MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096747653 · doi:10.3390/app10217626

Motion Planning of Upper-Limb Exoskeleton Robots: A Review

2020· review· en· W3096747653 on OpenAlexaff
Clautilde Nguiadem, Maxime Raison, Sofiane Achiche

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryComputer scienceMotion planningKinematicsArtificial intelligenceExoskeletonJerkInverse dynamicsMotion (physics)Motion captureRobotSimulationAcceleration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: Motion planning is an important part of exoskeleton control that improves the wearer’s safety and comfort. However, its usage introduces the problem of trajectory planning. The objective of trajectory planning is to generate the reference input for the motion-control system. This review explores the methods of trajectory planning for exoskeleton control. In order to reduce the number of surveyed papers, this review focuses on the upper limbs, which require refined three-dimensional motion planning. (2) Methods: A systematic search covering the last 20 years was conducted in Ei Compendex, Inspect-IET, Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest, and Science-Direct. The search strategy was to use and combine terms “trajectory planning”, “upper limb”, and ”exoskeleton” as high-level keywords. “Trajectory planning” and “motion planning” were also combined with the following keywords: “rehabilitation”, “humanlike motion“, “upper extremity“, “inverse kinematic“, and “learning machine “. (3) Results: A total of 67 relevant papers were discovered. Results were then classified into two main categories of methods to plan trajectory: (i) Approaches based on Cartesian motion planning, and inverse kinematics using polynomial-interpolation or optimization-based methods such as minimum-jerk, minimum-torque-change, and inertia-like models; and (ii) approaches based on “learning by demonstration” using machine-learning techniques such as supervised learning based on neural networks, and learning methods based on hidden Markov models, Gaussian mixture models, and dynamic motion primitives. (4) Conclusions: Various methods have been proposed to plan the trajectories for upper-limb exoskeleton robots, but most of them plan the trajectory offline. The review approach is general and could be extended to lower limbs. Trajectory planning has the advantage of extending the applicability of therapy robots to home usage (assistive exoskeletons); it also makes it possible to mitigate the shortages of medical caregivers and therapists, and therapy costs. In this paper, we also discuss challenges associated with trajectory planning: kinematic redundancy and incompatibility, and the trajectory-optimization problem. Commonly, methods based on the computation of swivel angles and other methods rely on the relationship (e.g., coordinated or synergistic) between the degrees of freedom used to resolve kinematic redundancy for exoskeletons. Moreover, two general solutions, namely, the self-tracing configuration of the joint axis and the alignment-free configuration of the joint axis, which add the appropriate number of extra degrees of freedom to the mechanism, were employed to improve the kinematic incompatibility between human and exoskeleton. Future work will focus on online trajectory planning and optimal control. This will be done because very few online methods were found in the scope of this study.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueApplied SciencesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207