MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling and Parameter Identification for Human-robot Coupled Systems in Powered Lower Limb Prostheses.

2023· article· en· W4387091120 on OpenAlexaff
Yongshan Huang, Xin Wang, Dingkun Liang, Jiaming Xiong, Anhuan Xie, Jason Gu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Decoupling (probability)Computer scienceTrajectoryRobotIdentification (biology)Control engineeringController (irrigation)Tracking (education)System identificationSimulationEnergy (signal processing)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Data modelingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good trajectory tracking results are the basis for the implementation of other upper-level algorithms in powered lower limb prostheses, which rely on dynamics modeling and good parameter identification. However, powered lower limb prosthesis are human-robot coupled systems with human-inthe-loop, and it has been a challenge to model them as well as to perform parameter identification. This paper proposes a modeling method that can realize the decoupling of human-machine, and by constructing the linearized models of human-machine coupled system and prosthetic subsystem about the physical parameter sets respectively, and finally obtaining the relationship of their corresponding physical parameter sets, thus the method of indirectly identifying the parameters of human-machine coupled system through the prosthetic subsystem can be realized. The experimental results verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the method proposed in this paper. And the experimental results also shows that prosthetic controller should take advantage of dynamic of hip motion in order to make the wearer more comfortable and fluid when swinging the leg, and will also make the prosthesis more energy efficient.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207