MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046505691 · doi:10.1142/s0219878911002367

DYNAMIC MODELING AND EVALUATION OF A ROBOTIC EXOSKELETON FOR UPPER-LIMB REHABILITATION

2011· article· en· W2046505691 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Thierry Kittel-Ouimet, Maarouf Saad, Jean‐Pierre Kenné, Philippe S. Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information Acquisition · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonComputer scienceKinematicsWristTrajectoryController (irrigation)Upper limbElbowRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTorquePowered exoskeletonSimulationControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMedicineControl (management)Physical therapyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proper functioning of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist movements play a vital role in the performance of essential daily activities. To assist physically disabled people with impaired upper-limb function, we have been developing an exoskeleton robot (ExoRob) to rehabilitate and to ease upper limb motion. The proposed ExoRob will be comprised of seven degrees of freedom (DOFs) to enable natural movements of the human upper-limb. This paper focuses on the kinematic and dynamic modeling of the proposed ExoRob that corresponds to human upper-limbs. For this purpose, a nonlinear computed torque control technique was employed. In simulations, trajectory tracking corresponding to typical rehabilitation exercises were carried out to evaluate the performances of the developed model and controller. For the experimental part, only 3DOFs (elbow, wrist flexion/extension, wrist abduction/adduction) were considered. Simulated and experimental results show that the controller was able to maneuver the proposed ExoRob efficiently in order to track the desired trajectories, which in this case consisted in passive arm movements. Such movements are widely used in therapy and were performed efficiently with the developed ExoRob and the controller.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information AcquisitionSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207