ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Foot-to-Forearm Tactile Feedback for Lower-Limb Exoskeleton Control: A Pilot Benchmarking Study in Healthy Adults.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-time tactile feedback has been applied in exoskeleton-based neurorehabilitation, particularly in spinal cord injury, through Foot-to-Forearm Feedback (FFF) at ground contact. Its effects on healthy individuals across varied terrains remain less understood. This pilot study investigated seven healthy participants controlling a lower-limb exoskeleton under two conditions (with and without FFF) across five scenarios: Flat, M-Shape, A-Shape, V-Shape, and Random. Objective measures included step count, sacroiliac joint (SIJ) segment length, and SIJ angle. Subjective experience was assessed by overall preference and a Global Experience Index (GEI) derived from questionnaire ratings. Analyses showed no consistent differences in step count, SIJ length, or SIJ angle between Control and FFF. In three runs, technical issues occurred (e.g., a loose cable). Subjective data showed that five of seven participants (71.4%) preferred FFF, one reported no difference, and one preferred the Control condition. Scenario-specific analyses indicated a preference for FFF in Flat (5/7 = 71.4%), but a lower preference in Random (2/6 = 33.3%). GEI scores decreased under A-Shape and Random conditions, though FFF partially mitigated the reduction in A-Shape. These preliminary findings suggest that FFF may influence subjective experience in healthy users, but confirmation will require larger samples and further investigation across scenarios.
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.