Articlenpj biomedical innovations2026
User preference-based human-in-the-loop tuning of exoskeleton assistance during walking.
Article in npj biomedical innovations, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personalized exoskeleton assistance has substantial potential to enhance human locomotion performance. However, current human-in-the-loop optimization methods for generating personalized assistance are cumbersome and time-consuming. Since humans can perceive locomotion through internal sensory feedback, user preference-based self-tuning may facilitate the individualization of exoskeleton assistance to meet individual needs. Here, we explore a user-driven human-in-the-loop tuning approach for walking assistance, hypothesizing that individuals can quickly find their preferred personalized assistance through subjective perception. We conducted experiments with 11 healthy participants, who were instructed to tune four control parameters while wearing a hip exoskeleton and walking on a treadmill. The tuning procedure concluded when participants indicated that they had found their preferred assistance. Then we surveyed the sense of agency to assess the user experience. We evaluated the effort of walking with the preferred setting and explored the metabolic cost landscape around it. Participants identified their preference in 10.9 ± 0.9 min, while testing 30.5 settings and spending 18.7 s per setting on average. Preferred assistance profiles varied widely between participants, with timing differences of up to 22.5% of the stride time. The metabolic cost of walking with the preferred assistance was reduced by 16.6 ± 1.1% compared to walking with the exoskeleton in a zero-torque condition. Timing deviations of up to ±8% of the stride time did not significantly affect metabolic cost reduction, indicating the robustness of the preferred assistance profiles. Significant changes in the sense of agency between unassisted and assisted walking demonstrate its sensitivity to partial exoskeleton assistance. The results highlight the potential of preference-based user-tuning while suggesting that additional guidance throughout the user-tuning procedure may support a systematic exploration, thereby advancing the preference-based individualization of exoskeleton assistance.
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.