Simulation of Stand-to-Sit Biomechanics for Robotic Exoskeletons and Prostheses With Energy Regeneration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies of robotic exoskeletons and prostheses with regenerative actuators have focused on level-ground walking. Here we analyzed the lower-limb joint mechanical power during stand-to-sit movements using inverse dynamics to estimate the biomechanical energy available for electrical regeneration. Nine subjects performed 20 sitting and standing movements while lower-limb kinematics and ground reaction forces were measured. Subject-specific body segment parameters were estimated using parameter identification. Joint mechanical power was calculated from joint torques and rotational velocities and numerically integrated over time to estimate the joint biomechanical energy. The hip absorbed the largest peak negative mechanical power (1.8 ± 0.5 W/kg), followed by the knee (0.8 ± 0.3 W/kg) and ankle (0.2 ± 0.1 W/kg). Negative mechanical work on the hip, knee, and ankle joints per stand-to-sit movement were 0.35 ± 0.06 J/kg, 0.15 ± 0.08 J/kg, and 0.02 ± 0.01 J/kg, respectively. Assuming known regenerative actuator efficiencies (i.e., maximum 63%), robotic exoskeletons and prostheses could regenerate ~26 Joules of electrical energy while sitting down, compared to ~19 Joules per walking stride. Given that these regeneration performance calculations are based on healthy young adults, future research should include seniors and/or rehabilitation patients to better estimate the biomechanical energy available for electrical regeneration.
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.
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 it