MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090771768 · doi:10.1109/tro.2014.2361937

Virtual Constraint Control of a Powered Prosthetic Leg: From Simulation to Experiments With Transfemoral Amputees

2014· article· en· W2090771768 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Gregg, Tommaso Lenzi, Levi J. Hargrove, Jonathon W. Sensinger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition ActivityNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Robustness (evolution)GaitRobotComputer scienceFeedback linearizationConstraint (computer-aided design)LinearizationInverted pendulumControl (management)Control engineeringSimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceNonlinear systemPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent powered (or robotic) prosthetic legs independently control different joints and time periods of the gait cycle, resulting in control parameters and switching rules that can be difficult to tune by clinicians. This challenge might be addressed by a unifying control model used by recent bipedal robots, in which virtual constraints define joint patterns as functions of a monotonic variable that continuously represents the gait cycle phase. In the first application of virtual constraints to amputee locomotion, this paper derives exact and approximate control laws for a partial feedback linearization to enforce virtual constraints on a prosthetic leg. We then encode a human-inspired invariance property called effective shape into virtual constraints for the stance period. After simulating the robustness of the partial feedback linearization to clinically meaningful conditions, we experimentally implement this control strategy on a powered transfemoral leg. We report the results of three amputee subjects walking overground and at variable cadences on a treadmill, demonstrating the clinical viability of this novel control approach.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations220
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207