Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40732572›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Assessing Transparency of Robots, Exoskeletons, and Assistive Devices: A Systematic Review.

Nicol Moscatelli, Cristina Brambilla, Valentina Lanzani, Lorenzo Molinari Tosatti, Alessandro Scano

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicol MoscatelliInstitute of Intelligent Industrial Technologies and Systems for Advanced Manufacturing (STIIMA), Italian National Research Council (CNR), 20139 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0009-0000-2500-6781
Cristina BrambillaInstitute of Intelligent Industrial Technologies and Systems for Advanced Manufacturing (STIIMA), Italian National Research Council (CNR), 20139 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3201-8315
Valentina LanzaniInstitute of Intelligent Industrial Technologies and Systems for Advanced Manufacturing (STIIMA), Italian National Research Council (CNR), 20139 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-6944-4931
Lorenzo Molinari TosattiInstitute of Intelligent Industrial Technologies and Systems for Advanced Manufacturing (STIIMA), Italian National Research Council (CNR), 20139 Milano, Italy.
Alessandro ScanoInstitute of Intelligent Industrial Technologies and Systems for Advanced Manufacturing (STIIMA), Italian National Research Council (CNR), 20139 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1896-9325

Funding

Italian Ministry of University and Research PNC0000007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transparency is a key requirement for some classes of robots, exoskeletons, and assistive devices (READs), where safe and efficient human-robot interaction is crucial. Typical fields that require transparency are rehabilitation and industrial contexts. However, the definitions of transparency adopted in the literature are heterogeneous. It follows that there is a need to clarify, summarize, and assess how transparency is commonly defined and measured. Thus, the goal of this review is to systematically examine how transparency is conceptualized and evaluated across studies. To this end, we performed a structured search across three major scientific databases. After a thorough screening process, 20 out of 400 identified articles were further examined and included in this review. Despite being recognized as a desirable and essential characteristic of READs in many domains of application, our findings reveal that transparency is still inconsistently defined and evaluated, which limits comparability across studies and hinders the development of standardized evaluation frameworks. Indeed, our screening found significant heterogeneity in both terminology and evaluation methods. The majority of the studies used either a mechanical or a kinematic definition, mostly focusing on the intrinsic behavior of the device and frequently giving little attention to the device impact of the user and on the user's perception. Furthermore, user-centered or physiological assessments could be examined further, since evaluation metrics are usually based on kinematic and robot mechanical metrics. Only a few studies have examined the underlying motor control strategies, using more in-depth methods such as muscle synergy analysis. These findings highlight the need for a shared taxonomy and a standardized framework for transparency evaluation. Such efforts would enable more reliable comparisons between studies and support the development of more effective and user-centered READs.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceRoboticsSelf-Help DevicesBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansassistive devicesexoskeletonsindustrymotor controlrehabilitationtransparency

Identifiers

PMID40732572
PMCPMC12298396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.