Dynamic modeling and torque estimation of FES-assisted arm-free standing for paraplegics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an application of recent findings in the field of redundant robotic systems' control, toward investigating the feasibility of functional electrical stimulation (FES) assisted arm-free standing for paraplegics. Twelve degrees-of-freedom (DOF) forward and inverse dynamic models of quiet standing have been developed. These models were used to investigate the minimum number of DOF that would need to be actuated in order to generate stable quiet standing in paraplegics despite internal and external disturbances. The results presented herein suggest that the proposed nonlinear dynamic model could achieve guaranteed asymptotic stability with only six active DOF, assuming that the remaining six DOF are passive, i.e., there is no active or passive torques applied to those DOF. The stability analyses were performed using a proportional and derivative (PD) controller coupled with gravity compensation. The results of this analysis suggest that if only six particular DOF are actively controlled in a paraplegic subject, this individual should be able to achieve stable quiet standing despite disturbances. This result has both clinical and system-design implications for the development of a device that will facilitate FES-assisted arm-free quiet standing. The clinical implication is, if a paraplegic patient can exert voluntary control over specified six DOF in the lower limbs, that patient, after intensive physiotherapy, will have the potential to perform quiet standing unassisted. The system-design implication is that FES-assisted arm-free standing for paraplegics is theoretically plausible if one would actively control only six out of 12 DOF in the lower limbs. The proposed solution does not require the locking of joints in the lower limbs (commonly applied in the field) or voluntary control of the upper body to compensate for the internal and external disturbances. Another important finding of this study is the existence of six different combinations of six active DOF able to facilitate stable quiet standing. This dynamic redundancy of the biological bipedal stance allows the selection of an ideal subset of six DOF in designing a neuroprosthesis for standing. This further implies that a considerably less complex FES system than previously anticipated needs to be developed for FES-assisted standing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".