Impedance learning adaptive super‐twisting control of a robotic exoskeleton for physical human‐robot interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study addresses two issues about the interaction of the upper limb rehabilitation robot with individuals who have disabilities. The first step is to estimate the human's target position (also known as TPH). The second step is to develop a robust adaptive impedance control mechanism. A novel Non‐singular Terminal Sliding Mode Control combined with an adaptive super‐twisting controller is being developed to achieve this goal. This combination's purpose is to provide high reliability, continuous performance tracking of the system's trajectories. The proposed adaptive control strategy reduces matched dynamic uncertainty while also lowering chattering, which is the sliding mode's most glaring issue. The proposed TPH is coupled with adaptive impedance control with the use of a Radial Basis Function Neural Network, which allows a robotic exoskeleton to simply track the desired impedance model. To validate the approach in real‐time, an exoskeleton robot was deployed in controlled experimental circumstances. A comparison study has been set up to show how the adaptive impedance approach proposed is better than other traditional controllers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".