MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006028725 · doi:10.1109/tase.2020.2964807

Online Gait Planning of Lower-Limb Exoskeleton Robot for Paraplegic Rehabilitation Considering Weight Transfer Process

2020· article· en· W3006028725 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Ma, Xinyu Wu, Simon X. Yang, Chen Dang, Du-Xin Liu, Chao Wang, Can Wang, Chunjie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsExoskeletonGaitRobotPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationPowered exoskeletonEngineeringOrthoticsProcess (computing)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who suffer from paraplegia completely lose sensory and locomotor functions; there are no known treatment methods for their recovery at this time. Exoskeleton robots have the potential to dramatically improve the locomotor ability of these individuals. Although some exoskeleton robots for paraplegic patients have been commercialized and are able to restore walking motion at present, the pilot must acquire the ability to maintain their balance and shift their weight using forearm crutches, which is very challenging for paraplegics. To make this easier, we propose a new automated intelligent gait planning method that integrates a finite-state machine (FSM) model as an underlying foundation and a gait generation model in addition to the exoskeleton system. The underlying FSM model is defined using an inverted pendulum model and a minimum jerk algorithm. To compare the planning gait, 33 volunteers provide normal walking gaits; there are two more volunteers (paraplegic and nonparaplegic) wearing the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology (SIAT) exoskeleton robot to validate the effects of the proposed gait and offer the groups of surface electromyogram (sEMG) data for analysis. As a result, the input of the proposed gait planning method is simplified to two parameters. The proposed walking gait significantly reduces the arm muscle output. Note to Practitioners-This article was motivated by the problem that the four-degree of freedom (DoF) underactuated paraplegic rehabilitation lower limb exoskeleton robot lacks of the center of gravity (COG) transfer process when coordinating with paraplegia patients during the training process for beginner. The existing approach to deal with this problem generally is to train the pilot for obtaining the COG transfer ability by using crutches. This article suggests a gait planning method for the four-DOF underactuated rehabilitation lower limb exoskeleton robot considering the COG transfer process to make the exoskeleton robot coordinate with a pilot and ensure safety. The gait planning method is based on the inverted pendulum model and simplified to several parameters. By adjusting these parameters, the step length, step height, walking speed, and the shape of gait can be adjusted according to the requirements of the exoskeleton robot and pilot. In this article, we mathematically characterize a gait planning method for the exoskeleton control strategy. Preliminary online experiments suggest that this approach is feasible and can significantly reduce the arm muscle output of pilot. In future research, we will adjust the gait by estimating the velocity of center of mass (COM) of the pilot to make the exoskeleton robot coordinate with pilot actively.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations51
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automation Science and EngineeringSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207