ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Characterization and Evaluation of Human-Exoskeleton Interaction Dynamics: A Review.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal EEG-EMG and FEM-Based Adaptive Control of Passive Upper-Limb Exoskeletons.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Measurement of Cognitive and Kinematic Adaptation in Exoskeleton-Assisted Locomotion: Validation of an XR-Based Framework.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mechanical stability of the interaction between a lower-limb rehabilitation exoskeleton and the user's body during functional tasks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The Breast Impact Monitoring System: A Portable and Wearable Platform to Support Injury Prevention in Female Athletes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quantification of the Mechanical Properties in the Human-Exoskeleton Upper Arm Interface During Overhead Work Postures in Healthy Young Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Adverse Effects Due to the Use of Upper Limbs Exoskeletons in the Work Environment: A Scoping Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Multi-Exoskeleton Performance Evaluation: Integrated Muscle Energy Indices to Determine the Quality and Quantity of Assistance.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Human-exoskeleton interaction portrait.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Evaluation of EMG patterns in children during assisted walking in the exoskeleton.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Patent Review of Lower Limb Rehabilitation Robotic Systems by Sensors and Actuation Systems Used.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation Methods and Measurement Challenges for Industrial Exoskeletons.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Exoskeletons: A challenge for development.Wearable technologies · 2023Review
- Exoskeleton gait training with spinal cord neuromodulation.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Exoskeletons and exosuits have witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years, especially in the medical and industrial sectors. In order to be successfully integrated into the current society, these devices must comply with several commercialization rules and safety standards. Due to their intrinsic coupling with human limbs, one of the main challenges is to test and prove the quality of physical interaction with humans. However, the study of physical human-exoskeleton interactions (pHEI) has been poorly addressed in the literature. Understanding and identifying the technological ways to assess pHEI is necessary for the future acceptance and large-scale use of these devices. The harmonization of these evaluation processes represents a key factor in building a still missing accepted framework to inform human-device contact safety. In this review, we identify, analyze, and discuss the metrics, testing procedures, and measurement devices used to assess pHEI in the last ten years. Furthermore, we discuss the role of pHEI in safety contact evaluation. We found a very heterogeneous panorama in terms of sensors and testing methods, which are still far from considering realistic conditions and use-cases. We identified the main gaps and drawbacks of current approaches, pointing towards a number of promising research directions. This review aspires to help the wearable robotics community find agreements on interaction quality and safety assessment testing procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.