SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
As mentioned in the results, reliability and functional outcomes for each of the motion tasks simulated with the presented methodology for the robotic articulation of cadaveric joints was consistent. The female DVJ (Figure S1-S3), male sidestep cut (Figure S4-S6), and female sidestep cut (Figure S7-S9) all displayed the excellent within and between specimen reliability that was demonstrated by the male DVJ in the results section. The exact same process described in the methods section that was used to derive robotic input kinematics from in vivo recorded kinematics was applied to develop 6-DOF input for the female DVJ (Figure S1), male sidestep cut (Figure S4), and female sidestep cut (Figure S7) simulations. On the same 848 N specimen whose kinetics were depicted in Figure 5, the female DVJ simulation exhibited a peak compressive force of 1871 N (2.21 * bodyweight) and peak internally-generated joint torques of 58.91 ± 1.16 N*m in extension, 19.27 ± 0.35 N*m in adduction, and 7.66 ± 0.18 N*m in external rotation. All of these values are physiologically sustainable and, following specimen preconditioning, were highly reliable between cycles (Figure S2). Similarly, on the same 848 N specimen, the male sidestep cut simulation exhibited average peak values of 1516 N (1.79 * bodyweight) compressive force, 48.75 ± 0.36 N*m extension torque, 21.68 ± 0.37 N*m adduction torque, and 6.64 ± 0.09 N*m external rotation torque (Figure S5), and the female sidestep cut simulation exhibited peak values of 1805 N (2.12 * bodyweight) compressive force, 58.81 ± 0.19 N*m extension torque, 21.51 ± 0.53 N*m adduction torque, and 1.97 ± 0.11 N*m external rotation torque (Figure S8). As demonstrated in Table 1, the inter-specimen waveform reliability was excellent for all 6-DOFs in each the female DVJ (Figure S3), male sidestep cut (Figure S6), and female sidestep cut (Figure S9) simulations. As demonstrated by the male DVJ, the within- and between-specimen reliability for the presented method of robotically simulating motion on cadaveric knee joints was consistently excellent for all four athletic tasks. Therefore, the conclusions pertaining to model functionality that were drawn with respect to the simulated male DVJ task also apply to the female DVJ, male sidestep cut, and female sidestep cut tasks depicted in this supplement.
SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURE CAPTIONS
Video 1: Simulation of the kinematics recorded for the male subject performing the DVJ task.
Figure S1: Knee joint kinematics recorded in vivo (solid line) with the adjusted input for the robotic manipulator (dashed line). All 3 rotational degrees of freedom (top) and 3 translational degrees of freedom (bottom) from a female subject DVJ are represented. Time series was normalized to percent of landing phase.
Figure S2: Unfiltered internal knee torques and translational forces during each cycle of a 10-cycle female DVJ simulation on a single specimen. After viscoelastic effects have been compensated, the forces and torques produced at the knee were highly reliable between cycles.
Figure S3: Knee joint loading for all 12 unique donors throughout the DVJ simulation that was derived from the female model. Blue lines represent individual subjects, while the red line and shaded area represent the population mean and standard deviation, respectively. Waveforms were highly repeatable between specimens as CMC values exceeded 0.930 in all DOFs.
Figure S4: Knee joint kinematics recorded in vivo (solid line) with the adjusted input for the robotic manipulator (dashed line). All 3 rotational degrees of freedom (top) and 3 translational degrees of freedom (bottom) from a male subject sidestep cut are represented. Time series was normalized to percent of landing phase.
Figure S5: Unfiltered internal knee torques and translational forces during each cycle of a 10-cycle male sidestep cut simulation on a single specimen. After viscoelastic effects have been compensated, the forces and torques produced at the knee were highly reliable between cycles.
Figure S6: Knee joint loading for all 12 unique donors throughout the sidestep cut simulation that was derived from the male model. Blue lines represent individual subjects, while the red line and shaded area represent the population mean and standard deviation, respectively. Waveforms were highly repeatable between specimens as CMC values exceeded 0.950 in all DOFs.
Figure S7: Knee joint kinematics recorded in vivo (solid line) with the adjusted input for the robotic manipulator (dashed line). All 3 rotational degrees of freedom (top) and 3 translational degrees of freedom (bottom) from a female subject sidestep cut are represented. Time series was normalized to percent of landing phase.
Figure S8: Unfiltered internal knee torques and translational forces during each cycle of a 10-cycle female sidestep cut simulation on a single specimen. After viscoelastic effects have been compensated, the forces and torques produced at the knee were highly reliable between cycles.
Figure S9: Knee joint loading for all 12 unique donors throughout the sidestep cut simulation that was derived from the female model. Blue lines represent individual subjects, while the red line and shaded area represent the population mean and standard deviation, respectively. Waveforms were highly repeatable between specimens as CMC values exceeded 0.860 in all DOFs.