MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409098630 · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3556983

iLeAD: An EMG-Based Adaptive Shared Control Framework for Exoskeleton Assistance via Deep Reinforcement Learning

2025· article· en· W4409098630 on OpenAlexafffund
Masoud Karimi, Mojtaba Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExoskeletonReinforcement learningReinforcementComputer scienceControl (management)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringSimulationStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces the Intelligent Learning Assistive Devices (iLeAD) framework, a shared control architecture for an elbow exoskeleton that adapts in real time to changing external conditions using deep reinforcement learning (RL). iLeAD employs a Latent Guidance Encoder (LGE) to encode shoulder configurations and external loads into latent variables, guiding the Exoskeleton Control Policy (ExoCoP) to provide adaptive torque assistance. An Online Latent Estimator (OLE), trained via knowledge distillation, enables the exoskeleton to continuously infer these latent factors from its own observations. To model human arm motion, a separate RL-based Musculoskeletal Control Policy (MusCoP) generates muscle activations, which we validate against static optimization (SO) and computed muscle control (CMC) in a high-fidelity musculoskeletal simulation. All experiments are performed in this simulation environment, demonstrating that iLeAD achieves precise elbow tracking and robust adaptation to dynamic loads and shoulder configurations. These results highlight a promising approach for intuitive, effective human-exoskeleton interaction and advance the potential for practical human power augmentation.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207