Review of Recent Progress in Robotic Knee Prosthesis Related Techniques: Structure, Actuation and Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the essential technology of human-robotics interactive wearable devices, the robotic knee prosthesis can provide above-knee amputations with functional knee compensations to realize their physical and psychological social regression. With the development of mechanical and mechatronic science and technology, the fully active knee prosthesis that can provide subjects with actuating torques has demonstrated a better wearing performance in slope walking and stair ascent when compared with the passive and the semi-active ones. Additionally, with intelligent human-robotics control strategies and algorithms, the wearing effect of the knee prosthesis has been greatly enhanced in terms of stance stability and swing mobility. Therefore, to help readers to obtain an overview of recent progress in robotic knee prosthesis, this paper systematically categorized knee prostheses according to their integrated functions and introduced related research in the past ten years (2010–2020) regarding (1) mechanical design, including uniaxial, four-bar, and multi-bar knee structures, (2) actuating technology, including rigid and elastic actuation, and (3) control method, including mode identification, motion prediction, and automatic control. Quantitative and qualitative analysis and comparison of robotic knee prosthesis-related techniques are conducted. The development trends are concluded as follows: (1) bionic and lightweight structures with better mechanical performance, (2) bionic elastic actuation with energy-saving effect, (3) artificial intelligence-based bionic prosthetic control. Besides, challenges and innovative insights of customized lightweight bionic knee joint structure, highly efficient compact bionic actuation, and personalized daily multi-mode gait adaptation are also discussed in-depth to facilitate the future development of the robotic knee prosthesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".