MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2782978216 · doi:10.1109/iris.2017.8250104

Design and control of an exoskeleton based device for hand rehabilitation

2017· article· en· W2782978216 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadhossein Hajiyan, Mohammad Biglarbegian, Shohel Mahmud, Hussein A. Abdullah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonRehabilitationTorqueContinuous passive motionController (irrigation)Control theory (sociology)Mode (computer interface)Physical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceRobotSliding mode controlPID controllerControl engineeringEngineeringSimulationControl (management)Artificial intelligencePhysical therapyMedicineHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing need to develop rehabilitation robots able to perform passive repetitive movements for patients with traumatic injuries. In this paper, a new exoskeleton-based design is proposed that imitates natural hand movements for rehabilitation purposes. For controlling the motion of the proposed design, we subsequently designed five different controllers, computed torque control (CTC), PD, PID, and two sliding mode controllers (SMC). It was shown that the second sliding mode controller resulted in improved trajectories that were chosen based on the natural hand movements. The proposed design along with the sliding mode controller has the potential to be used as a continues passive machine (CPM) resulting in improved recovery of injured hand for patients after stroke or post surgical training.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→