SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing Transparency of Robots, Exoskeletons, and Assistive Devices: A Systematic Review.
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.
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.
- Research and Experimental Testing of a Remotely Controlled Ankle Rehabilitation Exoskeleton Prototype.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Intra-tester and inter-tester reliability of maximum isokinetic hip and knee strength measurements with the exoskeleton in healthy young adults.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
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
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
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.