ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2024
Evaluation of fabric-based pneumatic actuator enclosure and anchoring configurations in a pediatric soft robotic exosuit.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Resistive Soft Robotic Exosuit for Dynamic Body Loading in Hypogravity.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Trial
- Design and manufacturing data for an infant upper body physical model for bench testing of assistive devices.Data in brief · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Soft robotics play an increasing role in the development of exosuits that assist, and in some cases enhance human motion. While most existing efforts have focused on the adult population, devices targeting infants are on the rise. This work investigated how different configurations pertaining to fabric-based pneumatic shoulder and elbow actuator embedding on the passive substrate of an exosuit for pediatric upper extremity motion assistance can affect key performance metrics. Methods: The configurations varied based on actuator anchoring points onto the substrate and the type of fabric used to fabricate the enclosures housing the actuators. Shoulder adduction/abduction and elbow flexion/extension were treated separately. Two different variants (for each case) of similar but distinct actuators were considered. The employed metrics were grouped into two categories; reachable workspace, which includes joint range of motion and end-effector path length; and motion smoothness, which includes end-effector path straightness index and jerk. The former category aimed to capture first-order terms (i.e., rotations and displacements) that capture overall gross motion, while the latter category aimed to shed light on differential terms that correlate with the quality of the attained motion. Extensive experimentation was conducted for each individual considered configuration, and statistical analyses were used to establish distinctive strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs among those configurations. Results: The main findings from experiments confirm that the performance of the actuators can be significantly impacted by variations in the anchoring and fabric properties of the enclosures while establishing interesting trade-offs. Specifically, the most appropriate anchoring point was not necessarily the same for all actuator variants. In addition, highly stretchable fabrics not only maintained but even enhanced actuator capabilities, in comparison to the less stretchable materials which turned out to hinder actuator performance. Conclusion: The established trade-offs can serve as guiding principles for other researchers and practitioners developing upper extremity exosuits.
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.