QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

Help viewing high resolution images Return to article

Fig. 3. Comparison of output of model with that of the experimental results for the single optimised condition (frequency=1.25, duty cycle=0.121, stimulus phase=5). The experimental results are taken from raw data used in Curtin and Woledge (1996). (A) Length trajectory (relative to L_o) of MTU for the model (dotted line) and experimental results (solid line); (B) Force (relative to P_o) output for the model (dotted line) and experimental results (solid blue line); (C) Energy output (heat + work) for the model (blue dotted line) and experimental results (blue solid line). The experimental results show small amplitude fluctuations as a result of heat measurement from thermopile. The experimental force recordings (solid blue line in B) and the estimated activation level (red line in D) were used as inputs into the energetic model to approximate energetic output using the experimental results (red line in C). (D) Activation level (the relative number of attached crossbridges) predicted by the model (dotted blue line), estimated from the experimental results (red line) and the stimulation pattern from the experiment (solid blue line). (E) CE velocity (L_o s^–1) as predicted by the model (dotted blue line), and as estimated from the experimental results (solid blue line). This is shown in reference to the MTU velocity (red line).

Return to article