## 3 Results  
To compare the muscle activity values in both static and dynamic models, Figure 2 presents the results for a single subject across three types of simulations: rotation with both limbs, rotation with the right limb, and rotation with the left limb. These values are shown for the time point in the dynamic simulation at which the rotational moment for the respective limb was the greatest. This time frame from the dynamic simulation corresponded to the input data for the static simulation. Values are normalized to a maximum of 1. Confidence intervals may exceed the range [0, 1] due to statistical variation and normalization. These deviations reflect the uncertainty of the estimates and do not imply invalid or out-of-range measurements. Figure 2: Muscle activity during isometric rotation for static and dynamic models. Average differences in muscle activity values were determined for tests carried out on 33 static models and 33 dynamic models. The differences in the average values for selected muscle groups are presented in the Table 1.  
A significance level of \(\alpha=0.05\) was used for all statistical tests, and the resulting \(p\)-values for each muscle comparison are presented in Table 2.  
Paired comparisons were conducted for each muscle to assess whether the difference in activation between dynamic and static models was statistically significant. The Shapiro-Wilk test was initially applied to assess the normality of the distribution of differences. Due to the non-normal distribution observed in all cases, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for all statistical comparisons (Table 2). The analysis revealed a number of muscles with statistically significant differences in activation between the two simulation types. Muscles from the gluteal group (_Gluteus minimus, medius_, and _maximus_) generally exhibited lower activation in dynamic simulations. However, this trend was not statistically significant across all test configurations. For instance, while the _Gluteus maximus_ consistently showed significant differences, the _Gluteus medius_ did not reach statistical significance under certain conditions (e.g., RoLLLS). These findings suggest that although a pattern of reduced activation in dynamic models is apparent for gluteal muscles, the consistency of this trend may vary depending on the specific muscle and task configuration. These findings demonstrate that static models may consistently overestimate the involvement of postural stabilizers and underestimate dynamic contributors such as the _Iliopsoas_. This insight is particularly relevant when using such models in rehabilitation or ergonomic applications, where accurate estimation of muscle loading is critical for designing exercise regimens or work environments. The observed activation differences suggest that muscle function (e.g., stabilization vs. movement initiation) influences a muscle's sensitivity to modeling assumptions--an important consideration when interpreting or generalizing simulation outputs across tasks. In contrast, certain deep rotators of the hip, such as the _Oblurator externus_, exhibited minimal differences in activation between static and dynamic models. However, others, including the _Oblurator internus_ and _Gemellus superior_, showed statistically significant differences in selected test configurations. This suggests that while some deep rotators maintain a stable activation pattern regardless of simulation type, others may be sensitive to the modeling approach or task variation. These findings highlight the need to consider individual muscle characteristics when interpreting simulation outputs.