MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409764559 · doi:10.1177/02783649251323282

Quasi-passive shoulder exoskeleton with enhanced assistance variability to adapt to frequent load changes

2025· article· en· W4409764559 on OpenAlexaff
Jehyeok Kim, Junyoung Moon, Jihwan Yoon, Sumin Kim, Sang-Eui Lee, Giuk Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExoskeletonComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationControl theory (sociology)SimulationMedicineArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To develop an effective quasi-passive (QP) exoskeleton, maximizing its range of variable assistive torques while minimizing the energy required for this variation is crucial. However, achieving this goal has proven challenging so far owing to the common trade-off between the range of variable assistive torques and the energy required for torque variation. Additionally, the shoulder’s standby posture complicates the search for viable solutions. To tackle this issue, we derived design principles based on elastic potential energy field. Utilizing these principles, we developed a QP shoulder exoskeleton called adjustable shoulder exoskeleton (AD Exo), which successfully achieved a wide range of variable assistive torques with significantly reduced required energy for variation. Benchtop tests demonstrated a remarkable enhancement in variability, with a range of assistance spanning 6.37 Nm achieved with a variation energy of 0.9 J. In human trials, AD Exo significantly minimized the average percentage of maximum voluntary contraction in shoulder muscles. Compared to the condition without the exoskeleton (NE), the average muscle activation was reduced by 25% at the adjusted assistance (ADJ), 7.5% at the low assistance (LOW), and 6.7% at the high assistance (HIGH), respectively. Considering repetitive and long-term tasks, this reduction in muscle activity can accumulate, making AD Exo highly effective for alleviating shoulder muscle burden and fatigue. Furthermore, kinematic motions of wearers and actual assistive torque delivered to wearers were examined to analyze the underlying the assistive effect of the exoskeleton.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207