Advancements in Sensor Technologies and Control Strategies for Lower-Limb Rehabilitation Exoskeletons: A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower-limb rehabilitation exoskeletons offer a transformative approach to enhancing recovery in patients with movement disorders affecting the lower extremities. This comprehensive systematic review delves into the literature on sensor technologies and the control strategies integrated into these exoskeletons, evaluating their capacity to address user needs and scrutinizing their structural designs regarding sensor distribution as well as control algorithms. The review examines various sensing modalities, including electromyography (EMG), force, displacement, and other innovative sensor types, employed in these devices to facilitate accurate and responsive motion control. Furthermore, the review explores the strengths and limitations of a diverse array of lower-limb rehabilitation-exoskeleton designs, highlighting areas of improvement and potential avenues for further development. In addition, the review investigates the latest control algorithms and analysis methods that have been utilized in conjunction with these sensor systems to optimize exoskeleton performance and ensure safe and effective user interactions. By building a deeper understanding of the diverse sensor technologies and monitoring systems, this review aims to contribute to the ongoing advancement of lower-limb rehabilitation exoskeletons, ultimately improving the quality of life for patients with mobility impairments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".