ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Maintaining upright posture during perturbed standing in a motor-assisted hybrid neuroprosthesis with powered ankle joints: A feasibility and proof-of-concept study.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Maintaining upright posture during perturbed standing in a motor-assisted hybrid neuroprosthesis with powered ankle joints: A feasibility and proof-of-concept study.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Maintaining balance during perturbations is essential for the effectiveness of exoskeletal assistive devices in individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCI). We tested new ankle actuators in a muscles-first, motor-assisted hybrid neuroprosthesis (MAHNP) to evaluate their ability to maintain upright posture under various perturbations. Methods: Participants with SCI ( Results: Active control provided important functional benefits by improving forward reach by 4.3 cm compared to no control, and extending hands-free standing time by 28.3% compared to no control. Additionally, variance in mediolateral CoP excursion was reduced from approximately 57% with no control to around 50% with control. Conclusion: These findings suggest that while PID-controlled ankle actuators perform well in quiet standing, further optimization may be required for tasks involving more dynamic movements and voluntary postural tasks.
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.