ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024
Human-exoskeleton interaction portrait.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Sensor and Data Selection on Lower Limbs via Deep Learning for Real-Time Human Activity Recognition.IEEE transactions on human-machine systems · 2026Article
- Prediction-driven active assistance control for lower-limb exoskeletons using multisource information fusion and short-term gait prediction.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Interaction-based rapid heuristic optimization of exoskeleton assistance during walking.Communications engineering · 2025Article
- Optimization of Actuator Stiffness and Actuation Timing of a Passive Ankle Exoskeleton: A Case Study Using a Musculoskeletal Modeling Approach.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human-robot physical interaction contains crucial information for optimizing user experience, enhancing robot performance, and objectively assessing user adaptation. This study introduces a new method to evaluate human-robot interaction and co-adaptation in lower limb exoskeletons by analyzing muscle activity and interaction torque as a two-dimensional random variable. We introduce the interaction portrait (IP), which visualizes this variable's distribution in polar coordinates. We applied IP to compare a recently developed hybrid torque controller (HTC) based on kinematic state feedback and a novel adaptive model-based torque controller (AMTC) with online learning, proposed herein, against a time-based controller (TBC) during treadmill walking at varying speeds. Compared to TBC, both HTC and AMTC significantly lower users' normalized oxygen uptake, suggesting enhanced user-exoskeleton coordination. IP analysis reveals that this improvement stems from two distinct co-adaptation strategies, unidentifiable by traditional muscle activity or interaction torque analyses alone. HTC encourages users to yield control to the exoskeleton, decreasing overall muscular effort but increasing interaction torque, as the exoskeleton compensates for user dynamics. Conversely, AMTC promotes user engagement through increased muscular effort and reduces interaction torques, aligning it more closely with rehabilitation and gait training applications. IP phase evolution provides insight into each user's interaction strategy formation, showcasing IP analysis's potential in comparing and designing novel controllers to optimize human-robot interaction in wearable robots.
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.