MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593932305 · doi:10.1109/icra.2015.7139801

Adaptive impedance control for upper limb assist exoskeleton

2015· article· en· W1593932305 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Manan Khan, Deokwon Yun, Mian Ashfaq Ali, Jung‐Soo Han, Kyoosik Shin, Chang-Soo Han

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonPowered exoskeletonComputer scienceRobotController (irrigation)Sagittal planeHuman–robot interactionSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Need to develop human body's posture supervised robots, gave the push to researchers to think over dexterous design of exoskeleton robots. It requires to develop quantitative techniques to assess motor function and generate the command for the robots to act accordingly with complex human structure. In this paper, we present a new technique for the upper limb power exoskeleton robot in which load is gripped by the human subject and not by the robot while the robot assists. Main challenge is to find non-biological signal based human desired motion intention to assist as needed. For this purpose, we used newly developed Muscle Circumference Sensor (MCS) instead of electromyogram (EMG) sensors. MCS together with the force sensors is used to estimate the human interactive force from which desired human motion is extracted using adaptive Radial Basis Function Neural Network (RBFNN). Developed Upper limb power exoskeleton has seven degrees of freedom (DOF) in which five DOF are passive while two are active. Active joints include shoulder and elbow in Sagittal plane while abduction and adduction motion in shoulder joint is provided by the passive joints. To ensure high quality performance model reference based adaptive impedance controller is employed. Exoskeleton performance is evaluated experimentally by a neurologically intact subject which validates the effectiveness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207