ArticlePloS one2025
Comprehensive multi-metric analysis of user experience and performance in adaptive and non-adaptive lower-limb exoskeletons.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among control methods for robotic exoskeletons, biologically inspired control based on central pattern generators (CPGs) offer a promising approach to generate natural and robust walking patterns. Compared to other approaches, like model-based and machine learning-based control, the biologically inspired control provides robustness to perturbations, requires less computational power, and does not need system models or large learning datasets. While it has shown effectiveness, a comprehensive evaluation of its user experience is lacking. Thus, this study addressed this gap by investigating the performance of a state-of-the-art adaptive CPG-based exoskeleton control system (intelligent mode) under a multi-metric analysis (involving three-dimensional gait analysis, muscle activity, oxygen consumption, user comfort, and exoskeleton performance scores) and comparing it to a standard commercial exoskeleton control system (default mode). A cross-over design with randomized allocation in Thai healthy and independently walking adults ensured participants experienced both modes. All participants were assigned into two groups to receive an alternate sequence of walking with the intelligent mode or the default mode of the lower-limb exoskeleton Exo-H3 at high and normal speed. From eight participants, the intelligent mode-driven exoskeleton (adaptive exoskeleton) showed a significantly lower velocity, stride, and step lengths than the default mode-driven exoskeleton (non-adaptive exoskeleton). This setup significantly increased anterior pelvic tilt during mid-swing at normal speed (3.69 ± 1.77 degrees, p = 0.001) and high speed (2.52 ± 1.69 degrees, p = 0.004), hip flexion during stance phase with ankle dorsiflexion, and used less oxygen consumption at high speed (-2.03 ± 2.07 ml/kg/min) when compared to the default one. No significant differences of muscle activity, user comfort and exoskeleton performance scores between the two modes. Further exoskeletal modification in terms of hardware and control is still needed to improve the temporal spatial, kinematics, user comfort, and exoskeleton performance.
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.