Robustness and Tracking Performance Evaluation of PID Motion Control of 7 DoF Anthropomorphic Exoskeleton Robot Assisted Upper Limb Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper limb dysfunctions (ULD) are common following a stroke. Annually, more than 15 million people suffer a stroke worldwide. We have developed a 7 degrees of freedom (DoF) exoskeleton robot named the smart robotic exoskeleton (SREx) to provide upper limb rehabilitation therapy. The robot is designed for adults and has an extended range of motion compared to our previously designed ETS-MARSE robot. While providing rehabilitation therapy, the exoskeleton robot is always subject to random disturbance. Moreover, these types of robots manage various patients and different degrees of impairment, which are quite impossible to model and incorporate into the robot dynamics. We hypothesize that a model-independent controller, such as a PID controller, is most suitable for maneuvering a therapeutic exoskeleton robot to provide rehabilitation therapy. This research implemented a model-free proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller to maneuver a complex 7 DoF anthropomorphic exoskeleton robot (i.e., SREx) to provide a wide variety of upper limb exercises to the different subjects. The robustness and trajectory tracking performance of the PID controller was evaluated with experiments. The results show that a PID controller can effectively control a highly nonlinear and complex exoskeleton-type robot.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".