MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206336871 · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.785251

Preliminary Study on a Novel Protocol for Improving Familiarity with a Lower-Limb Robotic Exoskeleton in Able-Bodied, First-Time Users

2022· article· en· W4206336871 on OpenAlex
Jan C. L. Lau, Katja Mombaur

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Robotics and AI · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsExoskeletonProtocol (science)UsabilityComputer scienceTest (biology)Task (project management)Human–computer interactionPowered exoskeletonSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lower-limb exoskeletons have been created for different healthcare needs, but no research has been done on developing a proper protocol for users to get accustomed to moving with one. The user manuals provided also do not include such instructions. A pre-test was conducted with the TWIN (IIT), which is a lower-limb exoskeleton made for persons with spinal cord injury. In the pre-test, two healthy, able-bodied graduate students indicated a need for a protocol that can better prepare able-bodied, first-time users to move with an exoskeleton. TWIN was used in this preliminary study and nine users were divided to receive a tutorial or no tutorial before walking with the exoskeleton. Due to COVID-19 regulations, the study could only be performed with healthy, young-to-middle-aged lab members that do not require walking support. The proposed protocol was evaluated with the System Usability Scale, NASA Raw Task Load Index, and two custom surveys. The members who received the tutorial found it easy to follow and helpful, but the tutorial seemed to come at a price of higher perceived mental and physical demands, which could stem from the longer testing duration and the need to constantly recall and apply the things learned from the tutorial. All results presented are preliminary, and it is recommended to include biomechanical analysis and conduct the experiment with more participants in the future. Nonetheless, this proof-of-concept study lays groundwork for future related studies and the protocol will be adjusted, applied, and validated to patients and geriatric users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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