MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Dynamic Simulations to Estimate the Feasible Stability Region of Feet-In-Place Balance Recovery for Lower-Limb Exoskeleton Users

2022· article· en· W4312668241 on OpenAlexafffund
Keaton A. Inkol, John McPhee

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 9th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsExoskeletonTorqueControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceRoboticsBalance (ability)SimulationRobotStability (learning theory)ActuatorWork (physics)Multi-objective optimizationPareto principleUnderactuationBaseline (sea)EngineeringPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, research into the balancing ca-pabilities of lower-limb exoskeletons has increased with hopes of achieving “crutch-less” stance and ambulation. However, achieving upright stability in underactuated bipedal robotics is difficult. Disturbances due to end-user interactions and actuator limitations further complicate any solutions. The current study was therefore aimed at establishing the generalized balancing capabilities of active robotic lower-limb exoskeletons through the use of predictive dynamic simulations. The ability to balance was assessed through the use of the feasible stability region (FSR), which is the region in whole-body center of mass (COM) position-velocity space where it is possible to recover upright balance through termination of the COM velocity. Direct collocation optimal control was used to estimate the baseline FSR for the human-only and human-exoskeleton system under various conditions. Additionally, Pareto optimization was used to establish trade-offs between the FSR and the motor torques that generate the necessary balance strategies, which determine the FSR. In general, our results indicated that baseline human-only and human-exoskeleton systems share similar balancing capabilities in terms of the FSR, regardless of the device's end-user mobility; however, features of the exoskeleton like high joint-level impedance and a shifted center of mass have detrimental impacts to the overall FSR size. Results from the Pareto optimization suggest that the full FSR can be nearly reached with a fraction of the required motor torques, thus protecting both the device and user. Future work will expand the current analyses to stepping strategies and control-design implementation in the Technaid Exo-H3.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 9th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob)Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207