MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183277556 · doi:10.3390/robotics10030095

An Adaptive Assistance Controller to Optimize the Exoskeleton Contribution in Rehabilitation

2021· article· en· W3183277556 on OpenAlexaff
Rezvan Nasiri, Mohammad Shushtari, Arash Arami

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of AlbertaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonControl theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)TorqueComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Powered exoskeletonFeed forwardAdaptive controlSimulationControl engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a novel adaptation rule to optimize the exoskeleton assistance in rehabilitation tasks. The proposed method adapts the exoskeleton contribution to user impairment severity without any prior knowledge about the user motor capacity. The proposed controller is a combination of an adaptive feedforward controller and a low gain adaptive PD controller. The PD controller guarantees the stability of the human-exoskeleton system during feedforward torque adaptation by utilizing only the human-exoskeleton joint positions as the sensory feedback for assistive torque optimization. In addition to providing a convergence proof, in order to study the performance of our method we applied it to a simplified 2-DOF model of human-arm and a generic 9-DOF model of lower limb to perform walking. In each simulated task, we implemented the impaired human torque to be insufficient for the task completion. Moreover, the scenarios that violate our convergence proof assumptions are considered. The simulation results show a converging behavior for the proposed controller; the maximum convergence time of 20 s is observed. In addition, a stable control performance that optimally supplements the remaining user motor contribution is observed; the joint angle tracking error in steady condition and its improvement compared to the start of adaptation are as follows: shoulder 0.96±2.53° (76%); elbow −0.35±0.81° (33%); hip 0.10±0.86° (38%); knee −0.19±0.67° (25%); and ankle −0.05±0.20° (60%). The presented simulation results verify the robustness of proposed adaptive method in cases that differ from our mathematical assumptions and indicate its potentials to be used in practice.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticsSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207