ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Deep Learning-Based Contact Force Control for a Robotic Leg.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper proposes a learning-based contact force controller using deep neural networks (DNN) and a PI controller. Stable contact force control between the foot and the ground is essential for humanoid robots to maintain balance during bipedal walking. While admittance controllers have been extensively employed for contact force control in humanoid robots, their performance is limited by the high nonlinearity inherent in robot systems. To overcome these limitations, we propose a deep neural network (DNN)-based inverse model, which leverages input-output data that inherently capture system nonlinearities. The proposed learning-based contact force controller computes the target foot height based on the target force, measured force, and measured foot height, without relying on a dynamic model of the articulated robotic leg. Furthermore, a PI controller is integrated to mitigate steady-state errors. Experimental comparisons between the proposed controller and an admittance controller were conducted using an articulated robotic leg. Compared with an admittance controller, the proposed method reduced overshoot by 96% and settling time by 61% on average in step responses and decreased force-tracking RMSE by 66.3% on average across both step and sinusoidal experiments.
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.