34 distributions of torques were reduced by attenuating the mo del fitness based on percentages of parameter bounds. RMS and mean knee torque errors were computed in the flexion-extension and abduction-adduction directions (Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 ). Similar to the corresponding hip directions, the knee torques have larger sp ans for the abduction-adduction direction compared to the flexion-extension directi on. The NPs had slightly larger effects compared to IPs. The JPs had much more e ffect on knee torques compared to the IPs. For the IPs case, the flexion-extension to rque varied slightly more than the abduction-adduction torque. The breadth of knee torques decrease d with attenuated percentages of parameter bounds. RMS and mean ankle torque er rors were computed in the plantarflexion-dorsiflexion and i nversion-eversion directions (Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 ). The inversion-eversion torque displayed a broader distributio n compared to the plantarflexions-dorsiflexion torque. The IPs had much less effect on ankle torque distributions compared to JPs. The NPs had s lightly larger effects compared to IPs. The attenuated percentages of parameter bounds c ondensed the spread for both torques. RMS and mean marker distance errors were computed between the inverse dynamics simulation and synthetic data (Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 ). The IPs showed marker distance errors equal to zero since true kinematics were used as inputs. The NPs represented marker distance errors consistent with the chosen numerical noise model. The JPs had the largest effect on ma rker distance error distributions. Discussion This study examined the distribution of inverse dynamics torques for a 3D full-body gait model using a series of Monte Carlo analyses simultaneously varying JPs

PAGE 47

35 and IPs. It is well established that joint tor que data is one of the most valuable quantities for the biomechanical investig ation of human movement. As evident in the literature, investigators are concerned with the sens itivity of inverse dynamics results to uncertainties in JPs and IPs (Challis and Kerwin, 1996 Holden and Stanhope, 1998 Pearsall and Costigan, 1999 Andrews and Mish, 1996 Croce et al. 1996 ). Assuming parameter independence and adju sting a single parameter at a time may underestimate the resulting effect of the parameter variation. Specifically concerning IPs, adjusting one type of segment parameter may change the ot her two types. Similar to all Monte Carlo analyses assuming parameter independence, th e resulting distributions may in fact be overestimated. A more diverse assortment of full-body models are being simulated by not explicitly requiring partic ular body segment geometries. Nevertheless, implementing an optimization approach to maximize the fitn ess of the model to the experiment through determination of patient-speci fic JPs and IPs reduces the un certainty of inverse dynamics results.

PAGE 48

36 3-1. Legend of five sample statistics pr esented by the chosen boxplot convention. Figure

PAGE 49

37 3-2. Comparison of root-mean-square (RMS) leg joint torques and marker distance error distributions. First column cont ains distributions from varying only joint parameters (JP). Second column contains distributions from varying only inertial parameters (IP). Third column contains distributions from varying both JPs and IPs. Fourth colu mn contains distributions from vary only the noise amplitude parameter (NP). Figure

PAGE 50

38 3-3. Comparison of mean leg joint torques and marker distance error distributions. First column contains distributions fro m varying only joint parameters (JP). Second column contains di stributions from varying only inertial parameters (IP). Third column contains distributi ons from varying both JPs and IPs. Fourth column contains distributions from vary only the noise amplitude parameter (NP). Figure

PAGE 51

39 CHAPTER 4 BENEFIT OF AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION FOR BIOMECHANICAL OPTIMIZATIONS Background Optimization algorithms are often used to solve biomechanical system identification or movement predic tion problems employing complicated three-dimensional (3D) musculoskeletal models (Pandy, 2001 ). When gradient-based methods are used to solve large-scale probl ems involving hundreds of design variables, the computational cost of performing repeated simulations to calculate finite difference gradients can be extremely high. In addi tion, as 3D movement model complexity increases, there is a considerable increase in the computational expense of repeated simulations. Frequently, in spite of advan ces in processor performance, optimizations remain limited by computation time. Both speed and robustness of gradient-b ased optimizations are dramatically improved by using an analytical Jacobian matrix (all first-order deri vatives of dependent objective function variables with respect to independent design vari ables) rather than relying on finite difference approximati ons. The objective function may involve thousands or perhaps millions of lines of computer code, so the task of computing analytical derivatives by hand or even sym bolically may prove impractical. For more than eight years, the Networ k Enabled Optimization Server (NEOS) at Argonne National Laboratory has been using Automatic Diffe rentiation (AD), also called Algorithmic Differentiation, to compute Jacobians of remotely supplied user code (Griewank, 2000 ).

PAGE 52

40 AD is a technique for computing derivatives of arbitrarily complex computer programs by mechanical applicatio n of the chain rule of differentia l calculus. AD exploits the fact every computer program, no matter how compli cated, executes a sequence of elementary arithmetic operations. By applying the ch ain rule repeatedly to these operations, derivatives can be computed automatically and accurately to working precision. This study evaluates the benefit of usi ng AD methods to calculate analytical Jacobians for biomechanical optimization probl ems. For this purpose, a freely-available AD package, Automatic Di erentiation by OverLoading in C++ (ADOL-C) (Griewank et al. 1996 ), was applied to two biomechanical opt imization problems. The first is a system identification problem for a 3D ki nematic ankle joint model involving 252 design variables and 1800 objective function elements The second is a movement prediction problem for a 3D full-body gait model invo lving 660 design variables and 4100 objective function elements. Both problems are solved using a nonlinear least squares optimization algorithm. Methods Experimental kinematic and ki netic data were collected from a single subject using a video-based motion analysis system (Mo tion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA). Institutional revi ew board approval and informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments. The ankle joint problem was first solv ed without AD using the Matlab (The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA) nonlinear leas t squares optimizer as in Chapter 2 (Reinbolt and Fregly, 2005 ). The optimization approach simultaneously adjusted joint parameter values and model motion to minimize errors between model and experimental marker

PAGE 53

41 locations. The ankle joint model possessed 12 joint parameters and 12 degrees-of-freedom. Each of the 12 generali zed coordinate curves was parameterized using 20 B-spline nodal points (240 total). Alto gether, there were 252 design variables. The problem contained 18 error quantities for e ach of the 100 time frames of data. The Jacobian matrix consisted of 1800 rows a nd 252 columns estimated by finite difference approximations. The movement prediction problem was fi rst solved without AD using the same Matlab nonlinear least squares optimizer (Fregly et al. 2005 ). The optimization approach simultaneously adjusted model motion and ground reactions to minimize knee adduction torque and 5 categorie s of tracking errors (foot pa th, center of pressure, trunk orientation, joint torque, and fictitious ground-to-pelvis residual reactions) between model and experiment. The movement prediction model possessed 27 degrees-of-freedom (21 adjusted by B-spline cu rves and 6 prescribed for arm motion) and 12 ground reactions. Each adjustable genera lized coordinate and reaction curve was parameterized using 20 B-spline nodal points (660 total design variab les). The problem contained 41 error quantities for each of the 100 time frames of data. The Jacobian matrix consisted of 4100 rows and 660 columns estimated by finite difference approximations. ADOL-C was incorporated in to each objective function to compute an analytical Jacobian matrix. This package was chosen because the objective functions were comprised of Matlab mex-files, which are dyna mic link libraries of compiled C or C++ code. ADOL-C was implemented into the C ++ source code by the following steps:

PAGE 54

42 1. Mark the beginning and end of active section (portion computing dependent variables from independent vari ables) using built-in functions trace_on and trace_off respectively. 2. Select a set of active variable s (those considered differen tiable at some point in the program execution) and change t ype from double to built-in type adouble 3. Define a set of independent variable s using the output stream operator ( <<= ). 4. Define a set of dependent variables using the input stream operator ( >>= ). 5. Call the built-in driver function jacobian to compute first-order derivatives using reverse mode AD. 6. Compile the code includi ng built-in header file adolc.h and linking with built-in library file adolc.lib All optimizations with and without AD were performed on a 1.73 GHz Pentium M laptop with 2.00 GB of RAM. The computati on time performance was compared. Results For each problem, performance comparisons of optimizing with and without AD are summarized in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 The use of AD increased the computation time per objective function eval uation. However, the numbe r of function evaluations necessary per optimization itera tion was far less with AD. For the system identification problem, the computation time required per optimization iteration with AD was approximately 20.5% (or reduced by a factor of 4.88) of the time required without AD. For the movement prediction problem, the computation time required per optimization iteration with AD was approximately 51.1% (or reduced by a factor of 1.96) of the time required without AD. Although computation times varied with and without AD, the optimization results remained virtually identical.

PAGE 55

43 Discussion The main motivation for investigatin g the use of AD for biomechanical optimizations was to improve computationa l speed of obtaining solutions. Speed improvement for the movement prediction optimization in particular was not as significant as anticipated. Fu rther investigation is necessary to determine the effect of AD characteristics such as forward m ode vs. reverse mode and source code transformation vs. operator overloading on co mputational speed. Whichever AD method is used, having analytical derivatives elim inates inaccurate search directions and sensitivity to design variable scaling which can plague optimizations that use finite difference gradients. If central (more accura te) instead of forward differencing was used in the movement prediction optimization without AD, the performance improvement would have been a factor of four instead of two. Special dynamics formulations can also be utilized to compute analytical derivatives concurrently while evaluating the equations of motion, and the trade-offs between those approaches and AD require further investigation. While AD-based analytical derivatives may be less efficien t computationally than those derived using special dynamics formulations, AD provide s effortless updating of the derivative calculations should the biomechanical model used in the optimization be changed. For large-scale problems, AD provides a re latively simple means for computing analytical derivatives to improve the sp eed of biomechanical optimizations.

PAGE 56

44 4-1. Performance results for system identification problem for a 3D kinematic ankle joint model involving 252 design variables and 1800 objective function elements. Performance Criteria Without AD With AD Time per Function Evaluation (s) 0.0189 0.978 Number of Function Evaluations per Optimization Iteration 252 1 Time per Optimization Iteration (s) 4.77 0.978 4-2. Performance results for movement prediction problem for a 3D full-body gait model involving 660 design variables and 4100 objective function elements. Performance Criteria Without AD With AD Time per Function Evaluation (s) 0.217 73.1 Number of Function Evaluations per Optimization Iteration 660 1 Time per Optimization Iteration (s) 143 73.1 Table Table

PAGE 57

45 CHAPTER 5 APPLICATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES Background Imagine the benefit to the h ealthcare provider and, more importantly, the patient, if certain clinical parameters may be evalua ted pre-treatment in order to predict the post-treatment outcome. For example, a pa tient-specific dynamic model may be useful for planning intended surgical parameters and predicting the outcome of HTO. Researchers have identified th e peak external knee adduction torque as an indicator of clinical outcome while investigating the gait of HTO patients (Andriacchi, 1994 ; Bryan et al. 1997 ; Hurwitz et al. 1998 ; Prodromos et al. 1985 ; Wang et al. 1990 ). Currently, no movement simulations (or other methods for that matter) allow surgeons to choose HTO surgical parameters to achieve a chos en post-surgery knee adduction torque. There are a few gait studies evaluating effects of kinematic changes on the knee adduction torque. One study examined the effect s of increased foot progression angle, or toeout gait, on minimizing knee adduction torq ue during walking, stai r ascent, and stair descent (Manal and Guo, 2005 ). Another study investigated the minimization of knee adduction torque by changing lower-body kinema tics without changing foot path during gait (Fregly et al. 2005 ). No computational framework is available to perform a virtual HTO surgery and predict the resu lting knee adduction torque. This study presents the development and application of an inverse dynamics optimization approach to predict novel pa tient-specific gait motions, such as gait

PAGE 58

46 following HTO surgery and the resulting intern al knee abduction torque. To further tailor the kinematic and kinetic mode l developed in Chapter 2, response surface (RS) methods are used to determine weights for a cost f unction specific to the patient and movement task, comprising phase three of the optimizati on procedure. Other biomechanical studies (Chang et al. 1999 Hong et al. 2001 ) have used RS optimization methods, but this study is the first to perform inverse dynamic op timizations of gait. To increase the speed and robustness of optimizati ons, automatic differentiation (AD) is used to compute analytic derivatives of the inverse dy namics optimization objective function. Methods Experimental kinematic and kinetic gait da ta were collected fr om a single subject using a video-based motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA ). Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments. Normal gait data was recorded to calibrate the patient-specific m odel parameters as described in Chapter 2. Toeout, or increased foot progression angle, gait data was gathered to calibrate the patient-specific control parameters. Wide st ance gait data was collec ted to evaluate the calibrated model. A parametric 3D, 27 degree-of-freedom (DOF), full-body gait model (Figure 2-1 Table 2-1 ) was constructed, whose equations of mo tion were derived with the symbolic manipulation software, Autolev (OnLine Dyna mics, Sunnyvale, CA). The pelvis was connected to ground via a 6 DOF joint and th e remaining 13 segments comprised four open chains branching from the pelvis. An atomic landmark methods were used to estimate nominal values for 84 inertial parameters (de Leva, 1996 ) and 98 joint parameters (Bell et al. 1990 Churchill et al. 1998 Inman, 1976 ). Select model

PAGE 59

47 parameters were identified via optimizati on as described previously in Chapter 2 (Reinbolt and Fregly, 2005 ). The inverse dynamics optimization pro cedure adjusted model motion and ground reactions to minimize errors be tween model and experimental, or prescribed, quantities to be tracked (Equation 5-1 ). Specifically, the design vari ables were 660 B-spline nodes ( q r ) parameterizing the generalized coordinate ( q s) trajectories and ground reaction ( r s) data (20 nodes per curve). The initial value for each B-spline node was chosen to be the corresponding value from normal gait. The inverse dynamics optimization cost function ( epredict outcome) minimized the weighted (Equation 5-2 Equation 5-3 Table 5-1 ) tracking errors summed over the number of time frames (nf) for the following quantities: 6 DOFs for each prescribed foot path ( qfoot), 2 transverse plane tr anslations for pelvis ( qpelvis), 3 DOFs for trunk orientation ( qtrunk), 2 transverse plane translat ions for center of pressure for each foot ( CoPfoot), 3 residual pelvis forces ( Fpelvis), 3 residual pelvis torques ( Tpelvis), and leg joint torques ( Tleg). The inverse dynamics optimizations were performed with Matlabs nonlinear least squares algor ithm (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) using analytical Jacobians computed by AD. nf i jk ijk leg j ij pelvis pelvis jk ijk foot j ij trunk j ij pelvis jk ijk foot outcome predictT T F w CoP w q w q w q w e1 6 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 6 1 2 1) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( minCP r q,p 11 10 9 8 7 6w w w w w w CPp (5-1) (5-2)

PAGE 60

48 inversion subtalar on dorsiflexi talocrural flexion knee rotation hip adduction hip flexion hip legT w T w T w T w T w T w T 11 10 9 8 7 6 ) (CPp Before predicting outcomes with the i nverse dynamics optimization, the phase 3 optimization calibrated the 6 control parameters, or w6 w11 (Equation 5-2 Equation 5-3 Table 5-1 ), to the patients toe out gait motion. Each prescribed foot path was the only tracked quantity which was not experimentally measured beforehand. For 3 DOFs, fixed offsets (Table 5-2 ) were defined to approximate the pr edicted toeout foot path without using the exact foot path. All other tracked quantities involved the experimentally measured normal gait motion. A computationa lly efficient optimization was developed using RS methods to determ ine how well the simulated kn ee abduction torque matched the experimental knee abducti on torque for toeout gait. Response surfaces were developed to approximate the knee abduction torque predicted by the model for various control parameter weights. A separate quadr atic RS was created for each time frame of torque data (125 response surf aces) predicted by the model where the 6 control parameter weights were treated as desi gn variables. Although sepa rate response surface were constructed, the correlation coefficients betw een them was not computed. Each quadratic RS required solution of 28 unknown pol ynomial coefficients. A Hammersley Quasirandom Sequence was used to generate 64 sampled data points within the bounds of 0 to 10 for the 6dimensional space. The RS coefficients were then determined via a linear least squares f it in Matlab (The Mathworks, Natick, MA). Using the response surfaces as surrogates for repeated inve rse dynamic optimizations, an optimization problem was formulated to minimize errors between model predicted knee abduction torque and experimentally realized abducti on torque for toeout gait. A Hammersley (5-3)

PAGE 61

49 Quasirandom Sequence was used to generate 1000 initial seed point s within the bounds of 0 to 10 for the 6dimensional space. The 6 control parameters resulting in the lowest cost function value were used. The kinematic and kinetic changes for the left leg were compared. The calibrated model was evaluated by pred icting wide stance gait. Similar to toeout gait, fixed offsets (Table 5-2 ) were defined for 3 DOFs to approximate the predicted wide stance foot path without us ing the exact foot pat h. Again, all other tracked quantities involved the experimentally measured normal gait motion. The kinematic and kinetic changes for the left leg were compared. The calibrated model was applied to pred ict the outcome of HTO surgery. All tracked quantities i nvolved the experimentally meas ured normal gait motion, including the prescribed foot path (e .g., all foot path offsets equa led zero). The virtual HTO surgery was performed as a late ral opening wedge osteotomy. The anterior-posterior axis of rotation was located 10 cm inferior a nd 5 cm lateral to the midpoint of the transepicondylar axis. The sensitivity of the knee abducti on torque to the extent, or wedge angle, of the virtual HTO surgery wa s illustrated in for 3, 5, and 7. To demonstrate the effects of prior ca librating optimizations which determined joint parameters (phase one from Chapter 2) and inertial parameters (phase two from Chapter 2), the entire proce ss of creation and applicati on of patient-specific dynamic models was repeated for three additional cases : 1) phase three only (or without phase one or two), 2) phases one and three, and 3) phases two and three. The intermediate calibration and final evaluation effects on kn ee abduction torque results were compared.

PAGE 62

50 Results Using the response surfaces as surro gates for repeated inverse dynamic optimizations using the model calibrated with phases one, two, and three, the optimization determined control parameters (Table 5-3 ) that minimized errors between model predicted knee abduction to rque and experimentally obta ined torque for toeout gait with 0.08 % body weight times height (BW*H) and 0.18 %BW*H errors for 1st and 2nd peaks, respectively (RMS for entire cycle = 0.14 %BW*H) (Figure 5-1 Table 5-4 ). Changes for hip torques were matched we ll (RMS = 0.48 %BW*H) with the exception a minor deviation (2.82 %BW*H) in the hip flex ion-extension torque at the beginning of the cycle. Knee flexion-extension torque ch anges were matched with an RMS difference of 0.22 %BW*H. Both ankle torques remained close to the initial normal gait values (RMS = 0.02 %BW*H) without matching the sma ll changes for toeout gait (RMS = 0.48 %BW*H). Overall changes for hip joint a ngles were matched (RMS = 4.11) with the exception of internal-external rotation angle (max = 9.54 at 7% of cycle). The knee flexion-extension angle remained more flex ed than necessary (RMS = 2.69, max = 3.88 at 16% of cycle). Both a nkle joint angles generally ma tched the changes well (RMS = 3.58), but deviations were seen near 60% of cycle with a maximum of 9.67. Other tracked quantities demons trated good agreement (Table 5-5 ). All kinematic and kinetic differences are summarized in Table 5-7 Using the control parameters tuned with toeout gait for the model calibrated with phases one, two, and three, the optimization predicted knee abduction torque for wide stance with RMS of 0.23 %BW*H (0.03 %BW*H and 0.11 %BW*H errors for 1st and 2nd peaks, respectively) (Figure 5-2 Table 5-4 ). Changes for hip torques were matched well (RMS = 0.46 %BW*H) with the exception a minor deviations (1.54 %BW*H at 4%

PAGE 63

51 of cycle and 3.27 %BW*H at 100% of cycle) in the hip flexion-exte nsion torque. Knee flexion-extension torque changes were matched with an RMS difference of 0.39 %BW*H. Both ankle torques remained clos e to the initial normal gait values (RMS = 0.008 %BW*H) without matching the small ch anges for wide stance gait (RMS = 0.36 %BW*H). Overall changes for hip joint a ngles were matched (RMS = 3.13) with the maximum difference (7.81 %BW*H) occu rring at 86% of cycle for the hip flexion-extension angle. The knee flexion-ex tension angle remained more extended than necessary (RMS = 3.06, max = 3.31 at 76% of cycle, or 2nd peak). Both ankle joint angles generally matched the changes satisfact orily (RMS = 5.18), but deviations were demonstrated near the end of cycle for both talocrural (max = 11.51 at 90% of cycle) and subtalar angles (max = 11.42 at 100% of cycle). Other tracked quantities demonstrated good agreement (Table 5-6 ). All kinematic and kinetic differences are summarized in Table 5-8 There were noticeable effects when usi ng dynamic models crea ted without phase one or phase two of the optimization procedur e. The resulting cont rol parameters from phase three varied widely (Table 5-3 ). The predicted knee ab duction torque for toeout gait showed considerable differences using models without phase one included, while the model prediction including phases one and th ree was comparable to the model with phases one, two, and three (Figure 5-1 Table 5-4 ). For wide stance gait, the knee abduction torque was not predicted well when using models without phase one, but the prediction including phases one and th ree showed some improvement (Figure 5-2 Table 5-4 ). In all cases, tracked quanti ties demonstrated good agreement (Table 5-5 Table 5-6 ). Concerning the virtual HTO, the sensitiv ities to wedge angle showed the expected

PAGE 64

52 incremental reductions in knee abduction to rque for only those models including phases one and three or phases one, two, and three (Figure 5-3 ). The differences in dynamic models created from different portions of the multi-phase optimization approach led to variations in the computed knee abduction to rques for experimental and simulated data (Figure 5-4 Figure 5-5 ). Discussion The main motivation for developing a patient-specific inverse dynamics optimization approach is to predict novel pa tient-specific gait motions (e.g., subtle gait changes and HTO post-surgery gait). Toe out gait was successfully used to tune patient-specific control parameters. Wide stance gait predictions match the experiment rather well. The response surface approach gr eatly increased the computation efficiency of determining the control parameters. The current approach has seve ral limitations. A pin join t knee model was chosen to represent the flexion-extensi on motion that dominates other knee motions during gait. A rigid foot model without ground contact model was selected to increase the computational speed and exploit the ability to prescribe a desired foot path for the inverse dynamics optimization. A few kinematic and ki netic quantities were not predicted as well as others. Selection of tracking term weights is subjec tive and was performed in a manner to constrain the foot paths alone a nd track the other quan tities. The control parameters identified during phase 3 depend on th e weights chosen for the tracking terms. Although referred to as control parameters (joint torque = control), the cost function weights do not have an obvious physical expl anation tied to neural control strategies. It cannot be claimed that predictions ma de with this multi-phase approach will reproduce the actual func tional outcome for every patient a nd every data set. This is

PAGE 65

53 clear from the calibration results for toeout gait and the evaluation results for wide stance gait, where the RMS errors in the knee abducti on torque predictions were not zero. At the same time, the predicted curves matched the 1st and 2nd peaks well. Thus, it can only be claimed that the optimized model structur e provides the best pos sible prediction given the imperfect movement data inputs. For the model calibrated with phase one and two, the optimization predictions for virtual HTO surgeries showed sensitivities in agreement with previous clinical studies (Bryan et al. 1997 Wada et al. 1998 ) (Figure 5-3 ). For the 3 case, the knee abduction torque was reduced by 0.78 %BW*H and 0.71 %BW*H for the 1st and 2nd peaks, respectively. Bryan et al (1997 ) showed an approximately 1.1 %BW*H (slightly higher than optimization prediction) decrease for 3 of change. For the 5 case, the knee abduction torque was reduced by 0.95 %BW*H and 1.26 %BW*H for the 1st and 2nd peaks, respectively. Bryan et al (1997 ) showed an approximately 1.2 %BW*H (very similar to optimization prediction) decrease for 5 of change. For the 7 case, the knee abduction torque was reduced by 1.23 %BW*H and 1.74 %BW*H for the 1st and 2nd peaks, respectively. Bryan et al (1997 ) showed an approximately 1.5 %BW*H (slightly lower than optimization prediction) decrease for 7 of change. Cost function weights calibra ted to a particular gait motion accurately predict several kinematic and kinetic quantities for a different gait motion. Further investigation is necessary to determine the efficacy of the predictions for HTO. It would be advantageous to create patient-specific m odels and predictions for a population of HTO patients pre-surgery and compare with post-su rgery outcome. Examination of different gaits (e.g., normal and pathological ) requires future study as well.

PAGE 66

54 5-1. Descriptions of cost function we ights and phase 3 control parameters. Weight Description w1 Scale factor for tracking foot paths w2 Scale factor for tracking pelvis transverse plane translations w3 Scale factor for track ing trunk orientations w4 Scale factor for tracking cente r of pressure translations w5 Scale factor for tracking resi dual pelvis forces and torques w6 Control parameter for tracking hip flexion-extension torque w7 Control parameter for tracking hip adduction-abduction torque w8 Control parameter for tracking hip internal-external torque w9 Control parameter for tracking knee flexion-extension torque w10 Control parameter for tracking talocrur al dorsiflexion-plantarflexion torque w11 Control parameter for tracking s ubtalar inversion-eversion torque 5-2. Summary of fixed offsets added to no rmal gait for each prescribed foot path. Offset Side Toeout Gait Wide Stance Gait Right 41.78 -5.26 Anterior Translation (mm) Left 21.23 -3.50 Right -28.45 62.57 Lateral Translation (mm) Left -34.86 42.18 Right -15.79 -0.75 Transverse Plane Rotation (o) Left 13.12 -0.29 Table Table

PAGE 67

55 5-3. Comparison of cost function weig hts and phase 3 control parameters. Weight Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3 w1 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 w2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 w3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 w4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 w5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 w6 8.71 5.79e-01 8.13 5.17 w7 8.67 2.23 6.84 3.57e-01 w8 7.31e-08 9.29e-10 7.18e-01 1.08 w9 9.14 1.62e-07 6.74 2.94e-01 w10 2.61 8.18 6.87 5.55 w11 4.24 9.63 9.18 9.17 5-4. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) e rrors for predicted left knee abduction torque quantities for toeo ut and wide stance gait. RMS error (% BW*H) Gait trial Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3 Toeout 0.66 0.13 0.69 0.14 Wide stance 0.68 0.37 0.68 0.21 Table Table

PAGE 68

56 5-5 Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) e rrors for tracked quantities for toeout gait. RMS error Quantity Description Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3 ( qfoot)right 6 DOFs for right prescribed foot path 2.55 mm 1.58 3.64 mm 2.03 1.53 mm 0.96 2.35 mm 1.56 ( qfoot)left 6 DOFs for left prescribed foot path 0.94 mm 1.27 2.02 mm 1.38 0.57 mm 0.86 1.36 mm 0.97 qpelvis 2 transverse plane translations for pelvis 7.65 mm 5.14 mm 9.91 mm 6.61 mm qtrunk 3 DOFs for trunk orientation 0.32 0.36 0.52 0.38 ( CoPfoot)right 2 transverse plane translations for right center of pressure 9.68 mm 9.78 mm 5.68 mm 7.30 mm ( CoPfoot)left 2 transverse plane translations for left center of pressure 2.01 mm 4.17 mm 1.68 mm 2.73 mm Fpelvis 3 residual pelvis forces 4.23 N 4.27 N 3.82 N 4.11 N Tpelvis 3 residual pelvis torques 3.93 Nm 3.37 Nm 2.99 Nm 2.41 Nm Table

PAGE 69

57 5-6. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) e rrors for tracked quantities for wide stance gait. RMS error Quantity Description Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3 ( qfoot)right 6 DOFs for right prescribed foot path 1.07 mm 0.99 1.19 mm 1.36 0.85 mm 1.09 0.45 mm 0.37 ( qfoot)left 6 DOFs for left prescribed foot path 0.99 mm 1.04 2.07 mm 1.29 0.60 mm 1.16 0.32 mm 0.24 qpelvis 2 transverse plane translations for pelvis 6.47 mm 6.42 mm 6.22 mm 7.33 mm qtrunk 3 DOFs for trunk orientation 0.78 0.83 0.84 0.75 ( CoPfoot)right 2 transverse plane translations for right center of pressure 4.45 mm 5.73 mm 4.74 mm 4.40 mm ( CoPfoot)left 2 transverse plane translations for left center of pressure 1.80 mm 1.74 mm 3.33 mm 0.79 mm Fpelvis 3 residual pelvis forces 3.56 N 3.85 N 3.65 N 3.77 N Tpelvis 3 residual pelvis torques 3.17 Nm 2.73 Nm 3.50 Nm 2.48 Nm Table

PAGE 70

58 5-7. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) differences between optimi zation results and original normal gait or final toeout gait kinematic and kinetic quantities. RMS difference from optimization Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3 Quanitity Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Hip flexion angle () 1.29 3.22 9.14e-01 3.72 2. 09 2.79 1.08 3.46 Hip abduction angle () 1.73 2. 55 2.20 2.27 2. 37 2.39 2.63 2.32 Hip rotation angle () 10.96 5. 39 10.94 5.71 11. 03 5.35 11.27 5.76 Knee flexion angle () 1.61 2.68 1.03 2.76 1.62 2.52 8.93e-01 2.69 Ankle flexion angle () 1.85 3. 21 2.05 2.85 1. 53 2.85 1.78 2.58 Ankle inversion angle () 4.43 4. 71 3.89 4.49 4. 14 4.87 3.49 4.36 Anterior center of pressure (mm) 11.35 15.09 2.45 9.89 1.29 9.97 1.58 9.33 Lateral center of pressure (mm) 22.41 23.35 5.36 9.27 1.99 7.09 3.53 7.86 Hip flexion torque (% BW*H) 2.49e-02 1.55 4.05e-01 9.39e-01 2.15e02 1.55 3.11e-02 7.01e-01 Hip abduction torque (% BW*H) 1.70e-02 7.46e01 9.58e-02 3.43e-01 2.43e02 7.50e-01 2.31e-01 4.21e-01 Hip rotation torque (% BW*H) 1.62e-01 1.76e-01 1.42e-01 1.99e-01 1.12e-01 1.80e-01 1.10e-01 1.83e-01 Knee flexion torque (% BW*H) 1.67e-02 2.98e-01 3.75e-01 2.92e-01 1.50e-02 2.92e-01 2.41e-01 2.21e-01 Ankle flexion torque (% BW*H) 5.09e-02 1. 27 3.24e-02 5.49e-01 1.41e02 1.29 1.60e-02 5.53e-01 Ankle inversion torque (% BW*H) 3.92e-02 2. 32 7.07e-02 3.98e-01 1.79e02 2.31 2.98e-02 3.86e-01 Anterior ground reaction force (% BW) 2. 33e-01 1.26 2.65e-01 1.31 5.16e-01 1.32 2.51e-01 1.39 Superior ground reaction force (% BW ) 1.73 3.49 1.29 3.60 1.52 3.95 7.07e-01 4.04 Lateral ground reaction force (% BW) 6.98e-01 3.65e-01 5.43e-01 2.78e-01 7. 58e-01 3.42e-01 5.64e-01 3.28e-01 Table

PAGE 71

59 5-8. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) differences between opt imization results and original normal gait or final wide stance gait kinematic and kinetic quantities. RMS difference from optimization Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3 Quanitity Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Hip flexion angle () 6.64e-01 4.39 5.50e-01 4.55 3.68e01 4.29 1.66 4.17 Hip abduction angle () 3.07 1. 73 3.59 1.69 3. 21 1.73 3.21 1.98 Hip rotation angle () 2.43 2. 62 1.74 2.82 1. 91 2.58 2.49 3.18 Knee flexion angle () 6.75e-01 3. 46 1.48 4.41 6.28e01 3.48 1.12 2.79 Ankle flexion angle () 2.17 4. 35 2.19 5.18 1. 91 4.33 2.08 5.17 Ankle inversion angle () 6.82 6. 43 4.06 4.07 5. 87 5.53 5.00 4.72 Anterior center of pressure (mm) 1.44 27.40 1.49 26.01 4.45 27.52 1.05 26.31 Lateral center of pressure (mm) 2. 10 11.22 1.95 9.13 1. 54 11.22 3.68e-01 8.18 Hip flexion torque (% BW*H) 2.33e-02 5.04e-01 1.71e-01 5.95e-01 2.43e-02 5.25e-01 1.58e-02 6.26e-01 Hip abduction torque (% BW*H) 3.82e-02 5.25e01 1.29e-01 3.39e-01 6.54e02 5.21e-01 2.53e-01 3.23e-01 Hip rotation torque (% BW*H) 1.93e-01 2.44e-01 2.10e-01 2.87e-01 2.00e-01 2.49e-01 9.11e-02 2.48e-01 Knee flexion torque (% BW*H) 1.28e-02 4.27e-01 2.49e-01 6.24e-01 1.46e-02 4.37e-01 2.79e-01 3.90e-01 Ankle flexion torque (% BW*H) 1.85e-02 3.74e01 1.15e-02 3.91e-01 1.01e02 3.71e-01 1.07e-02 3.93e-01 Ankle inversion torque (% BW*H) 3.16e-02 4.23e01 2.53e-02 3.45e-01 1.62e02 4.23e-01 2.39e-02 3.63e-01 Anterior ground reaction force (% BW) 2. 76e-01 1.13 3.94e-01 1.20 2.81e-01 1.17 6.76e-01 1.04 Superior ground reaction force (% BW ) 1.03 4.15 8.09e-01 3.98 1.23 4.30 2.13 3.93 Lateral ground reaction force (% BW) 2.66 8.75e-01 2.35 1.14 2.56 8.72e-01 1.75 1.79 Table

PAGE 72

60 5-1. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for toeout gait. Original (blue) is e xperimental normal gait, simulation (red) is predicted toeout gait, and final (green) is experimental toeout gait. Plot A) cont ains curves for model using phase 3 only. Plot B) contains curves for model using phases 1 and 3. Plot C) cont ains curves for model using phases 2 and 3. Plot D) contains curves for model using phases 1, 2, and 3. Figure

PAGE 73

61 5-2. Comparison of left knee abduction torque s for wide stance gait, where original (blue) is experimental normal gait, simulation (red) is predicted toeout gait, a nd final (green) is experimental toeout ga it. Plot A) contai ns curves for model using phase 3 only. Plot B) c ontains curves for model using phases 1 and 3. Plot C) contains curves for model using phases 2 and 3. Plot D) contains cu rves for model using phases 1, 2, and 3. Figure

PAGE 74

62 5-3. Comparison of left knee abduction torque s for simulated high tibial osteotomy (HTO ) post-surgery gait. Plot A) contains curves for model using phase 3 only. Plot B) contains curves for model using phases 1 and 3. Plot C) contains curves for model using phases 2 and 3. Plot D) contains curves for model using phases 1, 2, and 3. Figure

PAGE 75

63 5-4. Comparison of mean (solid black line ) plus or minus one standard deviation (gray shaded area) for experimental le ft knee abduction torques. Plot A) contains distribution for nor mal gait. Plot B) contai ns distribution for toeout gait. Plot C) contains dist ribution for wide stance gait. Figure

PAGE 76

64 5-5. Comparison of mean (solid black line ) plus or minus one standard deviation (gray shaded area) for simulated left kn ee abduction torques. Plot A) contains distribution for toeout gait. Plot B) contains distribu tion for wide stance gait. Figure

PAGE 77

65 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Rationale for New Approach The main motivation for developing a 27 DOF patient-specific inverse dynamic model and the associated optimization appro ach is to predict the post-surgery peak external knee adduction moment in HTO patie nts, which has been identified as an indicator of clinical outcome (Andriacchi, 1994 ; Bryan et al. 1997 ; Hurwitz et al. 1998 ; Prodromos et al. 1985 ; Wang et al. 1990 ). The accuracy of prospective dynamic analyses made for a unique patient is determin ed in part by the fitness of the underlying kinematic and kinetic model (Andriacchi and Strickland, 1985 ; Challis and Kerwin, 1996 ; Cappozzo and Pedotti, 1975 ; Davis, 1992 ; Holden and Stanhope, 1998 ; Holden and Stanhope, 2000 ; Stagni et al. 2000 ). Development of an accurate model tailored to a specific patient forms the foundation for cr eating a predictive patient-specific dynamic simulation. Synthesis of Current Work and Literature The multi-phase optimization method satisfactorily determines patient-specific model parameters defining a 3D model that is well suited to a part icular patient. Two conclusions may be drawn from comparing an d contrasting the optimization results to previous values found in the literature. The similarities between numbers suggest the results are reasonable and show the extent of agreement with past studies. The differences between values indicate the optim ization is necessary and demonstrate the degree of inaccuracy inherent when the new approach is not implemented. Through the

PAGE 78

66 enhancement of model parameter values found in the literature, the multi-phase optimization approach successfully reduces the fitness errors between the patient-specific model and the experimental motion data. The precision of dynamic analyses made fo r a particular patient depends on the accuracy of the patient-specific kinematic a nd kinetic parameters chosen for the dynamic model. Without expensive medical images, model parameters are only estimated from external landmarks that have been identifie d in previous studies. The estimated (or nominal) values may be improved by form ulating an optimization problem using motion-capture data. By using a multi-phase optimization technique, researchers may build more accurate biomechanical models of the individual human structure. As a result, the optimal models will provide reliable foundations for dynamic analyses and optimizations. Simulations based on inverse dynamics optim ization subject to reality constraints predict physics-based motion. The results accura tely represent a spec ific patient within the bounds of the chosen dynamic model, experi mental task, and data quality. Given the agreement of the current results with previous studies, there is significant benefit in the construction and optimization a patient-specific functional dynamic mode l to assist in the planning and outcome prediction of surgical procedures. This work comprises a unique computational framework to create and apply objective patient-specific models (different from current intuitive models based on clin ical experience or regr ession models based on population studies) to predict clin ically significant outcomes.

PAGE 79

67 GLOSSARY Abduction Movement away from the midline of the body in the coronal plane. Acceleration The time rate of change of velocity. Active markers Joint and segmen t markers used during motion capture that emit a signal. Adduction Movement towards the midline of the body in the coronal plane. Ankle inversion-eversion Motion of th e long axis of the foot within the coronal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the anterior-posterior axis of the shank. Ankle motion The ankle angles reflect the motion of the foot segment relative to the shank segment. Ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexi on Motion of the plantar asp ect of the foot within the sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the medial-lateral axis of the shank. Anterior The front or before, also referred to as ventral. Coccyx The tailbone located at the distal end of the sacrum. Constraint functions Specific limits th at must be satisfied by the optimal design. Coronal plane The plane that divides the body or body segment into anterior and posterior parts. Degree of freedom (DOF) A single coordi nate of relative motion between two bodies. Such a coordinate responds without constraint or imposed moti on to externally applied forces or torques. For translational motion, a DOF is a linear coordinate al ong a single direction. For rotational motion, a DOF is an angular coordinate about a single, fixed axis.

PAGE 80

68 Design variables Variables that change to optimize the design. Distal Away from the point of attachment or origin. Dorsiflexion Movement of the foot towards the anterior part of the tibia in the sagittal plane. Epicondyle Process that develops proximal to an articulation and provides additional su rface area for muscle attachment. Eversion A turning outward. Extension Movement that rotates the bones comprising a joint away from each other in the sagittal plane. External (lateral) rotation Movement that rotates the distal segment laterally in relation to the proximal segment in the transverse plane, or places the anterior surface of a segment away from the longitudinal axis of the body. External moment The load applied to the human body due to the ground reaction forces, gravity and external forces. Femur The longest and heaviest bone in the body. It is located between the hip joint and the knee joint. Flexion Movement that rotates the bones comprising a joint towards each other in the sagittal plane. Force A push or a pull and is produced when one object acts on another. Force plate A transducer that is set in the floor to measure about some specified point, the force and torque applied by the foot to the ground. These devices provide measures of the three co mponents of the resultant ground reaction force vector and the three components of the resultant torque vector. Forward dynamics Analysis to dete rmine the motion of a mechanical system, given the topology of how bodies are connected, the applied forces and torques, the mass properties, and the initial condition of all degrees of freedom.

PAGE 81

69 Gait A manner of walk ing or moving on foot. Generalized coordinates A set of coordinates (or pa rameters) that uniquely describes the geometric pos ition and orientation of a body or system of bodies. Any set of coordinates that are used to describe the motion of a physical system. High tibial osteotomy (HTO) Surgical procedure that involves adding or removing a wedge of bone to or from the tibia and changing the frontal plane limb alignment. The realignment shifts the weight-bearing axis from the diseased medial compartment to the healthy lateral compartment of the knee. Hip abduction-adduction Motion of a long ax is of the thigh within the coronal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the anterior-posterior axis of the pelvis. Hip flexion-extension Motion of the long axis of the thigh within the sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the medial-lateral axis of the pelvis. Hip internal-external rotation Motion of the medial-lateral axis of the thigh with respect to the medial-lateral axis of the pelvis within the transverse plane as seen by an observer positioned along the longitudinal axis of the thigh. Hip motion The hip angles refl ect the motion of the thigh segment relative to the pelvis. Inferior Below or at a lower level (towards the feet). Inter-ASIS distance The length of m easure between the left anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the right ASIS. Internal (medial) rotation Movement that rotates the distal segment medially in relation to the proximal segment in the transverse plane, or places the anterior surface of a segment towards the longitudinal axis of the body. Internal joint moments The net result of all the internal forces acting about the joint which include moments due to muscles, ligaments, joint friction and structural constraints.

PAGE 82

70 The joint moment is usually calculated around a joint center. Inverse dynamics Analysis to de termine the forces and torques necessary to produce the motion of a mechanical system, given the topology of how bodies are connected, the kinematics, the mass properties, and the initial condition of all degrees of freedom. Inversion A turning inward. Kinematics Those parameters that are used in the description of movement without consider ation for the cause of movement abnormalities. These typically include parameters such as linear and angular displacements, velocities and accelerations. Kinetics General term given to the forces that cause movement. Both internal (muscle activity, ligaments or friction in muscles and joints) and external (ground or external loads) forces are included. The moment of force produced by muscles crossing a joint, the mechanical power flowing to and from those same muscles, and the energy changes of the body that result from this power flow are the most common kinetic parameters used. Knee abduction-adduction Motion of the l ong axis of the shank within the coronal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the anterior-posterior axis of the thigh. Knee flexion-extension Motion of the long axis of the shank within the sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the medial-lateral axis of the thigh. Knee internal-external rotation Motion of the medial-lateral axis of the shank with respect to the medial-lateral axis of the thigh within the transverse plane as viewed by an observer positioned along the longitudinal axis of the shank. Knee motion The knee angles reflect the motion of the shank segment relative to the thigh segment. Lateral Away from the bodys longitudinal axis, or away from the midsagittal plane.

PAGE 83

71 Malleolus Broadened distal por tion of the tibia and fibula providing lateral stability to the ankle. Markers Active or passive objects (balls, hemispheres or disks) aligned with respect to specific bony landmarks used to help determine segment and joint position in motion capture. Medial Toward the bodys longit udinal axis, or toward the midsagittal plane. Midsagittal plane The plane that passes through the midline and divides the body or body segm ent into the right and left halves. Model parameters A set of coordi nates that uniquely describes the model segments lengths, joint locations, and joint orientations, also referred to as joint parameters. Any set of coordinates that are used to describe the geometry of a model system. Moment of force The moment of fo rce is calculated about a point and is the cross product of a position vector from the point to the line of action for the force and the force. In two-dimensions, the mo ment of force about a point is the product of a fo rce and the perpendicular distance from the line of action of the force to the point. Typically, moments of force are calculated about the center of rotation of a joint. Motion capture Interpretation of co mputerized data that documents an individual's motion. Objective functions Figures of mer it to be minimized or maximized. Parametric Of or relating to or in terms of parameters, or factors that define a system. Passive markers Joint and segm ent markers used during motion capture that reflect visible or infrared light. Pelvis Consists of the two hip bones, the sacrum, and the coccyx. It is located between the proximal spine and the hip joints.

PAGE 84

72 Pelvis anterior-posterior tilt Motion of the long axis of the pelvis within the sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the medial-lateral axis of the laboratory. Pelvis elevation-depression Motion of th e medial-lateral axis of the pelvis within the coronal plane as seen by an observer positioned along the anterior-posterior axis of the laboratory. Pelvis internal-external rotation Motion of the medial-lateral or anterior-posterior axis of the pelvis within th e transverse plane as seen by an observer positioned along the longitudinal axis of the laboratory. Pelvis motion The position of the pelvis as defined by a marker set (for example, plane formed by the markers on the right and left anterior su perior iliac spine (ASIS) and a marker between the 5th lumbar vertebrae and the sacrum) relative to a laboratory coordinate system. Plantarflexion Movement of the foot away from the anterior part of the tibia in the sagittal plane. Posterior The back or behind, also referred to as dorsal. Proximal Toward the point of attachment or origin. Range of motion Indicates joint mo tion excursion from the maximum angle to the minimum angle. Sacrum Consists of the fused components of five sacral vertebrae located between the 5th lumbar vertebra and the coccyx. It attaches the axial skeleton to the pelvic girdle of the appendicular skeleton via paired articulations. Sagittal plane The plane that divides the body or body segment into the right and left parts. Skin movement artifacts The rela tive movement between skin and underlying bone. Stance phase The period of time when the foot is in contact with the ground.

PAGE 85

73 Subtalar joint Located between the distal talus and proximal calcaneous, also known as th e talocalcaneal joint. Superior Above or at a highe r level (towards the head). Synthetic markers Computational re presentations of passive markers located on the kinematic model. Swing phase The period of time when the foot is not in contact with the ground. Talocrural joint Located between th e distal tibia and proximal talus, also known as the tibial-talar joint. Talus The largest bone of the ankle transmitting weight from the tibia to the rest of the foot. Tibia The large medial bone of the lower leg, also known as the shinbone. It is located between the knee joint and the talocrural joint. Transepicondylar The line betw een the medial and lateral epicondyles. Transverse plane The plane at right angles to the coronal and sagittal planes that divides the body into superior and inferior parts. Velocity The time rate of change of displacement.

PAGE 86

74 LIST OF REFERENCES Andrews, J.G., and Mish, S.P., 1996. Methods for Investigating the Sensitivity of Joint Resultants to Body Segment Parameter Variations. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 29, Number 5, Pages 651-654. Andriacchi, T.P., 1994. Dynamics of Knee Malalignment. Orthopedic Clinics of North America Volume 25, Number 3, Pages 395-403. Andriacchi, T.P., and Strickland, A.B., 1985. G ait Analysis as a Tool to Assess Joint Kinetics. In: Berme, N., Engin, A.E ., Correia da Silva, K.M. (Editors), Biomechanics of Normal and Pathological Human Articulating Joints Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Pages 83-102. Arnold, A.S, Asakawa, D.J, and Delp, S.L ., 2000. Do the Hamstrings and Adductors Contribute to Excessive Internal Rotation of the Hip in Persons with Cerebral Palsy? Gait & Posture Volume 11, Number 3, Pages 181-190. Arnold, A.S., and Delp, S.L., 2001. Rotationa l Moment Arms of the Hamstrings and Adductors Vary with Femoral Geometry and Limb Position: Implications for the Treatment of Internally-Rotated Gait. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 34, Number 4, Pages 437-447. Bell, A.L., Pedersen, D.R., and Brand, R.A., 1990. A Comparison of the Accuracy of Several Hip Center Locati on Prediction Methods. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 23, Number 6, Pages 617-621. Bogert, A.J. van den, Smith, G.D., and Nigg, B.M., 1994. In Vivo Determination of the Anatomical Axes of the Ankle Joint Co mplex: An Optimization Approach. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 27, Number 12, Pages 1477-1488. Bryan, J.M., Hurwitz, D.E., Bach, B.R., Bitta r, T., and Andriacchi, T.P., 1997. A Predictive Model of Outcome in High Tibial Osteotomy. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Or thopaedic Research Society San Francisco, California, February 9-13, Volume 22, Paper 718. Cappozzo, A., Catani, F., and Leardini, A ., 1993. Skin Movement Artifacts in Human Movement Photogrammetry. In Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the International Socie ty of Biomechanics Paris, France, July 4-8, Pages 238-239.

PAGE 87

75 Cappozzo, A., Leo, T., and Pedotti, A., 1975. A General Computing Method for the Analysis of Human Locomotion. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 8, Number 5, Pages 307-320. Center for Disease Control (CDC), 2003. Targeting Arthritis: The Nations Leading Cause of Disability Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Hea lth Promotion, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/pdf/aag_arthritis2003.pdf, February, 2003. Challis, J.H., and Kerwin, D.G., 1996. Quantification of the Uncertainties in Resultant Joint Moments Computed in a Dynamic Activity. Journal of Sports Sciences Volume 14, Number 3, Pages 219-231. Chang, P.B., Williams, B.J., Santer, T.J., Notz, W.I., and Bartel, D.L., 1999. Robust Optimization of Total Joint Replacements Incorporating Environmental Variables. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Volume 121, Number 3, Pages 304-310. Chao, E.Y., and Sim, F.H., 1995. Compute r-Aided Pre-Operative Planning in Knee Osteotomy. Iowa Orthopedic Journal Volume 15, Pages 4-18. Chao, E.Y.S., Lynch, J.D., and Vanderploeg, M.J., 1993. Simulation and Animation of Musculoskeletal Joint System. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Volume 115, Number 4, Pages 562-568. Chze, L., Fregly, B.J., and Dimnet, J., 1995. A Solidification Procedure to Facilitate Kinematic Analyses Based on Video System Data. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 28, Number 7, Pages 879-884. Chze, L., Fregly, B.J., and Dimnet, J., 1998. Determination of Joint Functional Axes from Noisy Marker Data Using the Finite Helical Axis. Human Movement Science Volume 17, Number 1, Pages 1-15. Churchill, D.L., Incavo, S.J., Johnson, C.C., and Beynnon, B.D., 1998. The Transepicondylar Axis Approximates the Optimal Flexion Axis of the Knee. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Volume 356, Number 1, Pages 111-118. Croce, U.D., Leardini, A., Lorenzo, C., Cappozzo, A., 2005. Human Movement Analysis Using Stereophotogrammetry Pa rt 4: Assessment of Anatomical Landmark Misplacement and Its Effects on Joint Kinematics. Gait and Posture Volume 21, Number 2, Pages 226-237. Davis, B.L., 1992. Uncertainty in Calcul ating Joint Moments During Gait. In Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of European Society of Biomechanics Rome, Italy, June 21-24, Page 276.

PAGE 88

76 de Leva, P., 1996. Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanovs Segment Inertia Parameters. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 29, Number 9, Pages 1223-1230. Delp, S.L., Arnold, A.S., and Piazza, S.J., 1998. Graphics-Based Modeling and Analysis of Gait Abnormalities. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering Volume 8, Number 3/4, Pages 227-240. Delp, S.L., Arnold, A.S., Speers, R.A., and Moore, C.A., 1996. Hamstrings and Psoas Lengths During Normal and Crouch Gait: Implications for Muscle-Tendon Surgery. Journal of Orthopaedic Research Volume 14, Number 1, Pages 144-151. Delp, S.L., Loan, J.P., Hoy, M.G., Zajac, F.E., Topp E.L., and Rosen, J.M., 1990. An Interactive Graphics-Based Model of th e Lower Extremity to Study Orthopaedic Surgical Procedures. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering Volume 37, Number 8, Pages 757-767. Fantozzi, S., Stagni, R., Ca ppello, A., and Leardini, A., 2005. Effect of Different Inertial Parameter Sets on Joint Moment Calculation During Stair Ascending and Descending. Medical Engineering & Physics Volume 27, Pages 537-541 Fishman, G.S., 1996. Monte Carlo: Con cepts, Algorithms, and Applications. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY. Fregly, B.J., Rooney, K.L., and Reinbolt, J. A ., 2005. Predicted Gait Modifications to Reduce the Peak Knee Adduction Torque. In Proceedings of the XXth Congress of the International Society of Biom echanics and 29th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics Cleveland, Ohio, July 31-August 5, Page 283. Griewank, A., 2000. Evaluating Derivatives: Pr inciples and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. Griewank, A., Juedes, D., and Utke, J., 1996. ADOL-C: a Package for the Automatic Differentiation of Algorithms Written in C/C++. Association for Computing Machinery Transactions on Mathematical Software Volume 22, Number 2, Pages 131-167. Heck, D.A., Melfi, C.A., Mamlin, L.A., Ka tz, B.P., Arthur, D.S., Dittus, R.S., and Freund, D.A., 1998. "Revision Rates Following Knee Replacement in the United States." Medical Care Volume 36, Number 5, Pages 661-689. Holden, J.P., and Stanhope, S.J., 1998. The Ef fect of Variation in Knee Center Location Estimates on Net Knee Joint Moments. Gait & Posture Volume 7, Number 1, Pages 1-6.

PAGE 89

77 Holden, J.P., and Stanhope, S.J., 2000. The Effect of Uncertainty in Hip Center Location Estimates on Hip Joint Moments During Walking at Different Speeds. Gait & Posture Volume 11, Number 2, Pages 120-121. Hong, J.H., Mun, M.S., and Song, S.H., 2001. An Optimum Design Methodology Development Using a Statistical Technique for Vehicle Occupant Safety. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mec hanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering Volume 215, Number 7, Pages 795-801. Hurwitz, D.E., Sumner, D.R., Andriacchi, T.P., and Sugar, D.A., 1998. Dynamic Knee Loads During Gait Predict Proxima l Tibial Bone Distribution. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 31, Number 5, Pages 423-430. Inman, V.T., 1976. The Joints of the Ankle. Williams and Wilkins Company, Baltimore, Maryland. Lane, G.J., Hozack, W.J., Shah, S., Rothman, R.H., Booth, R.E. Jr., Eng, K., Smith, P., 1997. Simultaneous Bilate ral Versus Unilateral To tal Knee Arthroplasty. Outcomes Analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Volume 345, Number 1, Pages 106-112. Leardini, A., Cappozzo, A., Catani, F., Toks vig-Larsen, S., Petitto, A., Sforza, V., Cassanelli, G., and Giannini, S., 1999. V alidation of a Functional Method for the Estimation of Hip Joint Centre Location. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 32, Number 1, Pages 99-103. Lu, T.-W., and OConnor, J.J., 1999. Bone Position Estimation from Skin Marker Coordinates Using Global Optimisat ion with Joint Constraints. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 32, Number 2, Pages 129-134. Manal, K., and Guo, M., 2005. Foot Progression Angle and the Knee Adduction Moment in Individuals with Medi al Knee Osteoarthritis. In Proceedings of the XXth Congress of the International So ciety of Biomechanics and 29th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics Cleveland, Ohio, July 31-August 5, Page 899. Pandy, M.G., 2001. Computer Modeling and Simulation of Human Movement. Annual Reviews in Biomedical Engineering Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 245-273. Pearsall D.J., and Costigan P.A., 1999. The Effect of Segment Parameter Error on Gait Analysis Results. Gait and Posture Volume 9, Number 3, Pages 173-183. Prodromos, C.C., Andriacchi, T.P., and Gala nte, J.O., 1985. A Relationship Between Gait and Clinical Changes Followi ng High Tibial Osteotomy. Journal of Bone Joint Surgery (American) Volume 67, Number 8, Pages 1188-1194.

PAGE 90

78 Reinbolt, J.A., and Fregly, B.J., 2005. Cr eation of Patient-Specific Dynamic Models from Three-Dimensional Movement Data Using Optimization. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Computer Simulation in Biomechanics Cleveland, OH, July 28-30. Reinbolt, J.A., Schutte, J.F., Fregly, B.J., Ha ftka, R.T., George, A.D., and Mitchell, K.H., 2005. Determination of Patient-Specific Multi-Joint Kinematic Models Through Two-Level Optimization. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 38, Number 3, Pages 621-626. Sommer III, H.J., and Miller, N.R., 1980. A Technique for Kinematic Modeling of Anatomical Joints. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Volume 102, Number 4, Pages 311-317. Stagni, R., Leardini, A., Benedetti, M.G., Cappozzo, A., and Cappello, A., 2000. Effects of Hip Joint Centre Misloc ation on Gait Analysis Results. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 33, Number 11, Pages 1479-1487. Tetsworth, K., and Paley, D., 1994. A ccuracy of Correction of Complex Lower-Extremity Deformities by the Ilizarov Method. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Volume 301, Number 1, Pages 102-110. Valero-Cuevas, F.J., Johanson, M.E., and Towles, J.D., 2003. Towards a Realistic Biomechanical Model of the Thumb: the Choice of Kinematic Description May Be More Critical Than the Solution Met hod or the Variability/Uncertainty of Musculoskeletal Parameters. Jouirnal of Biomechanics Volume 36, Number 7, Pages 1019-1030. Vaughan, C.L., Andrews, J.G., and Hay, J.G., 1982. Selection of Body Segment Parameters by Optimization Methods. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Volume 104, Number 1, Pages 38-44. Wada, M., Imura, S., Nagatani, K., Baba H., Shimada, S., and Sasaki, S., 1998. Relationship Between Gait and Clinical Results After High Tibial Osteotomy. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Volume 354, Number 1, Pages 180-188. Wang, J.-W., Kuo, K.N., Andriacchi, T.P., and Galante, J.O., 1990. The Influence of Walking Mechanics and Time on the Resu lts of Proximal Tibial Osteotomy. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), Volume 72, Number 6, Pages 905-913. Winter, D.A., 1980. Overall Principle of Lower Limb Support During Stance Phase of Gait. Journal of Biomechanics Volume 13, Number 11, Pages 923-927.

PAGE 91

79 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jeffrey A. Reinbolt was born on May 6, 1974, in Bradenton, Florida. His parents are Charles and Joan Reinbolt. He has an ol der brother, Douglas, and an older sister, Melissa. In 1992, Jeff graduated salutatorian from Southeast High School, Bradenton, Florida. After completing his secondary educ ation, he enrolled at the University of Florida supported by the Florida Undergraduat e Scholarship and full-time employment at a local business. He earned a traditional 5-ye ar engineering degree in only 4 years. In 1996, Jeff graduated with honors receiving a Bach elor of Science degree in engineering science with a concentration in biomedical engineering. He us ed this foundation to assist in the medical device development and clini cal research programs of Computer Motion, Inc., Santa Barbara, California. In this ro le, Jeff was Clinical Development Site Manager for the Southeastern United States and he traveled extensively throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia collabo rating with surgeons and fell ow medical researchers. In 1998, Jeff married Karen, a fellow student he met during his undergraduate studies. After more than 4 years in the medical devi ce industry, he decided to continue his academic career at the Univer sity of Florida. In 2001, Je ff began his graduate studies with a graduate research assistantship in th e Computational Biomechanics Laboratory. In 2003, Jeff graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA receiving a Master of Science degree in biomedical engineering with a concentration in biomechanics. At that time, he decided to continue his graduate education and research activities throug h the pursuit of a Doctor of Philosophy in mechanical engineering. In 2005, Jeff and Karen were blessed with the

PAGE 92

80 birth of their first child, Jacob. Jeff would like to further his cr eative involvement in problem solving and the design of solutions to overcome healthcare challenges in the future.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013761/00001

Material Information

Title: Patient-Specific Dynamic Modeling To Predict Functional Outcomes
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013761:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013761/00001

Material Information

Title: Patient-Specific Dynamic Modeling To Predict Functional Outcomes
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013761:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELING
TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES
















By

JEFFREY A. REINBOLT


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Jeffrey A. Reinbolt



































This dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife, Karen, and our wonderful son, Jacob.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I sincerely thank Dr. B. J. Fregly for his support and leadership throughout our

research endeavors; moreover, I truly recognize the value of his honest, straightforward,

and experience-based advice. My life has been genuinely influenced by Dr. Fregly's

expectations, confidence, and trust in me.

I also extend gratitude to Dr. Raphael Haftka, Dr. Carl Crane, Dr. Scott Banks, and

Dr. Steven Kautz for their dedication, knowledge, and instruction both inside and outside

of the classroom. For these reasons, each was selected to serve on my supervisory

committee. I express thanks to all four individuals for their time, contribution, and

fulfillment of their committee responsibilities.

I collectively show appreciation for my family, friends, and colleagues.

Unconditionally, they have provided me with encouragement, support, and interest in my

graduate studies and research activities.

My wife, Karen, has done more for me than any person could desire. On several

occasions, she has taken a leap of faith with me; more importantly, she has been directly

beside me. Words or actions cannot adequately express my gratefulness and adoration

toward her. I honestly hope that I can provide her as much as she has given to me.

I thank God for my excellent health, inquisitive mind, strong faith, valuable

experiences, encouraging teachers, loving family, supportive friends, and remarkable

wife.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............ ................ ......... .......... ............ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... .......... .......... xi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Arthritis: The Nation's Leading Cause of Disability .................................................1
N eed for Patient-Specific Sim ulations ................................... ................... .... ... .2
B background ................................... ........................... .... ...... ........ 3
M otion C apture................................................ 3
B iom echanical M odels ................................................ ................ .........3
Kinematics and Dynamics ............................. ............ .............. .......... ..... 4
Optimization ..... ........... .... ......... ..................4

2 CREATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS FROM
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOVEMENT DATA USING OPTIMIZATION............5

B ack g rou n d ...................... .. ............. .. ................................................. .5
M eth od s ........................................................................... . 6
R e su lts ....... ......... .. ............. .. ...........................................................1 0
D isc u ssio n ...................... .. ............. .. ......................................................1 1

3 EFFECT OF MODEL PARAMETER VARIATIONS ON INVERSE
DYNAMICS RESULTS USING MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS ...........30

B a ck g ro u n d ......... ............. .. ............. .. .................................................. 3 0
M e th o d s ................................................................... 3 1
R e su lts ....... ......... .. ............. .. ...........................................................3 3
D isc u ssio n ...................... .. ............. .. ......................................................3 4

4 BENEFIT OF AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION FOR BIOMECHANICAL
O P T IM IZ A T IO N S ............................................................................................... 3 9










B a c k g ro u n d ............................................................................................................ 3 9
M e th o d s ..............................................................................4 0
R e su lts .................................................................................................................... 4 2
D isc u ssio n .............................................................................................................. 4 3

5 APPLICATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS TO PREDICT
FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES ....................................................... 45

B a c k g ro u n d .....................................................................................................4 5
M e th o d s ..............................................................................4 6
R e su lts .................................................................................................................... 5 0
D isc u ssio n .............................................................................................................. 5 2

6 CONCLUSION..................... .........................................65

Rationale for New Approach ..............................................................................65
Synthesis of Current Work and Literature ...............................................................65

G L O S S A R Y ..............................................................................6 7

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S .............................................................................. 74

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................................................................ 79















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

2-1. Descriptions of the model degrees of freedom .............. ........................................15

2-2. Descriptions of the hip joint parameters. ..........................................................16

2-3. Descriptions of the knee joint parameters. ................................... ..........18

2-4. Descriptions of the ankle joint parameters. ............. ............................................ 20

2-5. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) joint parameter and marker distance
errors produced by the phase one optimization and anatomic landmark methods
for three types of movement data. ........................................ ......................... 24

2-6. Comparison of joint parameters predicted by anatomical landmark methods,
phase one optimization involving individual joints separately, and phase one
optimization involving all joints simultaneously. ................. ............... ...........25

2-7. Differences between joint parameters predicted by anatomical landmark
methods and phase one optimizations. ............................... ............................... 26

2-8. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) inertial parameter and pelvis residual load
errors produced by the phase two optimization and anatomic landmark methods
for three types of movement data. ........................................ ......................... 27

2-9 Comparison of inertial parameters predicted by anatomical landmark methods
and phase tw o optim izations. ............................................................................. 28

2-10. Differences between inertial parameters predicted by anatomical landmark
methods and phase two optimizations............................................. ...............29

4-1. Performance results for system identification problem for a 3D kinematic ankle
joint model involving 252 design variables and 1800 objective function
elem en ts............................................................................................... 4 4

4-2. Performance results for movement prediction problem for a 3D full-body gait
model involving 660 design variables and 4100 objective function elements.........44

5-1. Descriptions of cost function weights and phase 3 control parameters. .................54

5-2. Summary of fixed offsets added to normal gait for each prescribed foot path........54









5-3. Comparison of cost function weights and phase 3 control parameters ..................55

5-4. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) errors for tracked quantities for toeout
g ait ............... .. .................................................................5 6

5-5. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) errors for tracked quantities for wide
sta n c e g a it .................................................................5 7

5-6. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) errors for predicted left knee abduction
torque quantities for toeout and wide stance gait. .................................................55















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

2-1. Illustration of the 3D, 14 segment, 27 DOF full-body kinematic model linkage
joined by a set of gimbal, universal, and pin joints ..............................................14

2-2. Illustration of the 3 DOF right hip joint center simultaneously defined in the
pelvis and right femur segments and the 6 translational parameters optimized to
determine the functional hip joint center location .......... ....................................16

2-3. Illustration of the 1 DOF right knee joint simultaneously defined in the right
femur and right tibia segments and the 4 rotational and 5 translational
parameters optimized to determine the knee joint location and orientation.............17

2-4. Illustration of the 2 DOF right ankle joint complex simultaneously defined in the
right tibia, talus, and foot segments and the 5 rotational and 7 translational
parameters optimized to determine the joint locations and orientations ................19

2-5. Illustration of the modified Cleveland Clinic marker set used during static and
dynam ic m otion capture trials. ..... ...................................................................... 21

2-6. Phase one optimization convergence illustration series for the knee joint, where
synthetic markers are blue, model markers are red, and root-mean-square (RMS)
m arker distance error is green. ............................................................................ 22

2-7. Phase two optimization convergence illustration series for the knee joint, where
synthetic masses are blue, model masses are red, and root-mean-square (RMS)
residual pelvis forces and torques are orange and green, respectively.....................23

3-1. Legend of five sample statistics presented by the chosen boxplot convention........36

3-2. Comparison of root-mean-square (RMS) leg joint torques and marker distance
error distributions. ..................................................................... 37

3-3. Comparison of mean leg joint torques and marker distance error distributions. .....38

5-1. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for toeout gait ....................................60

5-2. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for wide stance gait, where original
(blue) is experimental normal gait, simulation (red) is predicted toeout gait, and
final (green) is experimental toeout gait. ..................................... ............... 61









5-3. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for simulated high tibial osteotomy
(H TO ) post-surgery gait. ............................................... ............................... 62

5-4. Comparison of mean (solid black line) plus or minus one standard deviation
(gray shaded area) for experimental left knee abduction torques. .........................63

5-5. Comparison of mean (solid black line) plus or minus one standard deviation
(gray shaded area) for simulated left knee abduction torques..............................64















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELING
TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES

By

Jeffrey A. Reinbolt

May 2006

Chair: Benjamin J. Fregly
Major Department: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Movement related disorders have treatments (e.g., corrective surgeries,

rehabilitation) generally characterized by variable outcomes as a result of subjective

decisions based on qualitative analyses using a one-size-fits-all healthcare approach.

Imagine the benefit to the healthcare provider and, more importantly, the patient, if

certain clinical parameters may be evaluated pre-treatment in order to predict the

post-treatment outcome. Using patient-specific models, movement related disorders may

be treated with reliable outcomes as a result of objective decisions based on quantitative

analyses using a patient-specific approach.

The general objective of the current work is to predict post-treatment outcome

using patient-specific models given pre-treatment data. The specific objective is to

develop a four-phase optimization approach to identify patient-specific model parameters

and utilize the calibrated model to predict functional outcome. Phase one involves

identifying joint parameters describing the positions and orientations of j points within









adjacent body segments. Phase two involves identifying inertial parameters defining the

mass, centers of mass, and moments of inertia for each body segment. Phase three

involves identifying control parameters representing weighted components of joint torque

inherent in different walking movements. Phase four involves an inverse dynamics

optimization to predict function outcome. This work comprises a computational

framework to create and apply patient-specific models to predict clinically significant

outcomes.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Arthritis: The Nation's Leading Cause of Disability

In 1997, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 43

million (or 1 in 6) Americans suffered with arthritis. A 2002 CDC study showed that 70

million (a 63% increase in 5 years; or 1 in 3) Americans have arthritis (CDC, 2003).

Approximately two-thirds of individuals with arthritis are under 65 years old. As the

population ages, the number of people with arthritis is likely to increase significantly.

The most common forms of arthritis are osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia,

and gout. Osteoarthritis of the knee joint accounts for roughly 30% ($25 billion) of the

$82 billion total arthritis costs per year in the United States.

Knee osteoarthritis symptoms of pain and dysfunction are the primary reasons for

total knee replacement (TKR). This procedure involves a resurfacing of bones

surrounding the knee joint. The end of the femur is removed and covered with a metal

implant. The end of the tibia is removed and substituted by a plastic implant. Smooth

metal and plastic articulation replaces the irregular and painful arthritic surfaces.

Approximately 100,000 Medicare patients alone endure TKR procedures each year (Heck

et al., 1998). Hospital charges for unilateral TKR are more than $30,000 and the cost of

bilateral TKR is over $50,000 (Lane et al., 1997).

An alternative to TKR is a more conservative (both economically and surgically)

corrective procedure known as high tibial osteotomy (HTO). By changing the frontal

plane alignment of the tibia with a wedge of bone, a HTO shifts the weight-bearing axis









of the leg, and thus the mechanical stresses, from the diseased portion to the healthy

section of the knee compartment. By transferring the location of mechanical stresses, the

degenerative disease process may be slowed or possibly reversed. The advantages of

HTO are appealing to younger and active patients who receive recommendations to avoid

TKR.

Need for Patient-Specific Simulations

Innovative patient-specific models and simulations would be valuable for

addressing problems in orthopedics and sports medicine, as well as for evaluating and

enhancing corrective surgical procedures (Arnold et al., 2000; Arnold and Delp, 2001;

Chao et al., 1993; Chao and Sim, 1995; Delp et al., 1998; Delp et al., 1996; Delp et al.,

1990; Pandy, 2001). For example, a patient-specific dynamic model may be useful for

planning intended surgical parameters and predicting the outcome of HTO.

The main motivation for developing the following patient-specific dynamic model

and the associated multi-phase optimization approach is to predict the post-surgery peak

internal knee abduction moment in HTO patients. Conventional surgical planning

techniques for HTO involve choosing the amount of necessary tibial angulation from

standing radiographs (or x-rays). Unfortunately, alignment correction estimates from

static x-rays do not accurately predict long-term clinical outcome after HTO (Andriacchi,

1994; Tetsworth and Paley, 1994). Researchers have identified the peak external knee

adduction moment as an indicator of clinical outcome while investigating the gait of

HTO patients (Andriacchi, 1994; Bryan et al., 1997; Hurwitz et al., 1998; Prodromos et

al., 1985; Wang et al., 1990). Currently, no movement simulations (or other methods for

that matter) allow surgeons to choose HTO surgical parameters to achieve a chosen

post-surgery knee abduction moment.









The precision of dynamic analyses is fundamentally associated with the accuracy of

kinematic and kinetic model parameters (Andriacchi and Strickland, 1985; Challis and

Kerwin, 1996; Cappozzo and Pedotti, 1975; Davis, 1992; Holden and Stanhope, 1998;

Holden and Stanhope, 2000; Stagni et al., 2000). Understandably, a model constructed of

rigid links within a multi-link chain and simple mechanical approximations of joints will

not precisely match the human anatomy and function. The model should provide the best

possible agreement to experimental motion data within the bounds of the dynamic model

selected (Sommer and Miller, 1980).

Background

Motion Capture

Motion capture is the use of external devices to capture the movement of a real

object. One type of motion-capture technology is based on a passive optical technique.

Passive refers to markers, which are simply spheres covered in reflective tape, placed on

the object. Optical refers to the technology used to provide 3D data, which involves

high-speed, high-resolution video cameras. By placing passive markers on an object,

special hardware records the position of those markers in time and it generates a set of

motion data (or marker data).

Often motion capture is used to create synthetic actors by capturing the motions of

real humans. Special effects companies have used this technique to produce incredibly

realistic animations in movies such as Star Wars Episode I & II, Titanic, Batman, and

Terminator 2.

Biomechanical Models

Researchers use motion-capture technology to construct biomechanical models of

the human structure. The position of external markers may be used to estimate the









position of internal landmarks such as joint centers. The markers also enable the creation

of individual segment reference frames that define the position and orientation of each

body segment within a Newtonian laboratory reference frame. Marker data collected

from an individual are used to prescribe the motion of the biomechanical model.

Kinematics and Dynamics

Human kinematics is the study of the positions, angles, velocities, and accelerations

of body segments and joints during motion. With kinematic data and mass-distribution

data, one can study the forces and torques required to produce the recorded motion data.

Errors between the biomechanical model and the recorded motion data will inevitably

propagate to errors in the force and torque results of dynamic analyses.

Optimization

Optimization involves searching for the minimum or maximum of an objective

function by adjusting a set of design variables. For example, the objective function may

be the errors between the biomechanical model and the recorded data. These errors are a

function of the model's generalized coordinates and the model's kinematic and kinetic

parameters. Optimization may be used to modify the design variables of the model to

minimize the overall fitness errors and identify a structure that matches the experimental

data very well.














CHAPTER 2
CREATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC MODELS FROM
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOVEMENT DATA USING OPTIMIZATION

Background

Forward and inverse dynamics analyses of gait can be used to study clinical

problems in neural control, rehabilitation, orthopedics, and sports medicine. These

analyses utilize a dynamic skeletal model that requires values for joint parameters (JPs -

joint positions and orientations in the body segments) and inertial parameters (IPs -

masses, mass centers, and moments of inertia of the body segments). If the specified

parameter values do not match the patient's anatomy and mass distribution, then the

predicted gait motions and loads may not be indicative of the clinical situation.

The literature contains a variety of methods to estimate JP and IP values on a

patient-specific basis. Anatomic landmark methods estimate parameter values using

scaling rules developed from cadaver studies (Bell et al., 1990; Churchill et al., 1998;

Inman, 1976; de Leva, 1996). In contrast, optimization methods adjust parameter values

to minimize errors between model predictions and experimental measurements.

Optimizations identifying JP values for three-dimensional (3D) multi-joint kinematic

models have a high computational cost (Reinbolt et al., 2005). Optimizations identifying

IP values without corresponding optimizations identifying JP values have been performed

with limited success for planar models of running, jumping, and kicking motions

(Vaughan et al., 1982).









This study presents a computationally-efficient two-phase optimization approach

for determining patient-specific JP and IP values in a dynamic skeletal model given

experimental movement data to match. The first phase determines JP values that best

match experimental kinematic data, while the second phase determines IP values that best

match experimental kinetic data. The approach is demonstrated by fitting a 3D, 27

degree-of-freedom (DOF), parametric full-body gait model possessing 98 JPs and 84 IPs

to synthetic (i.e., computer generated) and experimental movement data.

Methods

A sample dynamic model is needed to demonstrate the proposed two-phase

optimization approach. For this purpose, a parametric 3D, 27 DOF, full-body gait model

whose equations of motion were derived with the symbolic manipulation software,

AutolevTM (OnLine Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA), was used (Figure 2-1, Table 2-1).

Comparable to Pandy's (2001) model structure, 3 translational and 3 rotational DOFs

express the movement of the pelvis in a Newtonian reference frame and the remaining 13

segments comprised four open chains branching from the pelvis. The positions and

orientations of joint axes within adjacent segment coordinate systems were defined by

unique JPs. For example, the knee joint axis is simultaneously established in the femur

and tibia coordinate systems. These parameters are used to designate the geometry of the

following joint types: 3 DOF hip, 1 DOF knee, 2 DOF ankle, 3 DOF back, 2 DOF

shoulder, and 1 DOF elbow. Each joint provides a simplified mechanical approximation

to the actual anatomic articulations. Anatomic landmark methods were used to estimate

nominal values for 6 hip (Bell et al., 1990), 9 knee (Churchill et al., 1998), and 12 ankle

(Inman, 1976) JPs (Figure 2-2, Table 2-2, Figure 2-3, Table 2-3, Figure 2-4, Table 2-4).

The segment masses, mass centers, and moments of inertia were described by unique IPs.









Anatomic landmark methods were used to estimate nominal values for 7 IPs per segment

(de Leva, 1996).

Parameters defining the structure of the model were referenced to local coordinate

systems fixed in each body segment. These coordinate systems were created from a

static motion capture trial (see below). Markers placed over the left anterior superior

iliac spine (ASIS), right ASIS, and superior sacrum were used to define the pelvis

segment coordinate system (Figure 2-2). From percentages of the inter-ASIS distance, a

nominal hip joint center location was estimated within the pelvis segment (Bell et al.,

1990). This nominal joint center served as the origin of the femur coordinate system,

which was subsequently defined using markers placed over the medial and lateral femoral

epicondyles (Figure 2-2). The tibia coordinate system originated at the midpoint of the

knee markers and was defined by additional markers located on the medial and lateral

malleoli (Figure 2-3). The talus coordinate system was created where the y-axis extends

along the line perpendicular to both the talocrural joint axis and the subtalar joint axis

(Figure 2-4). The heel and toe markers, in combination with the tibia y-axis, defined the

foot coordinate system (Figure 2-4).

Experimental kinematic and kinetic data were collected from a single subject using

a video-based motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA)

and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA). Institutional review board approval and

informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments. As described above, segment

coordinate systems were created from surface marker locations measured during a static

standing pose (Figure 2-5). Unloaded isolated joint motions were performed to exercise

the primary functional axes of each lower extremity joint (hip, knee, and ankle on each









side). For each joint, the subject was instructed to move the distal segment within the

physiological range of motion so as to exercise all DOFs of the joint. Three trials were

done for each joint with all trials performed unloaded. Multiple cycles of standing hip

flexion-extension followed by abduction-adduction were recorded. Similar to Leardini et

al. (1999), internal-external rotation of the hip was avoided to reduce skin and soft tissue

movement artifacts. Multiple cycles of knee flexion-extension were measured. Finally,

multiple cycles of simultaneous ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion and inversion-eversion

were recorded. Gait motion and ground reaction data were collected to investigate

simultaneous motion of all lower extremity joints under load-bearing physiological

conditions.

To evaluate the proposed optimization methodology, two types of synthetic

movement data were generated from the experimental data sets. The first type was

noiseless synthetic data generated by moving the model through motions representative

of the isolated joint and gait experiments. The second type was synthetic data with

superimposed numerical noise to simulate skin and soft tissue movement artifacts. A

continuous noise model of the form A sin(ow t + (p) was used with the following uniform

random parameter values: amplitude (0 < A < 1 cm), frequency (0 < co < 25 rad/s), and

phase angle (0 < p < 27r) (Cheze et al., 1995).

The first phase of the optimization procedure adjusted JP values and model motion

to minimize errors between model and experimental marker locations (Equation 2-1,

Figure 2-6). For isolated joint motion trials, the design variables were 540 B-spline

nodes (q) parameterizing the generalized coordinate trajectories (20 nodes per DOF) and

6 hip, 9 knee, or 12 ankle JPs (pjp). For the gait trial, the number of JPs was reduced to 4









hip, 9 knee, and 4 ankle, due to inaccuracies in determining joint functional axes with

rotations less than 250 (Cheze et al., 1998). The initial value for each B-spline node and

JP was chosen to be zero to test the robustness of the optimization approach. The JP cost

function (ejp) minimized the errors between model (m) and experimental (m) marker

locations for each of the 3 marker coordinates over nm markers and nftime frames. The

JP optimizations were performed with Matlab's nonlinear least squares algorithm (The

Mathworks, Natick, MA).

nf nm 3 2
e = minto[ m= (pjp,q)] (2-1)
Pjq i=1 j=1 k=1

The second phase of the optimization procedure adjusted IP values to minimize the

residual forces and torques acting on a 6 DOF ground-to-pelvis joint (Equation 2-2,

Figure 2-7). Only the gait trial was used in this phase. The design variables for phase

two were a reduced set of 20 IPs (pip 7 masses, 8 centers of mass, and 5 moments of

inertia) accounting for body symmetry and limited joint ranges of motion during gait.

The initial seed for each IP was the nominal value or a randomly altered value within +

50% of nominal. The IP cost function (eip) utilized a combination of pelvis residual

loads (F and T) calculated over all nftime frames and differences between initial (p 'p)

and current (pip) IP values. The residual pelvis forces (F) were normalized by body

weight (BW) and the residual pelvis torques (T) by body weight times height (BW*H). IP

differences were normalized by their respective initial values to create nondimensional

errors. The IP optimizations also were performed with Matlab's nonlinear least squares

algorithm. Once a IP optimization converged, the final IP values were used as the initial









guess for a subsequent IP optimization, with this processing being repeated until the

resulting pelvis residual loads converged.


erp = mim n +--- + (2-2)
PL' =1 =l1 BW ] BW H p ) (


The JP and IP optimization procedures were applied to all three data sets (i.e.,

synthetic data without noise, synthetic data with noise, and experimental data). For

isolated joint motion trials, JPs for each joint were determined through separate

optimizations. For comparison, JPs for all three joints were determined simultaneously

for the gait trial. Subsequently, IPs were determined for the gait trial using the previously

optimum JP values. Root-mean-square (RMS) errors between original and recovered

parameters, marker distances, and pelvis residual loads were used to quantify the

procedure's performance. All optimizations were performed on a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 PC.

Results

For phase one, each JP optimization using noiseless synthetic data precisely

recovered the original marker trajectories and model parameters to within an arbitrarily

tight convergence tolerance (Table 2-5, Table 2-6). For the other two data sets, RMS

marker distance errors were at most 6.62 mm (synthetic with noise) and 4.04 mm

(experimental), which are of the same order of magnitude as the amplitude of the applied

continuous noise model. Differences between experimental data results and anatomic

landmark methods are much larger than differences attributed to noise alone for synthetic

data with noise (Table 2-7). Optimizations involving the isolated joint trial data sets (i.e.,

1200 time frames of data) required between 108 and 380 seconds of CPU time while the

gait trial data set (i.e., 208 time frames of data) required between 70 and 100 seconds of









CPU time. These computation times were orders of magnitude faster than those reported

using a two-level optimization procedure (Reinbolt et al., 2005).

For phase two, each IP optimization using noiseless synthetic data produced zero

pelvis residual loads and recovered the original IP values to within an arbitrarily tight

convergence tolerance (Table 2-8, Table 2-9). For the other two data sets, pelvis residual

loads and IP errors remained small, with a random initial seed producing nearly the same

pelvis residual loads but slightly higher IP errors than when the correct initial seed was

used. Differences between experimental data results and anatomic landmark methods are

small compared to differences attributed to noise and initial seed for synthetic data with

noise (Table 2-10). Required CPU time ranged from 11 to 48 seconds.

Discussion

The accuracy of dynamic analyses of a particular patient depends on the accuracy

of the associated kinematic and kinetic model parameters. Parameters are typically

estimated from anatomic landmark methods. The estimated (or nominal) values may be

improved by formulating a two-phase optimization problem driven by motion capture

data. Optimized dynamic models can provide a more reliable foundation for future

patient-specific dynamic analyses and optimizations.

This study presented a two-phase optimization approach for tuning joint and

inertial parameters in a dynamic skeletal model to match experimental movement data

from a specific patient. For the full-body gait model used in this study, the JP

optimization satisfactorily reproduced patient-specific JP values while the IP

optimization successfully reduced pelvis residual loads while allowing variation in the IP

values away from their initial guesses. The JP and IP values found by this two-phase

optimization approach are only as reliable as the noisy experimental movement data used









as inputs. By optimizing over all time frames simultaneously, the procedure smoothes

out the effects of this noise. An optimization approach that modifies JPs and IPs

simultaneously may provide even further reductions in pelvis residual loads.

It cannot be claimed that models fitted with this two-phase approach will reproduce

the actual functional axes and inertial properties of the patient. This is clear from the

results of the synthetic data with noise, where the RMS errors in the recovered

parameters were not zero. At the same time, the optimized parameters for this data set

corresponded to a lower cost function value in each case than did the nominal parameters

from which the synthetic data were generated. Thus, it can only be claimed that the

optimized model structure provides the best possible fit to the imperfect movement data.

There are differences between phase one and phase two when comparing results for

experimental data to synthetic data with noise. For the JP case, absolute parameter

differences were higher for experimental data compared to synthetic data with noise.

This suggests that noise does not hinder the process of determining JPs. However, for the

IP case, absolute parameter differences were higher for synthetic data with noise

compared to experimental data. In fact, noise is a limiting factor when identifying IPs.

The phase one optimization determined patient-specific joint parameters similar to

previous works. The optimal hip joint center location of 2.94 cm (12.01% posterior), 9.21

cm (37.63% inferior), and 9.09 cm (37.10% lateral) is comparable to 19.30%, 30.40%,

and 35.90%, respectively, of the inter- ASIS distance (Bell et al., 1990). The optimum

femur length (42.23 cm) and tibia length (38.33 cm) are similar to 41.98 cm and 37.74

cm, respectively (de Leva, 1996). The optimum coronal plane rotation (87.36) of the

talocrural joint correlates to 82.7 + 3.70 (range 740 to 940) (Inman, 1976). The optimum









distance (0.58 cm) between the talocrural joint and the subtalar joint is analogous to 1.24

0.29 cm (Bogert et al., 1994). The optimum transverse plane rotation (34.790) and

sagittal plane rotation (31.340) of the subtalar joint corresponds to 23 11 (range 40 to

47) and 42 90 (range 20.50 to 68.50), respectively (Inman, 1976). Compared to

anatomic landmark methods reported in the literature, the phase one optimization reduced

RMS marker distance errors by 17% (hip), 52% (knee), 68% (ankle), and 34% (full leg).

The phase two optimization determined patient-specific inertial parameters similar

to previous work. The optimum masses were within an average of 1.99% (range 0.078%

to 8.51%), centers of mass within range 0.047% to 5.84% (mean 1.58%), and moments of

inertia within 0.99% (0.0038% to 5.09%) from the nominal values (de Leva, 1996).

Compared to anatomic landmark methods reported in the literature, the phase two

optimization reduced RMS pelvis residual loads by 20% (forces) and 8% (torques).

Two conclusions may be drawn from these comparisons. First, the similarities

suggest the results are reasonable and show the extent of agreement with past studies.

Second, the differences between values indicate the extent to which tuning the parameters

to the patient via optimization methods would change their values compared to anatomic

landmark methods. In all cases, the two-phase optimization successfully reduced cost

function values for marker distance errors or pelvis residual loads below those resulting

from anatomic landmark methods.















S23
q 22 ^







/I
q24
(,J


,f


S27
v


49 915

I ^ 8 113
q q13


q6


I~

I 2
I
I
I
I
I


q3
-


S q16













q17

y
-^








', (superior)
q1 q 418


(lateral)
(lateral)


Figure 2-1. Illustration of the 3D, 14 segment, 27 DOF full-body kinematic model linkage
joined by a set of gimbal, universal, and pin joints.


Joint Types


Pin


Universal





Gimbal


q10









q11



q12

"*'* ,

* -


(anterior)










Table 2-1. Descriptions of the model degrees of freedom.

DOF Description

qi Pelvis anterior-posterior position.
q2 Pelvis superior-inferior position.
q3 Pelvis medial-lateral position.
q4 Pelvis anterior-posterior tilt angle.
q5 Pelvis elevation-depression angle.
q6 Pelvis internal-external rotation angle.
q7 Right hip flexion-extension angle.

q8 Right hip adduction-abduction angle.
q9 Right hip internal-external rotation angle.

qio Right knee flexion-extension angle.
qii Right ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion angle.

q12 Right ankle inversion-eversion angle
q13 Left hip flexion-extension angle.
q14 Left hip adduction-abduction angle.
q15 Left hip internal-external rotation angle.
q16 Left knee flexion-extension angle.
q17 Left ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion angle.
q18 Left ankle inversion-eversion angle
q19 Trunk anterior-posterior tilt angle.
q20 Trunk elevation-depression angle.
q21 Trunk internal-external rotation angle.

q22 Right shoulder flexion-extension angle.
q23 Right shoulder adduction-abduction angle.
q24 Right elbow flexion angle.
q25 Left shoulder flexion-extension angle.
q26 Left shoulder adduction-abduction angle.
q27 Left elbow flexion angle.










Y

Pelvis
Optimized P3 z
Hip Joint r -- -
SCenter X~
P4 P2
'P5 p;(


Zj( ; .


Y
(superior)


Z
(lateral)


X
(anterior)


Figure 2-2. Illustration of the 3 DOF right hip joint center simultaneously defined in the
pelvis and right femur segments and the 6 translational parameters optimized
to determine the functional hip joint center location.


Table 2-2. Descriptions of the hip joint parameters.

Hip Joint E
Parameter

pi Anterior-posterior

P2 Superior-inferior 1
p3 Medial-lateral loc<
p4 Anterior-posterior
p5 Superior-inferior 1
P6 Medial-lateral loc<


descriptionn


location in pelvis segment.
location in pelvis segment.
nation in pelvis segment.
location in femur segment.
location in femur segment.
nation in femur segment.


\ r\\



.h






17


Y


Femur X





\P6




-" P2
pp


9 P4

Optimized'- P3
Knee Joint
Center p
P7
Optimized
Knee Joint
Axis Tibia Pg
Z X





Y
(superior)





Z X
(lateral) Lab (anterior)





Figure 2-3. Illustration of the 1 DOF right knee joint simultaneously defined in the right
femur and right tibia segments and the 4 rotational and 5 translational
parameters optimized to determine the knee joint location and orientation.












Table 2-3. Descriptions of the knee joint parameters.

Knee Joint De
Parameter

pi Adduction-abduction

p2 Internal-external rota

p3 Adduction-abduction

p4 Internal-external rota

p5 Anterior-posterior lo

p6 Superior-inferior local

p7 Anterior-posterior lo

ps Superior-inferior local
p9 Medial-lateral locatic


scription


rotation in femur segment.

tion in femur segment.
rotation in tibia segment.

tion in tibia segment.

;ation in femur segment.

ition in femur segment.
;ation in tibia segment.

ition in tibia segment.
in in tibia segment.











Y



Tibia


z
P6







IP7


Center


Figure 2-4. Illustration of the 2 DOF right ankle joint complex simultaneously defined in
the right tibia, talus, and foot segments and the 5 rotational and 7 translational
parameters optimized to determine the joint locations and orientations.


P11




.J


Foot

Z.


Y
(superior)






) Lb
(lateral) Lab (anterior)


c re ,~
ri,











Table 2-4. Descriptions of the ankle joint parameters.

Ankle Joint Des
Des
Parameter

pi Adduction-abduction rotatic

p2 Internal-external rotation of

p3 Internal-external rotation of

p4 Internal-external rotation of
p5 Dorsi-plantar rotation of sut

p6 Anterior-posterior location

p7 Superior-inferior location ol

ps Medial-lateral location of ta

p9 Superior-inferior location ol
plo Anterior-posterior location

pll Superior-inferior location ol

p12 Medial-lateral location of SL


cription


n of talocrural in tibia segment.

talocrural in tibia segment.

subtalar in talus segment.

subtalar in foot segment.
talar in foot segment.

of talocrural in tibia segment.

Stalocrural in tibia segment.

locrural in tibia segment.

Ssubtalar in talus segment.

of subtalar in foot segment.

Ssubtalar in foot segment.

ibtalar in foot segment.










S i
J' d


/"4v





rl r,


-I-





C.:




ii,

f"


;I

I


*.i
C

1to
-*
^6 -^ *


Figure 2-5. Illustration of the modified Cleveland Clinic marker set used during static and
dynamic motion capture trials. Note: the background femur and knee
markers have been omitted for clarity and the medial and lateral markers for
the knee and ankle are removed following the static trial.


p.


y.1
I. '















I









7'
.1 '


anterior


* V

let'


SiC


anterior


Ci


/"
1
.:


Y'I


anterior


*

y/*


anterior


Figure 2-6. Phase one optimization convergence illustration series for the knee joint, where synthetic markers are blue, model markers
are red, and root-mean-square (RMS) marker distance error is green. Given synthetic marker data without noise and a
synthetic knee flexion angle = 900, A) is the initial model knee flexion = 00 and knee joint parameters causing joint
dislocation, B) is the model knee flexion = 300 and improved knee joint parameters, C) is the model knee flexion = 600 and
nearly correct knee joint parameters, and D) is the final model knee flexion = 900 and ideal knee joint parameters.


M


A i


B J


(d


r





























-1'


anterior


Nr


0"


anterior


Ci


N~J


anterior


I


?-i


anterior


Figure 2-7. Phase two optimization convergence illustration series for the knee joint, where synthetic masses are blue, model masses
are red, and root-mean-square (RMS) residual pelvis forces and torques are orange and green, respectively. Given
synthetic kinetic data without noise and a synthetic knee flexion motion, A) is the initial model thigh and shank inertial
parameters, B) is the improved thigh and shank inertial parameters, C) is the nearly correct thigh and shank inertial
parameters, and D) is the final model thigh and shank inertial parameters.


A i


B J


..ii-

b ,



/ri


''ii''

i


-

















Table 2-5. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) joint parameter and marker distance errors produced by the phase one optimization
and anatomic landmark methods for three types of movement data. Experimental data were from isolated joint and gait
motions measured using a video-based motion analysis system with three surface markers per body segment. Synthetic
marker data were generated by applying the experimental motions to a nominal kinematic model with and without
superimposed numerical noise. The isolated joint motions were non-weight bearing and utilized larger joint excursions
than did the gait motion. For the anatomical landmark method, only the optimization involving model motion was
performed since the joint parameters were specified. The individual joint optimizations used isolated joint motion data
while the full leg optimization used gait motion data.

Movement data Method RMS error Hip only Knee only Ankle only Full leg
Marker distances (mm) 9.82e-09 3.58e-08 1.80e-08 2.39e-06
Synthetic without Noise Phase one optimization Orientation parameters () n/a 4.68e-04 6.46e-03 5.45e-03
Position parameters (mm) 4.85e-05 8.69e-04 6.35e-03 1.37e-02

Marker distances (mm) 6.62 5.89 5.43 5.49
Synthetic with Noise Phase one optimization Orientation parameters () n/a 0.09 3.37 3.43
Position parameters (mm) 0.55 0.59 1.21 3.65

Phase one optimization Marker distances (mm) 3.73 1.94 1.43 4.04
Experimentalndmas M r d s ( ) 47 43 44
Anatomical landmarks Marker distances (mm) 4.47 4.03 4.44 6.08














Table 2-6. Comparison of joint parameters predicted by anatomical landmark methods, phase one optimization involving individual
joints separately, and phase one optimization involving all joints simultaneously. Body segment indicates the segment in
which the associated joint parameter is fixed. For a graphical depiction of the listed joint parameters, consult Figure 2,
Figure 3, and Figure 4.

Single joint optimization Full leg optimization
.*Body Anatomical Synthetic Synthetic w
Joint Joint parameter d na l n SyntheticSynthetic Synthetic
segment landmarks without Experimental without Experimental
ois with noise with noise
noise noise
Anterior position (mm) Pelvis -53.88 -53.88 -53.84 -32.62 -53.89 -53.35 -29.41
Superior position (mm) Pelvis -83.26 -83.26 -82.76 -106.53 -83.25 -76.40 -92.15
Hip Lateral position (mm) Pelvis -78.36 -78.36 -79.30 -90.87 -78.36 -79.30 -90.87
Anterior position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 0.49 8.88 -0.01 4.35 27.08
Superior position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 0.47 -25.33 0.02 5.55 -11.59
Lateral position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.46 -18.13 0.00 -0.45 -18.13
Frontal plane orientation () Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -4.39 0.01 -0.33 -7.59
Transverse plane orientation () Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.09 -2.49 0.00 -1.07 -3.96
Frontal plane orientation (0) Shank 4.27 4.27 4.13 -0.15 4.28 3.52 -0.98
Transverse plane orientation () Shank -17.11 -17.11 -17.14 -18.96 -17.11 -18.11 -23.34
Knee Anterior position (mm) Thigh 0.00 0.00 -0.74 3.01 0.00 2.32 10.97
Superior position (mm) Thigh -419.77 -419.77 -420.20 -410.44 -419.79 -425.80 -408.70
Anterior position (mm) Shank 0.00 0.00 -0.18 0.52 0.00 7.63 7.22
Superior position (mm) Shank 0.00 0.00 -0.53 2.68 -0.02 -4.49 10.13
Lateral position (mm) Shank 0.00 0.00 -0.84 -6.79 0.00 -1.63 2.67


Frontal plane orientation ()
Transverse plane orientation ()
Ankle
(talocral) Anterior position (mm)
Superior position (mm)
Lateral position (mm)
Transverse plane orientation ()
Transverse plane orientation ()
Ankle Sagittal plane orientation ()
(subtalar) Superior position (mm)
Anterior position (mm)
Superior position (mm)
Lateral position (mm)


Shank
Shank
Shank
Shank
Shank
Talus
Foot
Foot
Talus
Foot
Foot
Foot


-12.22
0.00
0.00
-377.44
0.00
-35.56
-23.00
42.00
-10.00
93.36
54.53
-6.89


-12.21
0.01
0.01
-377.45
-0.01
-35.56
-23.00
42.00
-10.00
93.36
54.52
-6.89


-16.29
3.84
0.24
-379.20
2.03
-40.56
-23.34
42.59
-9.22
93.95
53.34
-6.06


-11.18
-23.89
4.14
-395.73
7.08
-27.86
-34.79
31.34
-5.77
87.31
39.68
-3.80


-12.22
0.00
0.00
-377.45
0.00
-35.56
-23.00
42.00
10.00
93.36
54.52
-6.89


-12.81
8.79
-2.09
-379.99
2.03
-40.57
-23.34
42.59
-9.22
93.95
53.34
-6.06


-2.64
-18.12
-3.29
-393.29
7.08
-27.86
-34.79
31.34
-5.77
87.31
39.68
-3.80















Table 2-7. Differences between joint parameters predicted by anatomical landmark methods and phase one optimizations. Body
segment indicates the segment in which the associated joint parameter is fixed. For actual joint parameter values, consult
Table 2-6. For a graphical depiction of the listed joint parameters, consult Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.

JointBody Single joint optimization Full leg optimization
Joint Joint parameter Synthetic Experimental Synthetic Experimental
difference difference difference difference
Anterior position (mm) Pelvis 0.03 21.26 0.53 24.47
Superior position (mm) Pelvis 0.51 -23.27 6.86 -8.89
Hip Lateral position (mm) Pelvis -0.94 -12.51 -0.94 -12.51
Anterior position (mm) Thigh 0.49 8.88 4.35 27.08
Superior position (mm) Thigh 0.47 -25.33 5.55 -11.59
Lateral position (mm) Thigh -0.46 -18.13 -0.46 -18.13
Frontal plane orientation () Thigh -0.01 -4.39 -0.33 -7.59
Transverse plane orientation () Thigh -0.09 -2.49 -1.08 -3.96
Frontal plane orientation (0) Shank -0.14 -4.42 -0.76 -5.25
Transverse plane orientation () Shank -0.03 -1.85 -1.01 -6.23
Knee Anterior position (mm) Thigh -0.74 3.01 2.32 10.97
Superior position (mm) Thigh -0.43 9.33 -6.04 11.07
Anterior position (mm) Shank -0.18 0.52 7.64 7.22
Superior position (mm) Shank -0.53 2.68 -4.49 10.13
Lateral position (mm) Shank -0.84 -6.79 -1.63 2.67


Frontal plane orientation ()
Transverse plane orientation ()
Anterior position (mm)
Superior position (mm)
Lateral position (mm)
Transverse plane orientation ()
Transverse plane orientation ()
Sagittal plane orientation ()
Superior position (mm)
Anterior position (mm)
Superior position (mm)
Lateral position (mm)


Shank
Shank
Shank
Shank
Shank
Talus
Foot
Foot
Talus
Foot
Foot
Foot


-4.08 1.04
3.85 -23.89
0.24 4.14
-1.76 -18.29
2.03 7.08
-5.01 7.70
-0.34 -11.79
0.59 -10.66
0.78 4.23
0.59 -6.05
-1.19 -14.85
0.82 3.09


-0.59 9.58
8.79 -18.12
-2.09 -3.29
-2.54 -15.85
2.03 7.08
-5.01 7.70
-0.34 -11.79
0.59 -10.66
0.78 4.23
0.59 -6.05
-1.19 -14.85
0.82 3.09


Ankle
(talocrural)




Ankle
(subtalar)


















Table 2-8. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) inertial parameter and pelvis residual load errors produced by the phase two
optimization and anatomic landmark methods for three types of movement data. Experimental data were from a gait
motion measured using a video-based motion analysis system with three surface markers per body segment. Synthetic
marker data were generated by applying the experimental motion to a nominal kinematic model with and without
superimposed numerical noise.

RMS error
Movement data Method
Force (N) Torque (N*m) Inertia (kg*m2) Mass (kg) Center of mass (m)
Phase 2
Synthetic without Noise optimize n 8.04e-10 2.16e-10 5.13e-13 1.22e-10 7.11e-13
optimization

Synthetic with Noise Phase 2
16.92 4.93 5.67e-03 1.08 6.64e-03
(correct seed) optimization

Synthetic with Noise Phase 2
Synthetic with Noise Phase2 16.960.44 5.240.23 7.45e-021.81e-02 1.330.39 2.16e-022.92e-03
(random seeds) optimization

Phase 2
optim27.89 12.66 n/a n/a n/a
optimization
Experimental
Anatomical
An l 34.81 13.75 n/a n/a n/a
landmarks













Table 2-9 Comparison of inertial parameters predicted by anatomical landmark methods
and phase two optimizations. Body segment indicates the segment in which
the associated inertial parameter is fixed. Direction indicates the means in
which the associated inertial parameter was applied.

Anatomical Synthetic Synthetic with noise
Category Body segment Direction landmarks without Correct Random seeds Experimental
noise seed (10 cases)
Pelvis 7.69 7.69 8.11 6.981.87 7.63
Thigh 9.74 9.74 10.76 11.191.02 8.91
Shank 2.98 2.98 3.25 3.370.39 2.95
Mass (kg) Foot n/a 1.26 1.26 1.37 1.400.29 1.29
Head & trunk 26.99 26.99 23.61 23.881.34 26.82
Upper arm 1.86 1.86 1.82 1.560.49 1.87
Lower arm & hand 1.53 1.53 1.63 1.750.47 1.53
Anterior -9.36e-02 -9.36e-02 -9.63e-02 -1.00e-012.29e-02 -9.33e-02
Pelvis Superior -2.37e-02 -2.37e-02 -2.33e-02 -2.49e-025.44e-03 -2.37e-02
Lateral 0.00 -2.35e-13 6.57e-13 8.06e-134.02e-13 6.07e-13
Anterior 0.00 1.54e-13 4.02e-13 7.76e-132.06e-13 4.86e-13
Thigh Superior -1.68e-01 -1.68e-01 -1.65e-01 -1.58e-011.84e-02 -1.59e-01
Lateral 0.00 -1.49e-14 1.58e-12 2.41e-128.05e-13 8.91e-13
Anterior 0.00 1.22e-14 -5.41e-13 -1.91e-136.20e-13 7.62e-13
Shank Superior -1.72e-01 -1.72e-01 -1.89e-01 -1.89e-014.48e-02 -1.80e-01
Lateral 0.00 6.59e-14 3.15e-13 5.65e-132.72e-13 4.56e-13
Anterior 9.21e-02 9.21e-02 8.73e-02 8.17e-021.90e-02 9.27e-02
Center of
Centr Foot Superior -1.60e-04 -1.60e-04 -4.19e-04 -4.12e-041.19e-04 -1.60e-04
mass (m)
Lateral 0.00 -1.81e-14 1.26e-14 9.35e-148.93e-14 1.85e-14

Anterior 0.00 1.92e-13 -8.33e-13 -8.96e-132.35e-12 8.21e-13
Head & trunk Superior -1.44e-01 -1.44e-01 -1.69e-01 -1.87e-011.38e-02 -1.42e-01
Lateral 0.00 -2.56e-14 1.66e-12 2.34e-127.09e-13 4.45e-13
Anterior 0.00 4.74e-14 -3.21e-13 -2.69e-132.60e-13 6.15e-13
Upper arm Superior -1.84e-01 -1.84e-01 -1.86e-01 -1.95e-014.96e-02 -1.84e-01
Lateral 0.00 -1.79e-14 3.51e-13 4.19e-132.45e-13 7.92e-13
Anterior 0.00 5.59e-14 1.45e-13 2.32e-133.58e-13 9.22e-13
Lower arm & hand Superior -1.85e-01 -1.85e-01 -1.97e-01 -1.89e-014.36e-02 -1.85e-01
Lateral 0.00 -3.85-e14 2.86e-13 4.13e-131.59e-13 7.38e-13
Anterior 6.83e-02 6.83e-02 6.83e-02 6.60e-022.30e-02 6.83e-02
Pelvis Superior 6.22e-02 6.22e-02 6.21e-02 5.98e-021.81e-02 6.22e-02
Lateral 5.48e-02 5.48e-02 5.47e-02 5.25e-021.64e-02 5.48e-02
Anterior 1.78e-01 1.78e-01 1.80e-01 1.67e-015.39e-02 1.78e-01
Thigh Superior 3.66e-02 3.66e-02 3.65e-02 3.71e-021.35e-02 3.66e-02
Lateral 1.78e-01 1.78e-01 1.74e-01 2.06e-015.31e-02 1.78e-01
Anterior 2.98e-02 2.98e-02 2.97e-02 3.06e-021.19e-02 2.98e-02
Shank Superior 4.86e-03 4.86e-03 4.86e-03 4.01e-031.04e-03 4.86e-03
Lateral 2.84e-02 2.84e-02 2.86e-02 2.75e-026.65e-03 2.84e-02
Moment of Anterior 2.38e-03 2.38e-03 2.29e-03 2.27e-036.45e-04 2.38e-03
inertia Foot Superior 4.56e-03 4.56e-03 4.58e-03 4.90e-031.29e-03 4.56e-03
(kg*m2) Lateral 3.08e-03 3.08e-03 2.99e-03 3.02e-036.57e-04 3.08e-03
Anterior 9.51e-01 9.51e-01 9.18e-01 8.96e-013.35e-01 9.51e-01
Head & trunk Superior 2.27e-01 2.27e-01 2.27e-01 1.93e-013.62e-02 2.27e-01
Lateral 8.41e-01 8.41e-01 8.37e-01 9.99e-012.68e-01 8.41e-01
Anterior 1.53e-02 1.53e-02 1.53e-02 1.44e-025.65e-03 1.53e-02
Upper arm Superior 4.71e-03 4.71e-03 4.71e-03 4.57e-031.29e-03 4.71e-03
Lateral 1.37e-02 1.37e-02 1.37e-02 1.56e-023.29e-03 1.37e-02
Anterior 1.97e-02 1.97e-02 1.97e-02 2.06e-024.97e-03 1.97e-02
Lower arm & hand Superior 1.60e-03 1.60e-03 1.60e-03 1.41e-035.02e-04 1.60e-03
Lateral 2.05e-02 2.05e-02 2.04e-02 2.41e-023.78e-03 2.05e-02













Table 2-10.


Differences between inertial parameters predicted by anatomical landmark
methods and phase two optimizations. Body segment indicates the segment
in which the associated joint parameter is fixed. Direction indicates the
means in which the associated inertial parameter was applied. For actual
joint parameter values, consult Table 2-9.


Synthetic differences Experimental
Experimental
Category Body segment Direction Random seeds differences
Correct seed differences
(10 cases)
Pelvis 4.28e-01 -7.01e-011.87 -5.66e-02
Thigh 1.02 1.451.02 -8.29e-01
Shank 2.69e-01 3.89e-013.86e-01 -3.11e-02
Mass (kg) Foot n/a 1.29e-01 1.62e-012.95e-01 3.53e-02
Head and trunk -3.38 -3.111.34 -1.75e-01
Upper arm -4.62e-02 -3.05e-014.85e-01 1.46e-03
Lower arm and hand 1.01e-01 2.15e-014.67e-01 -1.89e-03
Anterior -2.69e-03 -6.51e-032.29e-02 2.30e-04
Pelvis Superior 4.13e-04 -1.24e-035.44e-03 1.12e-05
Lateral 6.57e-13 8.06e-134.02e-13 6.07e-13
Anterior 4.02e-13 7.76e-132.06e-13 4.86e-13
Thigh Superior 3.48e-03 1.01e-021.84e-02 9.81e-03
Lateral 1.58e-12 2.41e-128.05e-13 8.91e-13
Anterior -5.41e-13 -1.91e-136.20e-13 7.62e-13
Shank Superior -1.66e-02 -1.73e-024.48e-02 -7.65e-03
Lateral 3.15e-13 5.65e-132.72e-13 4.56e-13
Anterior -4.83e-03 -1.04e-021.90e-02 6.30e-04
Center of mass
(mn) Foot Superior -5.25e-08 7.39e-061.19e-04 9.50e-13
Lateral 1.26e-14 9.35e-148.93e-14 1.85e-14
Anterior -8.33e-13 -8.96e-132.35e-12 8.21e-13
Head and trunk Superior -2.47e-02 -4.31e-021.38e-02 1.66e-03
Lateral 1.66e-12 2.34e-127.09e-13 4.45e-13
Anterior -3.21e-13 -2.69e-132.60e-13 6.15e-13
Upper arm Superior -2.40e-03 -1.15e-024.96e-02 1.10e-04
Lateral 3.51e-13 4.19e-132.45e-13 7.92e-13
Anterior 1.45e-13 2.32e-133.58e-13 9.22e-13
Lower arm and hand Superior -1.29e-02 -4.21e-034.36e-02 3.70e-04
Lateral 2.86e-13 4.13e-131.59e-13 7.38e-13
Anterior 5.53e-05 -2.24e-032.30e-02 1.95e-04
Pelvis Superior -1.11e-04 -2.41e-031.81e-02 -9.03e-04
Lateral -1.21e-04 -2.28e-031.64e-02 -1.19e-05
Anterior 2.06e-03 -1.14e-025.39e-02 2.86e-03
Thigh Superior -7.14e-05 5.67e-041.35e-02 -1.45e-04
Lateral -4.56e-03 2.73e-025.31e-02 -9.06e-03
Anterior -9.91e-05 8.51e-041.19e-02 -5.98e-04
Shank Superior 6.80e-07 -8.49e-041.04e-03 1.85e-06
Lateral 2.09e-04 -9.19e-046.65e-03 4.15e-04
Anterior -5.94e-07 -1.73e-056.45e-04 -9.07e-08
Moment of
nerti (km) Foot Superior -8.59e-08 3.16e-041.29e-03 -6.41e-07
Lateral 3.06e-06 2.87e-056.57e-04 1.36e-05
Anterior -3.30e-02 -5.56e-023.35e-01 -3.08e-02
Head and trunk Superior -6.15e-04 -3.37e-023.62e-02 -2.87e-03
Lateral -4.13e-03 1.59e-012.68e-01 -1.73e-02
Anterior -1.62e-05 -9.11e-045.65e-03 -1.37e-04
Upper arm Superior -1.79e-07 -4.14e-051.29e-03 -9.40e-07
Lateral -7.90e-07 1.97e-033.29e-03 -1.60e-06
Anterior -1.63e-05 8.91e-044.97e-03 -1.09e-04
Lower arm and hand Superior -8.95e-08 -1.95e-045.02e-04 -7.50e-07
Lateral -5.84e-05 3.59e-033.78e-03 -1.15e-05














CHAPTER 3
EFFECT OF MODEL PARAMETER VARIATIONS ON INVERSE
DYNAMICS RESULTS USING MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS

Background

"One of the most valuable biomechanical variables to have for the assessment of

any human movement is the time history of the moments of force at each joint" (Winter,

1980). There are countless applications involving the investigation of human movement

ranging from sports medicine to pathological gait. In all cases, the moment of force, or

torque, at a particular joint is a result of several factors: muscle forces, muscle moment

arms, ligament forces, contact forces due to articular surface geometry, positions and

orientations of axes of rotation, and inertial properties of body segments. A common

simplification is muscles generate the entire joint torque by assuming ligament forces are

insignificant and articular contact forces act through a chosen joint center (Challis and

Kerwin, 1996). Individual muscle forces are estimated from resultant joint torques often

computed by inverse dynamics analyses. In the end, inverse dynamics computations

depend upon chosen model parameters, namely positions and orientations of joint axes

parameters (JPs) and inertial property parameters (IPs) of body segments.

The literature contains a variety of methods investigating the sensitivity of inverse

dynamics torques to JPs and IPs. Two elbow joint torques were analyzed during a

maximal speed dumbbell curl motion as one or more parameters were changed by the

corresponding estimated uncertainty value up to 10mm for joint centers and 10% for

inertial properties (Challis and Kerwin, 1996). The knee flexion-extension torque has









been studied for multiple walking speeds while changing the knee center location by

10mm in the anterior-posterior direction (Holden and Stanhope, 1998). Hip forces and

torques have been examined for gait as planar leg inertial properties were individually

varied over nine steps within 40% (Pearsall and Costigan, 1999). Knee forces and

torques were evaluated for a planar harmonic oscillating motion as inertial properties

varied by 5% (Andrews and Mish, 1996). Directly related to knee joint torque, knee

kinematics were investigated during gait when the rotation axes varied by 100 (Croce et

al., 1996).

This study performs a series of Monte Carlo analyses relating to inverse dynamics

using instantiations of a three-dimensional (3D) full-body gait model with isolated and

simultaneous variations of JP and IP values. In addition, noise parameter (NP) variations

representing kinematic noise were implemented separately. Uniform distribution of each

parameter was chosen within bounds consistent with previous studies. Subsequently,

kinematics were identified by optimizing the fitness of the model motion to the

experimental motion. The number of instantiations was sufficient for convergence of

inverse dynamics torque values.

Methods

Experimental kinematic and kinetic gait data were collected from a single subject

using a video-based motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa,

CA) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA). Institutional review board approval

and informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments.

A parametric 3D, 27 degree-of-freedom (DOF), full-body gait model (Figure 2-1,

Table 2-1) was constructed, whose equations of motion were derived with the symbolic

manipulation software, AutolevTM (OnLine Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA). The pelvis was









connected to ground via a 6 DOF joint and the remaining 13 segments comprised four

open chains branching from the pelvis. The positions and orientations of joint axes

within adjacent segment coordinate systems were defined by unique JPs. The segment

masses, mass centers, and moments of inertia were described by unique IPs. Anatomic

landmark methods were used to estimate nominal values for 84 IPs (de Leva, 1996) and

98 JPs (Bell et al., 1990, Churchill et al., 1998, Inman, 1976). Select model parameters

were identified via optimization as described previously in Chapter 2 (Reinbolt and

Fregly, 2005).

A series of Monte Carlo analyses relating to inverse dynamics were performed

using instantiations the full-body gait model with isolated and simultaneous variations of

JP and IP values within 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the associated maximum.

Uniform distribution of each parameter was chosen within bounds consistent with

previous studies. Joint center locations were bounded by a maximum of 10mm (Challis

and Kerwin, 1996, Holden and Stanhope, 1998). Joint axes orientations were bounded by

a maximum of 100 (Croce et al., 1996). Inertial properties were bounded by a

maximum of 10% of their original values (Andrews and Mish, 1996, Challis and

Kerwin, 1996, Pearsall and Costigan, 1999). New kinematics were identified by

optimizing the fitness of the model motion to the experimental motion similar to Chapter

2 (Reinbolt et al., 2005). The number of instantiations (e.g., 5000) was sufficient for

convergence of inverse dynamics torque values. The mean and coefficient of variance

(100*SD/mean) of all joint torques were within 2% of the final mean and coefficient of

variance, respectively, for the last 10% of instantiations (Fishman, 1996, Valero-Cuevas

et al., 2003).









A separate set of Monte Carlo inverse dynamics analyses were performed with

variations of NP values within 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the maximum. The NP

represent the amplitude of simulated skin movement artifacts. The relative movement

between skin and underlying bone occurs in a continuous rather than a random fashion

(Cappozzo et al., 1993). Comparable to the simulated skin movement artifacts of Lu and

O'Connor (1999), a continuous noise model of the form A sin(cot + (p) was used with the

following uniform random parameter values: amplitude (0 < A < 1 cm), frequency (0 < co

< 25 rad/s), and phase angle (0 < p < 27t) (Cheze et al., 1995). Noise was separately

generated for each 3D coordinate of the marker trajectories.

Similar to the lower-body focus of Chapter 2, the distributions from each Monte

Carlo analysis were compared for the left leg joint torque errors and marker distance

errors (e.g., difference between model markers for the inverse dynamics simulation and

true synthetic data cases).

Results

The distributions of mean inverse dynamics results are best summarized using a

boxplot presenting five sample statistics: the minimum (or 10th percentile), the lower

quartile (or 25th percentile), the median (or 50th percentile), the upper quartile (or 75th

percentile) and the maximum (or 90th percentile) (Figure 3-1).

RMS and mean hip torque errors were computed in the flexion-extension,

abduction-adduction, and internal-external rotation directions (Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3).

Mostly due to JPs, the hip flexion-extension and abduction-adduction torques showed

more variation than the internal-external rotation torque. The IPs had insignificant effect

on range of hip torques. The NPs had slightly larger effects compared to IPs. The









distributions of torques were reduced by attenuating the model fitness based on

percentages of parameter bounds.

RMS and mean knee torque errors were computed in the flexion-extension and

abduction-adduction directions (Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3). Similar to the corresponding hip

directions, the knee torques have larger spans for the abduction-adduction direction

compared to the flexion-extension direction. The NPs had slightly larger effects

compared to IPs. The JPs had much more effect on knee torques compared to the IPs.

For the IPs case, the flexion-extension torque varied slightly more than the

abduction-adduction torque. The breadth of knee torques decreased with attenuated

percentages of parameter bounds.

RMS and mean ankle torque errors were computed in the

plantarflexion-dorsiflexion and inversion-eversion directions (Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3).

The inversion-eversion torque displayed a broader distribution compared to the

plantarflexions-dorsiflexion torque. The IPs had much less effect on ankle torque

distributions compared to JPs. The NPs had slightly larger effects compared to IPs. The

attenuated percentages of parameter bounds condensed the spread for both torques.

RMS and mean marker distance errors were computed between the inverse

dynamics simulation and synthetic data (Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3). The IPs showed marker

distance errors equal to zero since true kinematics were used as inputs. The NPs

represented marker distance errors consistent with the chosen numerical noise model.

The JPs had the largest effect on marker distance error distributions.

Discussion

This study examined the distribution of inverse dynamics torques for a 3D

full-body gait model using a series of Monte Carlo analyses simultaneously varying JPs









and IPs. It is well established that joint torque data is one of the most valuable quantities

for the biomechanical investigation of human movement. As evident in the literature,

investigators are concerned with the sensitivity of inverse dynamics results to

uncertainties in JPs and IPs (Challis and Kerwin, 1996, Holden and Stanhope, 1998,

Pearsall and Costigan, 1999, Andrews and Mish, 1996, Croce et al., 1996). Assuming

parameter independence and adjusting a single parameter at a time may underestimate the

resulting effect of the parameter variation. Specifically concerning IPs, adjusting one

type of segment parameter may change the other two types. Similar to all Monte Carlo

analyses assuming parameter independence, the resulting distributions may in fact be

overestimated. A more diverse assortment of full-body models are being simulated by

not explicitly requiring particular body segment geometries. Nevertheless, implementing

an optimization approach to maximize the fitness of the model to the experiment through

determination of patient-specific JPs and IPs reduces the uncertainty of inverse dynamics

results.






















1 -







-1


36




I
90th percentile


.75th percentile




=t-50th percentile
(95% confidence notch)



.- 25th percentile



- 10th percentile


I
All Instantiations


Figure 3-1. Legend of five sample statistics presented by the chosen boxplot convention.








_1.-----
12



8.


12
I 8






m 8
4


12
.r







<1/'12 ---------------
0



12

I

4
i
12


12-----------
8a
U))'
<0^
HJ ^ ^


25 50 75 100
IP Bounds (%)


Figure 3-2. Comparison of root-mean-square (RMS) leg joint torques and marker distance
error distributions. First column contains distributions from varying only
joint parameters (JP). Second column contains distributions from varying
only inertial parameters (IP). Third column contains distributions from
varying both JPs and IPs. Fourth column contains distributions from vary
only the noise amplitude parameter (NP).


l~rli



I__=~






I__-~



I___~






I____


I


I~













I0


-3
3
3oi-- ------------
i
-g





3
3i---------------








o



31
3














IL


0
Z


o



3





0,



-3






E 24
12
if ^ ^
I-


':' 25 50 75 100
i n :.u,-n: IP Bounds (%)


I~


25 50 75 100
JP and IP Bounds (%)


Figure 3-3. Comparison of mean leg joint torques and marker distance error distributions.
First column contains distributions from varying only joint parameters (JP).
Second column contains distributions from varying only inertial parameters
(IP). Third column contains distributions from varying both JPs and IPs.
Fourth column contains distributions from vary only the noise amplitude
parameter (NP).


25 50 75 100
NP Bounds (%)














CHAPTER 4
BENEFIT OF AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION
FOR BIOMECHANICAL OPTIMIZATIONS

Background

Optimization algorithms are often used to solve biomechanical system

identification or movement prediction problems employing complicated

three-dimensional (3D) musculoskeletal models (Pandy, 2001). When gradient-based

methods are used to solve large-scale problems involving hundreds of design variables,

the computational cost of performing repeated simulations to calculate finite difference

gradients can be extremely high. In addition, as 3D movement model complexity

increases, there is a considerable increase in the computational expense of repeated

simulations. Frequently, in spite of advances in processor performance, optimizations

remain limited by computation time.

Both speed and robustness of gradient-based optimizations are dramatically

improved by using an analytical Jacobian matrix (all first-order derivatives of dependent

objective function variables with respect to independent design variables) rather than

relying on finite difference approximations. The objective function may involve

thousands or perhaps millions of lines of computer code, so the task of computing

analytical derivatives by hand or even symbolically may prove impractical. For more

than eight years, the Network Enabled Optimization Server (NEOS) at Argonne National

Laboratory has been using Automatic Differentiation (AD), also called Algorithmic

Differentiation, to compute Jacobians of remotely supplied user code (Griewank, 2000).









AD is a technique for computing derivatives of arbitrarily complex computer programs

by mechanical application of the chain rule of differential calculus. AD exploits the fact

every computer program, no matter how complicated, executes a sequence of elementary

arithmetic operations. By applying the chain rule repeatedly to these operations,

derivatives can be computed automatically and accurately to working precision.

This study evaluates the benefit of using AD methods to calculate analytical

Jacobians for biomechanical optimization problems. For this purpose, a freely-available

AD package, Automatic Differentiation by OverLoading in C++ (ADOL-C) (Griewank et

al., 1996), was applied to two biomechanical optimization problems. The first is a

system identification problem for a 3D kinematic ankle joint model involving 252 design

variables and 1800 objective function elements. The second is a movement prediction

problem for a 3D full-body gait model involving 660 design variables and 4100 objective

function elements. Both problems are solved using a nonlinear least squares optimization

algorithm.

Methods

Experimental kinematic and kinetic data were collected from a single subject using

a video-based motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA)

and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA). Institutional review board approval and

informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments.

The ankle joint problem was first solved without AD using the Matlab (The

Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA) nonlinear least squares optimizer as in Chapter 2 (Reinbolt

and Fregly, 2005). The optimization approach simultaneously adjusted joint parameter

values and model motion to minimize errors between model and experimental marker









locations. The ankle joint model possessed 12 joint parameters and 12

degrees-of-freedom. Each of the 12 generalized coordinate curves was parameterized

using 20 B-spline nodal points (240 total). Altogether, there were 252 design variables.

The problem contained 18 error quantities for each of the 100 time frames of data. The

Jacobian matrix consisted of 1800 rows and 252 columns estimated by finite difference

approximations.

The movement prediction problem was first solved without AD using the same

Matlab nonlinear least squares optimizer (Fregly et al., 2005). The optimization

approach simultaneously adjusted model motion and ground reactions to minimize knee

adduction torque and 5 categories of tracking errors (foot path, center of pressure, trunk

orientation, joint torque, and fictitious ground-to-pelvis residual reactions) between

model and experiment. The movement prediction model possessed 27

degrees-of-freedom (21 adjusted by B-spline curves and 6 prescribed for arm motion) and

12 ground reactions. Each adjustable generalized coordinate and reaction curve was

parameterized using 20 B-spline nodal points (660 total design variables). The problem

contained 41 error quantities for each of the 100 time frames of data. The Jacobian

matrix consisted of 4100 rows and 660 columns estimated by finite difference

approximations.

ADOL-C was incorporated into each objective function to compute an analytical

Jacobian matrix. This package was chosen because the objective functions were

comprised of Matlab mex-files, which are dynamic link libraries of compiled C or C++

code. ADOL-C was implemented into the C++ source code by the following steps:









1. Mark the beginning and end of active section (portion computing dependent
variables from independent variables) using built-in functions trace on and
trace off, respectively.

2. Select a set of active variables (those considered differentiable at some point in the
program execution) and change type from double to built-in type double.

3. Define a set of independent variables using the output stream operator (<<=).

4. Define a set of dependent variables using the input stream operator (>>=).

5. Call the built-in driver function j acobian to compute first-order derivatives
using reverse mode AD.

6. Compile the code including built-in header file adolc .h and linking with built-in
library file adolc. lib.

All optimizations with and without AD were performed on a 1.73 GHz Pentium M laptop

with 2.00 GB of RAM. The computation time performance was compared.

Results

For each problem, performance comparisons of optimizing with and without AD

are summarized in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. The use of AD increased the computation

time per objective function evaluation. However, the number of function evaluations

necessary per optimization iteration was far less with AD. For the system identification

problem, the computation time required per optimization iteration with AD was

approximately 20.5% (or reduced by a factor of 4.88) of the time required without AD.

For the movement prediction problem, the computation time required per optimization

iteration with AD was approximately 51.1% (or reduced by a factor of 1.96) of the time

required without AD. Although computation times varied with and without AD, the

optimization results remained virtually identical.









Discussion

The main motivation for investigating the use of AD for biomechanical

optimizations was to improve computational speed of obtaining solutions. Speed

improvement for the movement prediction optimization in particular was not as

significant as anticipated. Further investigation is necessary to determine the effect of

AD characteristics such as forward mode vs. reverse mode and source code

transformation vs. operator overloading on computational speed. Whichever AD method

is used, having analytical derivatives eliminates inaccurate search directions and

sensitivity to design variable scaling which can plague optimizations that use finite

difference gradients. If central (more accurate) instead of forward differencing was used

in the movement prediction optimization without AD, the performance improvement

would have been a factor of four instead of two.

Special dynamics formulations can also be utilized to compute analytical

derivatives concurrently while evaluating the equations of motion, and the trade-offs

between those approaches and AD require further investigation. While AD-based

analytical derivatives may be less efficient computationally than those derived using

special dynamics formulations, AD provides effortless updating of the derivative

calculations should the biomechanical model used in the optimization be changed.

For large-scale problems, AD provides a relatively simple means for computing

analytical derivatives to improve the speed of biomechanical optimizations.










Table 4-1. Performance results for system identification problem for a 3D kinematic
ankle joint model involving 252 design variables and 1800 objective function
elements.


Performance Criteria

Time per Function Evaluation (s)

Number of Function Evaluations per Optimization Iteration

Time per Optimization Iteration (s)


Without AD

0.0189

252

4.77


Table 4-2. Performance results for movement prediction problem for a 3D full-body gait
model involving 660 design variables and 4100 objective function elements.

Performance Criteria Without AD With AD

Time per Function Evaluation (s) 0.217 73.1

Number of Function Evaluations per Optimization Iteration 660 1

Time per Optimization Iteration (s) 143 73.1


With AD

0.978

1

0.978














CHAPTER 5
APPLICATION OF PATIENT-SPECIFIC DYNAMIC
MODELS TO PREDICT FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES

Background

Imagine the benefit to the healthcare provider and, more importantly, the patient, if

certain clinical parameters may be evaluated pre-treatment in order to predict the

post-treatment outcome. For example, a patient-specific dynamic model may be useful

for planning intended surgical parameters and predicting the outcome of HTO.

Researchers have identified the peak external knee adduction torque as an indicator of

clinical outcome while investigating the gait of HTO patients (Andriacchi, 1994; Bryan et

al., 1997; Hurwitz et al., 1998; Prodromos et al., 1985; Wang et al., 1990). Currently, no

movement simulations (or other methods for that matter) allow surgeons to choose HTO

surgical parameters to achieve a chosen post-surgery knee adduction torque.

There are a few gait studies evaluating effects of kinematic changes on the knee

adduction torque. One study examined the effects of increased foot progression angle, or

toeout gait, on minimizing knee adduction torque during walking, stair ascent, and stair

descent (Manal and Guo, 2005). Another study investigated the minimization of knee

adduction torque by changing lower-body kinematics without changing foot path during

gait (Fregly et al., 2005). No computational framework is available to perform a virtual

HTO surgery and predict the resulting knee adduction torque.

This study presents the development and application of an inverse dynamics

optimization approach to predict novel patient-specific gait motions, such as gait









following HTO surgery and the resulting internal knee abduction torque. To further tailor

the kinematic and kinetic model developed in Chapter 2, response surface (RS) methods

are used to determine weights for a cost function specific to the patient and movement

task, comprising phase three of the optimization procedure. Other biomechanical studies

(Chang et al., 1999, Hong et al., 2001) have used RS optimization methods, but this

study is the first to perform inverse dynamic optimizations of gait. To increase the speed

and robustness of optimizations, automatic differentiation (AD) is used to compute

analytic derivatives of the inverse dynamics optimization objective function.

Methods

Experimental kinematic and kinetic gait data were collected from a single subject

using a video-based motion analysis system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa,

CA) and two force plates (AMTI, Watertown, MA). Institutional review board approval

and informed consent were obtained prior to the experiments. Normal gait data was

recorded to calibrate the patient-specific model parameters as described in Chapter 2.

Toeout, or increased foot progression angle, gait data was gathered to calibrate the

patient-specific control parameters. Wide stance gait data was collected to evaluate the

calibrated model.

A parametric 3D, 27 degree-of-freedom (DOF), full-body gait model (Figure 2-1,

Table 2-1) was constructed, whose equations of motion were derived with the symbolic

manipulation software, AutolevTM (OnLine Dynamics, Sunnyvale, CA). The pelvis was

connected to ground via a 6 DOF joint and the remaining 13 segments comprised four

open chains branching from the pelvis. Anatomic landmark methods were used to

estimate nominal values for 84 inertial parameters (de Leva, 1996) and 98 joint

parameters (Bell et al., 1990, Churchill et al., 1998, Inman, 1976). Select model









parameters were identified via optimization as described previously in Chapter 2

(Reinbolt and Fregly, 2005).

The inverse dynamics optimization procedure adjusted model motion and ground

reactions to minimize errors between model and experimental, or prescribed, quantities to

be tracked (Equation 5-1). Specifically, the design variables were 660 B-spline nodes (q,

r) parameterizing the generalized coordinate (q's) trajectories and ground reaction (r's)

data (20 nodes per curve). The initial value for each B-spline node was chosen to be the

corresponding value from normal gait. The inverse dynamics optimization cost function

predictt outcome) minimized the weighted (Equation 5-2, Equation 5-3, Table 5-1) tracking

errors summed over the number of time frames (nf) for the following quantities: 6 DOFs

for each prescribed foot path (qfoot), 2 transverse plane translations for pelvis (qpeivs,), 3

DOFs for trunk orientation (qtrunk), 2 transverse plane translations for center of pressure

for each foot (CoPfoot), 3 residual pelvis forces (Fpe ivs), 3 residual pelvis torques (Tpeivis),

and leg joint torques (Tleg). The inverse dynamics optimizations were performed with

Matlab's nonlinear least squares algorithm (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) using

analytical Jacobians computed by AD.

2 6 2 3
w1 (Aoot ) + w2 (Ae,. )+ W3 (Aqu +
=l1 k=l =l1 =l1
nf 2 2 3
predict =mm w4 (ACoot)yk +W5 p(A elvis +ATpelvs) + (5-1)
outcome qr 1 j=1 k=l J1
6 2
S[AT (pcp
J=1 k=1


PCP= [6 W7 W8 W9 W10 Wll]


(5-2)









ATle (pcp) = w6 hp + 7AThp, + w8ATh, +
flexion adduction rotation (53)
(5-3)
w9ATknee + WloATtalocrural + wTubtalar
flexlon dorsiflexlon inversion

Before predicting outcomes with the inverse dynamics optimization, the phase 3

optimization calibrated the 6 control parameters, or w6 w11 (Equation 5-2, Equation 5-3,

Table 5-1), to the patient's toe out gait motion. Each prescribed foot path was the only

tracked quantity which was not experimentally measured beforehand. For 3 DOFs, fixed

offsets (Table 5-2) were defined to approximate the predicted toeout foot path without

using the exact foot path. All other tracked quantities involved the experimentally

measured normal gait motion. A computationally efficient optimization was developed

using RS methods to determine how well the simulated knee abduction torque matched

the experimental knee abduction torque for toeout gait. Response surfaces were

developed to approximate the knee abduction torque predicted by the model for various

control parameter weights. A separate quadratic RS was created for each time frame of

torque data (125 response surfaces) predicted by the model where the 6 control parameter

weights were treated as design variables. Although separate response surface were

constructed, the correlation coefficients between them was not computed. Each quadratic

RS required solution of 28 unknown polynomial coefficients. A Hammersley

Quasirandom Sequence was used to generate 64 sampled data points within the bounds of

0 to 10 for the 6-dimensional space. The RS coefficients were then determined via a

linear least squares fit in Matlab (The Mathworks, Natick, MA). Using the response

surfaces as surrogates for repeated inverse dynamic optimizations, an optimization

problem was formulated to minimize errors between model predicted knee abduction

torque and experimentally realized abduction torque for toeout gait. A Hammersley









Quasirandom Sequence was used to generate 1000 initial seed points within the bounds

of 0 to 10 for the 6-dimensional space. The 6 control parameters resulting in the lowest

cost function value were used. The kinematic and kinetic changes for the left leg were

compared.

The calibrated model was evaluated by predicting wide stance gait. Similar to

toeout gait, fixed offsets (Table 5-2) were defined for 3 DOFs to approximate the

predicted wide stance foot path without using the exact foot path. Again, all other

tracked quantities involved the experimentally measured normal gait motion. The

kinematic and kinetic changes for the left leg were compared.

The calibrated model was applied to predict the outcome of HTO surgery. All

tracked quantities involved the experimentally measured normal gait motion, including

the prescribed foot path (e.g., all foot path offsets equaled zero). The virtual HTO

surgery was performed as a lateral opening wedge osteotomy. The anterior-posterior axis

of rotation was located 10 cm inferior and 5 cm lateral to the midpoint of the

transepicondylar axis. The sensitivity of the knee abduction torque to the extent, or

wedge angle, of the virtual HTO surgery was illustrated in for 3, 5, and 7.

To demonstrate the effects of prior calibrating optimizations which determined

joint parameters (phase one from Chapter 2) and inertial parameters (phase two from

Chapter 2), the entire process of creation and application of patient-specific dynamic

models was repeated for three additional cases: 1) phase three only (or without phase one

or two), 2) phases one and three, and 3) phases two and three. The intermediate

calibration and final evaluation effects on knee abduction torque results were compared.









Results

Using the response surfaces as surrogates for repeated inverse dynamic

optimizations using the model calibrated with phases one, two, and three, the

optimization determined control parameters (Table 5-3) that minimized errors between

model predicted knee abduction torque and experimentally obtained torque for toeout gait

with 0.08 % body weight times height (BW*H) and 0.18 %BW*H errors for 1st and 2nd

peaks, respectively (RMS for entire cycle = 0.14 %BW*H) (Figure 5-1, Table 5-4).

Changes for hip torques were matched well (RMS = 0.48 %BW*H) with the exception a

minor deviation (2.82 %BW*H) in the hip flexion-extension torque at the beginning of

the cycle. Knee flexion-extension torque changes were matched with an RMS difference

of 0.22 %BW*H. Both ankle torques remained close to the initial normal gait values

(RMS = 0.02 %BW*H) without matching the small changes for toeout gait (RMS = 0.48

%BW*H). Overall changes for hip joint angles were matched (RMS = 4.110) with the

exception of internal-external rotation angle (max = 9.540 at 7% of cycle). The knee

flexion-extension angle remained more flexed than necessary (RMS = 2.690, max = 3.880

at 16% of cycle). Both ankle joint angles generally matched the changes well (RMS =

3.580), but deviations were seen near 60% of cycle with a maximum of 9.670. Other

tracked quantities demonstrated good agreement (Table 5-5). All kinematic and kinetic

differences are summarized in Table 5-7.

Using the control parameters tuned with toeout gait for the model calibrated with

phases one, two, and three, the optimization predicted knee abduction torque for wide

stance with RMS of 0.23 %BW*H (0.03 %BW*H and 0.11 %BW*H errors for 1st and

2nd peaks, respectively) (Figure 5-2, Table 5-4). Changes for hip torques were matched

well (RMS = 0.46 %BW*H) with the exception a minor deviations (1.54 %BW*H at 4%









of cycle and 3.27 %BW*H at 100% of cycle) in the hip flexion-extension torque. Knee

flexion-extension torque changes were matched with an RMS difference of 0.39

%BW*H. Both ankle torques remained close to the initial normal gait values (RMS =

0.008 %BW*H) without matching the small changes for wide stance gait (RMS = 0.36

%BW*H). Overall changes for hip joint angles were matched (RMS = 3.130) with the

maximum difference (7.81 %BW*H) occurring at 86% of cycle for the hip

flexion-extension angle. The knee flexion-extension angle remained more extended than

necessary (RMS = 3.060, max = 3.310 at 76% of cycle, or 2nd peak). Both ankle joint

angles generally matched the changes satisfactorily (RMS = 5.180), but deviations were

demonstrated near the end of cycle for both talocrural (max = 11.51 at 90% of cycle)

and subtalar angles (max = 11.420 at 100% of cycle). Other tracked quantities

demonstrated good agreement (Table 5-6). All kinematic and kinetic differences are

summarized in Table 5-8.

There were noticeable effects when using dynamic models created without phase

one or phase two of the optimization procedure. The resulting control parameters from

phase three varied widely (Table 5-3). The predicted knee abduction torque for toeout

gait showed considerable differences using models without phase one included, while the

model prediction including phases one and three was comparable to the model with

phases one, two, and three (Figure 5-1, Table 5-4). For wide stance gait, the knee

abduction torque was not predicted well when using models without phase one, but the

prediction including phases one and three showed some improvement (Figure 5-2, Table

5-4). In all cases, tracked quantities demonstrated good agreement (Table 5-5, Table

5-6). Concerning the virtual HTO, the sensitivities to wedge angle showed the expected









incremental reductions in knee abduction torque for only those models including phases

one and three or phases one, two, and three (Figure 5-3). The differences in dynamic

models created from different portions of the multi-phase optimization approach led to

variations in the computed knee abduction torques for experimental and simulated data

(Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5).

Discussion

The main motivation for developing a patient-specific inverse dynamics

optimization approach is to predict novel patient-specific gait motions (e.g., subtle gait

changes and HTO post-surgery gait). Toeout gait was successfully used to tune

patient-specific control parameters. Wide stance gait predictions match the experiment

rather well. The response surface approach greatly increased the computation efficiency

of determining the control parameters.

The current approach has several limitations. A pin joint knee model was chosen to

represent the flexion-extension motion that dominates other knee motions during gait. A

rigid foot model without ground contact model was selected to increase the

computational speed and exploit the ability to prescribe a desired foot path for the inverse

dynamics optimization. A few kinematic and kinetic quantities were not predicted as

well as others. Selection of tracking term weights is subjective and was performed in a

manner to constrain the foot paths alone and track the other quantities. The control

parameters identified during phase 3 depend on the weights chosen for the tracking terms.

Although referred to as control parameters (joint torque = control), the cost function

weights do not have an obvious physical explanation tied to neural control strategies.

It cannot be claimed that predictions made with this multi-phase approach will

reproduce the actual functional outcome for every patient and every data set. This is









clear from the calibration results for toeout gait and the evaluation results for wide stance

gait, where the RMS errors in the knee abduction torque predictions were not zero. At

the same time, the predicted curves matched the 1st and 2nd peaks well. Thus, it can only

be claimed that the optimized model structure provides the best possible prediction given

the imperfect movement data inputs.

For the model calibrated with phase one and two, the optimization predictions for

virtual HTO surgeries showed sensitivities in agreement with previous clinical studies

(Bryan et al., 1997, Wada et al., 1998) (Figure 5-3). For the 30 case, the knee abduction

torque was reduced by 0.78 %BW*H and 0.71 %BW*H for the 1st and 2nd peaks,

respectively. Bryan et al. (1997) showed an approximately 1.1 %BW*H (slightly higher

than optimization prediction) decrease for 30 of change. For the 50 case, the knee

abduction torque was reduced by 0.95 %BW*H and 1.26 %BW*H for the 1st and 2nd

peaks, respectively. Bryan et al. (1997) showed an approximately 1.2 %BW*H (very

similar to optimization prediction) decrease for 50 of change. For the 70 case, the knee

abduction torque was reduced by 1.23 %BW*H and 1.74 %BW*H for the 1st and 2nd

peaks, respectively. Bryan et al. (1997) showed an approximately 1.5 %BW*H (slightly

lower than optimization prediction) decrease for 70 of change.

Cost function weights calibrated to a particular gait motion accurately predict

several kinematic and kinetic quantities for a different gait motion. Further investigation

is necessary to determine the efficacy of the predictions for HTO. It would be

advantageous to create patient-specific models and predictions for a population of HTO

patients pre-surgery and compare with post-surgery outcome. Examination of different

gaits (e.g., normal and pathological) requires future study as well.










Table 5-1. Descriptions of cost function weights and phase 3 control parameters.

Weight Description

wi Scale factor for tracking foot paths

W2 Scale factor for tracking pelvis transverse plane translations
W3 Scale factor for tracking trunk orientations
W4 Scale factor for tracking center of pressure translations
W5 Scale factor for tracking residual pelvis forces and torques
W6 Control parameter for tracking hip flexion-extension torque
W7 Control parameter for tracking hip adduction-abduction torque
w8 Control parameter for tracking hip internal-external torque
W9 Control parameter for tracking knee flexion-extension torque

wlo Control parameter for tracking talocrural dorsiflexion-plantarflexion torque
wil Control parameter for tracking subtalar inversion-eversion torque


Table 5-2. Summary of fixed offsets added to normal gait for each prescribed foot path.

Offset Side Toeout Gait Wide Stance Gait
Right 41.78 -5.26
Anterior Translation (mm)
Left 21.23 -3.50
Right -28.45 62.57
Lateral Translation (mm)
Left -34.86 42.18
Right -15.79 -0.75
Transverse Plane Rotation () Right
Left 13.12 -0.29











Table 5-3. Comparison of cost function weights and phase 3 control parameters.

Phases 1, 2,
Weight Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 '
and 3

wi 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

W2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

W3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

w4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

W5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

W6 8.71 5.79e-01 8.13 5.17

W7 8.67 2.23 6.84 3.57e-01

ws 7.31e-08 9.29e-10 7.18e-01 1.08

W9 9.14 1.62e-07 6.74 2.94e-01

wio 2.61 8.18 6.87 5.55

wil 4.24 9.63 9.18 9.17



Table 5-4. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) errors for predicted left knee abduction
torque quantities for toeout and wide stance gait.

RMS error (% BW*H)
Gait trial Phases 1, 2,
Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 P
and 3

Toeout 0.66 0.13 0.69 0.14

Wide stance 0.68 0.37 0.68 0.21











Table 5-5 Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) errors for tracked quantities for toeout
gait.

RMS error
Quantity Description Phase 3 Phases 1 Phases 2 Phases 1, 2,
only and 3 and 3 and 3


6 DOFs for right
(qfoot)rzght prescribed foot path
6 DOFs for left
(qfoot)left prescribed foot path
2 transverse plane
qpelvls translations for pelvis
3 DOFs for trunk
qtrunk orientation
2 transverse plane
(CoPfoot)rzght translations for right
center of pressure
2 transverse plane
(CoPfoot)left translations for left
center of pressure
3 residual pelvis
fpelvls forces
3 residual pelvis
Tvls torques


2.55 mm
1.580
0.94 mm
1.270


3.64 mm
2.030
2.02 mm
1.380


1.53 mm
0.960
0.57 mm
0.860


2.35 mm
1.560
1.36 mm
0.970


7.65 mm 5.14 mm 9.91 mm 6.61 mm


0.320


0.360


0.520


0.380


9.68 mm 9.78 mm 5.68 mm 7.30 mm


2.01 mm 4.17 mm 1.68 mm 2.73 mm


4.23 N


4.27 N


3.82 N


4.11N


3.93 Nm 3.37 Nm 2.99 Nm 2.41 Nm











Table 5-6. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) errors for tracked quantities for wide
stance gait.

RMS error
Quantity Description Phase 3 Phases 1 Phases 2 Phases 1, 2,
only and 3 and 3 and 3


6 DOFs for right
(qfoot)rght prescribed foot path
6 DOFs for left
(qfoot)left prescribed foot path
2 transverse plane
qwelvs translations for pelvis
3 DOFs for trunk
qtrunk orientation
2 transverse plane
(CoPfoot)rzght translations for right
center of pressure
2 transverse plane
(CoPfoot)left translations for left
center of pressure
3 residual pelvis
rfpelvls forces
3 residual pelvis
Tvls torques


1.07 mm
0.990
0.99 mm
1.04


1.19 mm
1.360
2.07 mm
1.290


0.85 mm
1.090
0.60 mm
1.160


0.45 mm
0.370
0.32 mm
0.240


6.47 mm 6.42 mm 6.22 mm 7.33 mm


0.780


0.830


0.840


0.750


4.45 mm 5.73 mm 4.74 mm 4.40 mm


1.80 mm 1.74 mm 3.33 mm 0.79 mm


3.56N


3.85 N


3.65 N


3.77 N


3.17Nm 2.73 Nm 3.50Nm 2.48 Nm
















Table 5-7. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) differences between optimization results and original normal gait or final toeout gait
kinematic and kinetic quantities.

RMS difference from optimization

Quanitity Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3

Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final


Hip flexion angle (o)

Hip abduction angle (o)

Hip rotation angle (o)

Knee flexion angle (o)

Ankle flexion angle (o)

Ankle inversion angle (o)

Anterior center of pressure (mm)

Lateral center of pressure (mm)

Hip flexion torque (% BW*H)

Hip abduction torque (% BW*H)

Hip rotation torque (% BW*H)

Knee flexion torque (% BW*H)

Ankle flexion torque (% BW*H)

Ankle inversion torque (% BW*H)

Anterior ground reaction force (% BW)

Superior ground reaction force (% BW)

Lateral ground reaction force (% BW)


1.29

1.73

10.96

1.61

1.85

4.43

11.35

22.41

2.49e-02

1.70e-02

1.62e-01

1.67e-02

5.09e-02

3.92e-02

2.33e-01

1.73


3.22

2.55

5.39

2.68

3.21

4.71

15.09

23.35

1.55

7.46e-01

1.76e-01

2.98e-01

1.27

2.32

1.26

3.49


9.14e-01

2.20

10.94

1.03

2.05

3.89

2.45

5.36

4.05e-01

9.58e-02

1.42e-01

3.75e-01

3.24e-02

7.07e-02

2.65e-01

1.29


3.72

2.27

5.71

2.76

2.85

4.49

9.89

9.27

9.39e-01

3.43e-01

1.99e-01

2.92e-01

5.49e-01

3.98e-01

1.31

3.60


2.09

2.37

11.03

1.62

1.53

4.14

1.29

1.99

2.15e-02

2.43e-02

1.12e-01

1.50e-02

1.41e-02

1.79e-02

5.16e-01

1.52


2.79

2.39

5.35

2.52

2.85

4.87

9.97

7.09

1.55

7.50e-01

1.80e-01

2.92e-01

1.29

2.31

1.32

3.95


1.08 3.46

2.63 2.32

11.27 5.76

8.93e-01 2.69

1.78 2.58

3.49 4.36

1.58 9.33

3.53 7.86

3.11e-02 7.01e-01

2.31e-01 4.21e-01

1.10e-01 1.83e-01

2.41e-01 2.21e-01

1.60e-02 5.53e-01

2.98e-02 3.86e-01

2.51e-01 1.39

7.07e-01 4.04


6.98e-01 3.65e-01 5.43e-01 2.78e-01 7.58e-01 3.42e-01 5.64e-01 3.28e-01
















Table 5-8. Summary of root-mean-square (RMS) differences between optimization results and original normal gait or final wide
stance gait kinematic and kinetic quantities.

RMS difference from optimization

Quanitity Phase 3 only Phases 1 and 3 Phases 2 and 3 Phases 1, 2, and 3

Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final


Hip flexion angle (o)

Hip abduction angle (o)

Hip rotation angle (o)

Knee flexion angle (o)

Ankle flexion angle (o)

Ankle inversion angle (o)

Anterior center of pressure (mm)

Lateral center of pressure (mm)

Hip flexion torque (% BW*H)

Hip abduction torque (% BW*H)

Hip rotation torque (% BW*H)

Knee flexion torque (% BW*H)

Ankle flexion torque (% BW*H)

Ankle inversion torque (% BW*H)

Anterior ground reaction force (% BW)

Superior ground reaction force (% BW)

Lateral ground reaction force (% BW)


6.64e-01

3.07

2.43

6.75e-01

2.17

6.82

1.44

2.10

2.33e-02

3.82e-02

1.93e-01

1.28e-02

1.85e-02

3.16e-02

2.76e-01

1.03

2.66


4.39

1.73

2.62

3.46

4.35

6.43

27.40

11.22

5.04e-01

5.25e-01

2.44e-01

4.27e-01

3.74e-01

4.23e-01

1.13

4.15

8.75e-01


5.50e-01

3.59

1.74

1.48

2.19

4.06

1.49

1.95

1.71e-01

1.29e-01

2.10e-01

2.49e-01

1.15e-02

2.53e-02

3.94e-01

8.09e-01

2.35


4.55

1.69

2.82

4.41

5.18

4.07

26.01

9.13

5.95e-01

3.39e-01

2.87e-01

6.24e-01

3.91e-01

3.45e-01

1.20

3.98

1.14


3.68e-01

3.21

1.91

6.28e-01

1.91

5.87

4.45

1.54

2.43e-02

6.54e-02

2.00e-01

1.46e-02

1.01e-02

1.62e-02

2.81e-01

1.23

2.56


4.29

1.73

2.58

3.48

4.33

5.53

27.52

11.22

5.25e-01

5.21e-01

2.49e-01

4.37e-01

3.71e-01

4.23e-01

1.17

4.30

8.72e-01


1.66 4.17

3.21 1.98

2.49 3.18

1.12 2.79

2.08 5.17

5.00 4.72

1.05 26.31

3.68e-01 8.18

1.58e-02 6.26e-01

2.53e-01 3.23e-01

9.11e-02 2.48e-01

2.79e-01 3.90e-01

1.07e-02 3.93e-01

2.39e-02 3.63e-01

6.76e-01 1.04

2.13 3.93

1.75 1.79














14|--i-----------i i ----|----- --
s A -Original B
-Optimization
Q< Final









Sc D

< 1


C D





"o
<-












-1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Gait Cycle (%) Gait Cycle (%)


Figure 5-1. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for toeout gait. Original (blue) is experimental normal gait, simulation (red) is
predicted toeout gait, and final (green) is experimental toeout gait. Plot A) contains curves for model using phase 3 only.
Plot B) contains curves for model using phases 1 and 3. Plot C) contains curves for model using phases 2 and 3. Plot D)
contains curves for model using phases 1, 2, and 3.














14 -- |--------- i i--- ----i--
s A -Original B
-o -Optimization
Q< Final


2-







0I I I I



C D

<3


2-








0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Gait Cycle (%) Gait Cycle (%)


Figure 5-2. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for wide stance gait, where original (blue) is experimental normal gait,
simulation (red) is predicted toeout gait, and final (green) is experimental toeout gait. Plot A) contains curves for model
using phase 3 only. Plot B) contains curves for model using phases 1 and 3. Plot C) contains curves for model using
phases 2 and 3. Plot D) contains curves for model using phases 1, 2, and 3.
















CB
0
A -o B
30



2 -
a

"0











CD

a,
Z5






Sc D









a r






0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Gait Cycle (%) Gait Cycle (%)


Figure 5-3. Comparison of left knee abduction torques for simulated high tibial osteotomy (HTO) post-surgery gait. Plot A) contains
curves for model using phase 3 only. Plot B) contains curves for model using phases 1 and 3. Plot C) contains curves for
model using phases 2 and 3. Plot D) contains curves for model using phases 1, 2, and 3.








63



0
A
3o
-o
< 3



2






0 1





84
C-0
"o






< 3-


rI






3



--
S0
.2



-1



















0



Gait Cycle (%)


Figure 5-4. Comparison of mean (solid black line) plus or minus one standard deviation

(gray shaded area) for experimental left knee abduction torques. Plot A)
contains distribution for normal gait. Plot B) contains distribution for toeout
gait. Plot C) contains distribution for wide stance gait.
<3
I









0'
o








64


4
A









-1-









4
-o
<3







< 3


cO
CD









1 B
-o



<3
a3







< 1



0


<-0 20 40 60 80 100
Gait Cycle (%)


Figure 5-5. Comparison of mean (solid black line) plus or minus one standard deviation
(gray shaded area) for simulated left knee abduction torques. Plot A) contains
distribution for toeout gait. Plot B) contains distribution for wide stance gait.














CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

Rationale for New Approach

The main motivation for developing a 27 DOF patient-specific inverse dynamic

model and the associated optimization approach is to predict the post-surgery peak

external knee adduction moment in HTO patients, which has been identified as an

indicator of clinical outcome (Andriacchi, 1994; Bryan et al., 1997; Hurwitz et al., 1998;

Prodromos et al., 1985; Wang et al., 1990). The accuracy of prospective dynamic

analyses made for a unique patient is determined in part by the fitness of the underlying

kinematic and kinetic model (Andriacchi and Strickland, 1985; Challis and Kerwin,

1996; Cappozzo and Pedotti, 1975; Davis, 1992; Holden and Stanhope, 1998; Holden and

Stanhope, 2000; Stagni et al., 2000). Development of an accurate model tailored to a

specific patient forms the foundation for creating a predictive patient-specific dynamic

simulation.

Synthesis of Current Work and Literature

The multi-phase optimization method satisfactorily determines patient-specific

model parameters defining a 3D model that is well suited to a particular patient. Two

conclusions may be drawn from comparing and contrasting the optimization results to

previous values found in the literature. The similarities between numbers suggest the

results are reasonable and show the extent of agreement with past studies. The

differences between values indicate the optimization is necessary and demonstrate the

degree of inaccuracy inherent when the new approach is not implemented. Through the









enhancement of model parameter values found in the literature, the multi-phase

optimization approach successfully reduces the fitness errors between the patient-specific

model and the experimental motion data.

The precision of dynamic analyses made for a particular patient depends on the

accuracy of the patient-specific kinematic and kinetic parameters chosen for the dynamic

model. Without expensive medical images, model parameters are only estimated from

external landmarks that have been identified in previous studies. The estimated (or

nominal) values may be improved by formulating an optimization problem using

motion-capture data. By using a multi-phase optimization technique, researchers may

build more accurate biomechanical models of the individual human structure. As a

result, the optimal models will provide reliable foundations for dynamic analyses and

optimizations.

Simulations based on inverse dynamics optimization subject to reality constraints

predict physics-based motion. The results accurately represent a specific patient within

the bounds of the chosen dynamic model, experimental task, and data quality. Given the

agreement of the current results with previous studies, there is significant benefit in the

construction and optimization a patient-specific functional dynamic model to assist in the

planning and outcome prediction of surgical procedures. This work comprises a unique

computational framework to create and apply objective patient-specific models (different

from current intuitive models based on clinical experience or regression models based on

population studies) to predict clinically significant outcomes.
















GLOSSARY


Abduction


Acceleration

Active markers


Adduction


Ankle inversion-eversion


Ankle motion


Ankle plantarflexion-dorsiflexion


Anterior

Coccyx


Constraint functions


Coronal plane


Degree of freedom (DOF)


Movement away from the midline of the body in the
coronal plane.


The time rate of change of velocity.


Joint and segment markers used during motion
capture that emit a signal.

Movement towards the midline of the body in the
coronal plane.

Motion of the long axis of the foot within the
coronal plane as seen by an observer positioned
along the anterior-posterior axis of the shank.

The ankle angles reflect the motion of the foot
segment relative to the shank segment.

Motion of the plantar aspect of the foot within the
sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned
along the medial-lateral axis of the shank.

The front or before, also referred to as ventral.

The tailbone located at the distal end of the sacrum.

Specific limits that must be satisfied by the optimal
design.

The plane that divides the body or body segment
into anterior and posterior parts.

A single coordinate of relative motion between two
bodies. Such a coordinate responds without
constraint or imposed motion to externally applied
forces or torques. For translational motion, a DOF
is a linear coordinate along a single direction. For
rotational motion, a DOF is an angular coordinate
about a single, fixed axis.










Design variables


Distal


Dorsiflexion


Epicondyle


Variables that change to optimize the design.

Away from the point of attachment or origin.

Movement of the foot towards the anterior part of
the tibia in the sagittal plane.

Process that develops proximal to an articulation
and provides additional surface area for muscle
attachment.


Version

Extension


External (lateral) rotation


External moment


Femur


Flexion


Force


Force plate


Forward dynamics


A turning outward.


Movement that rotates the bones comprising a joint
away from each other in the sagittal plane.

Movement that rotates the distal segment laterally
in relation to the proximal segment in the transverse
plane, or places the anterior surface of a segment
away from the longitudinal axis of the body.

The load applied to the human body due to the
ground reaction forces, gravity and external forces.

The longest and heaviest bone in the body. It is
located between the hip joint and the knee joint.

Movement that rotates the bones comprising a joint
towards each other in the sagittal plane.

A push or a pull and is produced when one object
acts on another.

A transducer that is set in the floor to measure about
some specified point, the force and torque applied
by the foot to the ground. These devices provide
measures of the three components of the resultant
ground reaction force vector and the three
components of the resultant torque vector.

Analysis to determine the motion of a mechanical
system, given the topology of how bodies are
connected, the applied forces and torques, the mass
properties, and the initial condition of all degrees of
freedom.










A manner of walking or moving on foot.


Generalized coordinates





High tibial osteotomy (HTO)






Hip abduction-adduction



Hip flexion-extension



Hip internal-external rotation




Hip motion


Inferior

Inter-ASIS distance


Internal (medial) rotation




Internal joint moments


A set of coordinates (or parameters) that uniquely
describes the geometric position and orientation of a
body or system of bodies. Any set of coordinates
that are used to describe the motion of a physical
system.

Surgical procedure that involves adding or
removing a wedge of bone to or from the tibia and
changing the frontal plane limb alignment. The
realignment shifts the weight-bearing axis from the
diseased medial compartment to the healthy lateral
compartment of the knee.

Motion of a long axis of the thigh within the coronal
plane as seen by an observer positioned along the
anterior-posterior axis of the pelvis.

Motion of the long axis of the thigh within the
sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned
along the medial-lateral axis of the pelvis.

Motion of the medial-lateral axis of the thigh with
respect to the medial-lateral axis of the pelvis within
the transverse plane as seen by an observer
positioned along the longitudinal axis of the thigh.

The hip angles reflect the motion of the thigh
segment relative to the pelvis.

Below or at a lower level (towards the feet).

The length of measure between the left anterior
superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the right ASIS.

Movement that rotates the distal segment medially
in relation to the proximal segment in the transverse
plane, or places the anterior surface of a segment
towards the longitudinal axis of the body.

The net result of all the internal forces acting about
the joint which include moments due to muscles,
ligaments, joint friction and structural constraints.


Gait













Inverse dynamics


The joint moment is usually calculated around a
joint center.

Analysis to determine the forces and torques
necessary to produce the motion of a mechanical
system, given the topology of how bodies are
connected, the kinematics, the mass properties, and
the initial condition of all degrees of freedom.


Inversion

Kinematics


Kinetics


Knee abduction-adduction


Knee flexion-extension



Knee internal-external rotation




Knee motion


Lateral


A turning inward.


Those parameters that are used in the description of
movement without consideration for the cause of
movement abnormalities. These typically include
parameters such as linear and angular
displacements, velocities and accelerations.

General term given to the forces that cause
movement. Both internal (muscle activity,
ligaments or friction in muscles and joints) and
external (ground or external loads) forces are
included. The moment of force produced by
muscles crossing a joint, the mechanical power
flowing to and from those same muscles, and the
energy changes of the body that result from this
power flow are the most common kinetic
parameters used.

Motion of the long axis of the shank within the
coronal plane as seen by an observer positioned
along the anterior-posterior axis of the thigh.

Motion of the long axis of the shank within the
sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned
along the medial-lateral axis of the thigh.

Motion of the medial-lateral axis of the shank with
respect to the medial-lateral axis of the thigh within
the transverse plane as viewed by an observer
positioned along the longitudinal axis of the shank.

The knee angles reflect the motion of the shank
segment relative to the thigh segment.

Away from the body's longitudinal axis, or away
from the midsagittal plane.










Malleolus


Markers


Medial


Midsagittal plane



Model parameters





Moment of force









Motion capture


Objective functions

Parametric


Passive markers


Pelvis


Broadened distal portion of the tibia and fibula
providing lateral stability to the ankle.

Active or passive objects (balls, hemispheres or
disks) aligned with respect to specific bony
landmarks used to help determine segment and joint
position in motion capture.

Toward the body's longitudinal axis, or toward the
midsagittal plane.

The plane that passes through the midline and
divides the body or body segment into the right and
left halves.

A set of coordinates that uniquely describes the
model segments lengths, joint locations, and joint
orientations, also referred to as joint parameters.
Any set of coordinates that are used to describe the
geometry of a model system.

The moment of force is calculated about a point and
is the cross product of a position vector from the
point to the line of action for the force and the force.
In two-dimensions, the moment of force about a
point is the product of a force and the perpendicular
distance from the line of action of the force to the
point. Typically, moments of force are calculated
about the center of rotation of a joint.

Interpretation of computerized data that documents
an individual's motion.

Figures of merit to be minimized or maximized.

Of or relating to or in terms of parameters, or
factors that define a system.

Joint and segment markers used during motion
capture that reflect visible or infrared light.

Consists of the two hip bones, the sacrum, and the
coccyx. It is located between the proximal spine
and the hip joints.









Pelvis anterior-posterior tilt



Pelvis elevation-depression




Pelvis internal-external rotation




Pelvis motion







Plantarflexion


Posterior

Proximal


Range of motion


Sacrum


Sagittal plane


Skin movement artifacts


Stance phase


Motion of the long axis of the pelvis within the
sagittal plane as seen by an observer positioned
along the medial-lateral axis of the laboratory.

Motion of the medial-lateral axis of the pelvis
within the coronal plane as seen by an observer
positioned along the anterior-posterior axis of the
laboratory.

Motion of the medial-lateral or anterior-posterior
axis of the pelvis within the transverse plane as seen
by an observer positioned along the longitudinal
axis of the laboratory.

The position of the pelvis as defined by a marker set
(for example, plane formed by the markers on the
right and left anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS)
and a marker between the 5th lumbar vertebrae and
the sacrum) relative to a laboratory coordinate
system.

Movement of the foot away from the anterior part
of the tibia in the sagittal plane.

The back or behind, also referred to as dorsal.

Toward the point of attachment or origin.

Indicates joint motion excursion from the maximum
angle to the minimum angle.

Consists of the fused components of five sacral
vertebrae located between the 5th lumbar vertebra
and the coccyx. It attaches the axial skeleton to the
pelvic girdle of the appendicular skeleton via paired
articulations.

The plane that divides the body or body segment
into the right and left parts.

The relative movement between skin and
underlying bone.

The period of time when the foot is in contact with
the ground.









Subtalar joint


Superior

Synthetic markers


Swing phase


Talocrural joint


Talus


Tibia



Transepicondylar


Transverse plane


Velocity


Located between the distal talus and proximal
calcaneous, also known as the talocalcaneal joint.

Above or at a higher level (towards the head).

Computational representations of passive markers
located on the kinematic model.

The period of time when the foot is not in contact
with the ground.

Located between the distal tibia and proximal talus,
also known as the tibial-talar joint.

The largest bone of the ankle transmitting weight
from the tibia to the rest of the foot.

The large medial bone of the lower leg, also known
as the shinbone. It is located between the knee joint
and the talocrural joint.

The line between the medial and lateral
epicondyles.

The plane at right angles to the coronal and sagittal
planes that divides the body into superior and
inferior parts.

The time rate of change of displacement.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Andrews, J.G., and Mish, S.P., 1996. "Methods for Investigating the Sensitivity of Joint
Resultants to Body Segment Parameter Variations." Journal ofBiomechanics,
Volume 29, Number 5, Pages 651-654.

Andriacchi, T.P., 1994. "Dynamics of Knee Malalignment." Orthopedic Clinics of
North America, Volume 25, Number 3, Pages 395-403.

Andriacchi, T.P., and Strickland, A.B., 1985. "Gait Analysis as a Tool to Assess Joint
Kinetics." In: Berme, N., Engin, A.E., Correia da Silva, K.M. (Editors),
Biomechanics of Normal and Pathological Human Articulating Joints. Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Pages 83-102.

Arnold, A.S, Asakawa, D.J, and Delp, S.L., 2000. "Do the Hamstrings and Adductors
Contribute to Excessive Internal Rotation of the Hip in Persons with Cerebral
Palsy?" Gait & Posture, Volume 11, Number 3, Pages 181-190.

Arnold, A.S., and Delp, S.L., 2001. "Rotational Moment Arms of the Hamstrings and
Adductors Vary with Femoral Geometry and Limb Position: Implications for the
Treatment of Internally-Rotated Gait." Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 34,
Number 4, Pages 437-447.

Bell, A.L., Pedersen, D.R., and Brand, R.A., 1990. "A Comparison of the Accuracy of
Several Hip Center Location Prediction Methods." Journal ofBiomechanics,
Volume 23, Number 6, Pages 617-621.

Bogert, A.J. van den, Smith, G.D., and Nigg, B.M., 1994. "In Vivo Determination of the
Anatomical Axes of the Ankle Joint Complex: An Optimization Approach."
Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 27, Number 12, Pages 1477-1488.

Bryan, J.M., Hurwitz, D.E., Bach, B.R., Bittar, T., and Andriacchi, T.P., 1997. "A
Predictive Model of Outcome in High Tibial Osteotomy." In Proceedings of the
43rd Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco,
California, February 9-13, Volume 22, Paper 718.

Cappozzo, A., Catani, F., and Leardini, A., 1993. "Skin Movement Artifacts in Human
Movement Photogrammetry." In Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the
International Society ofBiomechanics, Paris, France, July 4-8, Pages 238-239.









Cappozzo, A., Leo, T., and Pedotti, A., 1975. "A General Computing Method for the
Analysis of Human Locomotion." Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 8, Number 5,
Pages 307-320.

Center for Disease Control (CDC), 2003. Targeting Arthritis: The Nation's Leading
Cause ofDisability. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center
for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlanta, Georgia.
Accessed: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/aag/pdf/aag_arthritis2003.pdf,
February, 2003.

Challis, J.H., and Kerwin, D.G., 1996. "Quantification of the Uncertainties in Resultant
Joint Moments Computed in a Dynamic Activity." Journal of Sports Sciences,
Volume 14, Number 3, Pages 219-231.

Chang, P.B., Williams, B.J., Santer, T.J., Notz, W.I., and Bartel, D.L., 1999. "Robust
Optimization of Total Joint Replacements Incorporating Environmental Variables."
Journal ofBiomechanical Engineering, Volume 121, Number 3, Pages 304-310.

Chao, E.Y., and Sim, F.H., 1995. "Computer-Aided Pre-Operative Planning in Knee
Osteotomy." Iowa Orthopedic Journal, Volume 15, Pages 4-18.

Chao, E.Y.S., Lynch, J.D., and Vanderploeg, M.J., 1993. "Simulation and Animation of
Musculoskeletal Joint System. Journal ofBiomechanical Engineering, Volume
115, Number 4, Pages 562-568.

Cheze, L., Fregly, B.J., and Dimnet, J., 1995. "A Solidification Procedure to Facilitate
Kinematic Analyses Based on Video System Data." Journal ofBiomechanics,
Volume 28, Number 7, Pages 879-884.

Cheze, L., Fregly, B.J., and Dimnet, J., 1998. "Determination of Joint Functional Axes
from Noisy Marker Data Using the Finite Helical Axis." Human Movement
Science, Volume 17, Number 1, Pages 1-15.

Churchill, D.L., Incavo, S.J., Johnson, C.C., and Beynnon, B.D., 1998. "The
Transepicondylar Axis Approximates the Optimal Flexion Axis of the Knee."
Clinical 01 thIlqpdi 1 % and Related Research, Volume 356, Number 1, Pages
111-118.

Croce, U.D., Leardini, A., Lorenzo, C., Cappozzo, A., 2005. "Human Movement
Analysis Using Stereophotogrammetry Part 4: Assessment of Anatomical
Landmark Misplacement and Its Effects on Joint Kinematics." Gait and Posture,
Volume 21, Number 2, Pages 226-237.

Davis, B.L., 1992. "Uncertainty in Calculating Joint Moments During Gait." In
Proceedings of the 8th Meeting ofEuropean Society ofBiomechanics, Rome, Italy,
June 21-24, Page 276.









de Leva, P., 1996. "Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov's Segment Inertia
Parameters." Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 29, Number 9, Pages 1223-1230.

Delp, S.L., Arnold, A.S., and Piazza, S.J., 1998. "Graphics-Based Modeling and
Analysis of Gait Abnormalities." Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, Volume
8, Number 3/4, Pages 227-240.

Delp, S.L., Arnold, A.S., Speers, R.A., and Moore, C.A., 1996. "Hamstrings and Psoas
Lengths During Normal and Crouch Gait: Implications for Muscle-Tendon
Surgery." Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Volume 14, Number 1, Pages
144-151.

Delp, S.L., Loan, J.P., Hoy, M.G., Zajac, F.E., Topp E.L., and Rosen, J.M., 1990. "An
Interactive Graphics-Based Model of the Lower Extremity to Study Orthopaedic
Surgical Procedures." IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Volume 37,
Number 8, Pages 757-767.

Fantozzi, S., Stagni, R., Cappello, A., and Leardini, A., 2005. "Effect of Different
Inertial Parameter Sets on Joint Moment Calculation During Stair Ascending and
Descending." Medical Engineering & Physics, Volume 27, Pages 537-541

Fishman, G.S., 1996. Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algti hi/in, and Applications.
Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY.

Fregly, B.J., Rooney, K.L., and Reinbolt, J. A., 2005. "Predicted Gait Modifications to
Reduce the Peak Knee Adduction Torque." In Proceedings of the XXth Congress
of the International Society ofBiomechanics and 29th Annual Meeting of the
American Society ofBiomechanics, Cleveland, Ohio, July 31-August 5, Page 283.

Griewank, A., 2000. "Evaluating Derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic
Differentiation." Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia,
PA.

Griewank, A., Juedes, D., and Utke, J., 1996. "ADOL-C: a Package for the Automatic
Differentiation of Algorithms Written in C/C++." Association for Computing
Machinery Transactions on Mathematical Software, Volume 22, Number 2, Pages
131-167.

Heck, D.A., Melfi, C.A., Mamlin, L.A., Katz, B.P., Arthur, D.S., Dittus, R.S., and
Freund, D.A., 1998. "Revision Rates Following Knee Replacement in the United
States." Medical Care, Volume 36, Number 5, Pages 661-689.

Holden, J.P., and Stanhope, S.J., 1998. "The Effect of Variation in Knee Center Location
Estimates on Net Knee Joint Moments." Gait & Posture, Volume 7, Number 1,
Pages 1-6.









Holden, J.P., and Stanhope, S.J., 2000. "The Effect of Uncertainty in Hip Center
Location Estimates on Hip Joint Moments During Walking at Different Speeds."
Gait & Posture, Volume 11, Number 2, Pages 120-121.

Hong, J.H., Mun, M.S., and Song, S.H., 2001. "An Optimum Design Methodology
Development Using a Statistical Technique for Vehicle Occupant Safety." In
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of
Automobile Engineering, Volume 215, Number 7, Pages 795-801.

Hurwitz, D.E., Sumner, D.R., Andriacchi, T.P., and Sugar, D.A., 1998. "Dynamic Knee
Loads During Gait Predict Proximal Tibial Bone Distribution." Journal of
Biomechanics, Volume 31, Number 5, Pages 423-430.

Inman, V.T., 1976. The Joints of the Ankle. Williams and Wilkins Company,
Baltimore, Maryland.

Lane, G.J., Hozack, W.J., Shah, S., Rothman, R.H., Booth, R.E. Jr., Eng, K., Smith, P.,
1997. "Simultaneous Bilateral Versus Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Outcomes Analysis." Clinical 0i ilheq,,di \% and Related Research, Volume 345,
Number 1, Pages 106-112.

Leardini, A., Cappozzo, A., Catani, F., Toksvig-Larsen, S., Petitto, A., Sforza, V.,
Cassanelli, G., and Giannini, S., 1999. "Validation of a Functional Method for the
Estimation of Hip Joint Centre Location." Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 32,
Number 1, Pages 99-103.

Lu, T.-W., and O'Connor, J.J., 1999. "Bone Position Estimation from Skin Marker
Coordinates Using Global Optimisation with Joint Constraints." Journal of
Biomechanics, Volume 32, Number 2, Pages 129-134.

Manal, K., and Guo, M., 2005. "Foot Progression Angle and the Knee Adduction
Moment in Individuals with Medial Knee Osteoarthritis." In Proceedings of the
XXth Congress of the International Society ofBiomechanics and 29th Annual
Meeting of the American Society ofBiomechanics, Cleveland, Ohio, July
31-August 5, Page 899.

Pandy, M.G., 2001. "Computer Modeling and Simulation of Human Movement."
Annual Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 245-273.

Pearsall D.J., and Costigan P.A., 1999. "The Effect of Segment Parameter Error on Gait
Analysis Results." Gait and Posture, Volume 9, Number 3, Pages 173-183.

Prodromos, C.C., Andriacchi, T.P., and Galante, J.O., 1985. "A Relationship Between
Gait and Clinical Changes Following High Tibial Osteotomy." Journal of Bone
Joint Surgery (American), Volume 67, Number 8, Pages 1188-1194.









Reinbolt, J.A., and Fregly, B.J., 2005. "Creation of Patient-Specific Dynamic Models
from Three-Dimensional Movement Data Using Optimization." In Proceedings of
the 10th International Symposium on Computer Simulation in Biomechanics,
Cleveland, OH, July 28-30.

Reinbolt, J.A., Schutte, J.F., Fregly, B.J., Haftka, R.T., George, A.D., and Mitchell, K.H.,
2005. "Determination of Patient-Specific Multi-Joint Kinematic Models Through
Two-Level Optimization." Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 38, Number 3, Pages
621-626.

Sommer III, H.J., and Miller, N.R., 1980. "A Technique for Kinematic Modeling of
Anatomical Joints." Journal ofBiomechanical Engineering, Volume 102, Number
4, Pages 311-317.

Stagni, R., Leardini, A., Benedetti, M.G., Cappozzo, A., and Cappello, A., 2000.
"Effects of Hip Joint Centre Mislocation on Gait Analysis Results." Journal of
Biomechanics, Volume 33, Number 11, Pages 1479-1487.

Tetsworth, K., and Paley, D., 1994. "Accuracy of Correction of Complex
Lower-Extremity Deformities by the Ilizarov Method." Clinical 0i Ithit'e li' \ and
Related Research, Volume 301, Number 1, Pages 102-110.

Valero-Cuevas, F.J., Johanson, M.E., and Towles, J.D., 2003. "Towards a Realistic
Biomechanical Model of the Thumb: the Choice of Kinematic Description May Be
More Critical Than the Solution Method or the Variability/Uncertainty of
Musculoskeletal Parameters." Jouirnal ofBiomechanics, Volume 36, Number 7,
Pages 1019-1030.

Vaughan, C.L., Andrews, J.G., and Hay, J.G., 1982. "Selection of Body Segment
Parameters by Optimization Methods." Journal ofBiomechanical Engineering,
Volume 104, Number 1, Pages 38-44.

Wada, M., Imura, S., Nagatani, K., Baba, H., Shimada, S., and Sasaki, S., 1998.
"Relationship Between Gait and Clinical Results After High Tibial Osteotomy."
Clinical 0i Ith1/qie'd li \ and Related Research, Volume 354, Number 1, Pages
180-188.

Wang, J.-W., Kuo, K.N., Andriacchi, T.P., and Galante, J.O., 1990. "The Influence of
Walking Mechanics and Time on the Results of Proximal Tibial Osteotomy."
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), Volume 72, Number 6, Pages
905-913.

Winter, D.A., 1980. "Overall Principle of Lower Limb Support During Stance Phase of
Gait." Journal ofBiomechanics, Volume 13, Number 11, Pages 923-927.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jeffrey A. Reinbolt was born on May 6, 1974, in Bradenton, Florida. His parents

are Charles and Joan Reinbolt. He has an older brother, Douglas, and an older sister,

Melissa. In 1992, Jeff graduated salutatorian from Southeast High School, Bradenton,

Florida. After completing his secondary education, he enrolled at the University of

Florida supported by the Florida Undergraduate Scholarship and full-time employment at

a local business. He earned a traditional 5-year engineering degree in only 4 years. In

1996, Jeff graduated with honors receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering

science with a concentration in biomedical engineering. He used this foundation to assist

in the medical device development and clinical research programs of Computer Motion,

Inc., Santa Barbara, California. In this role, Jeff was Clinical Development Site Manager

for the Southeastern United States and he traveled extensively throughout the United

States, Europe, and Asia collaborating with surgeons and fellow medical researchers. In

1998, Jeff married Karen, a fellow student he met during his undergraduate studies.

After more than 4 years in the medical device industry, he decided to continue his

academic career at the University of Florida. In 2001, Jeff began his graduate studies

with a graduate research assistantship in the Computational Biomechanics Laboratory. In

2003, Jeff graduated with a perfect 4.0 GPA receiving a Master of Science degree in

biomedical engineering with a concentration in biomechanics. At that time, he decided to

continue his graduate education and research activities through the pursuit of a Doctor of

Philosophy in mechanical engineering. In 2005, Jeff and Karen were blessed with the






80


birth of their first child, Jacob. Jeff would like to further his creative involvement in

problem solving and the design of solutions to overcome healthcare challenges in the

future.