Measurement and Simulation of Human Sitting and Standing Movement Biomechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies of robotic exoskeletons and prostheses with regenerative actuators have focused on level-ground walking. Here we analyzed the lower-limb joint mechanical power during stand-to-sit movements using inverse dynamics to estimate the biomechanical energy available for electrical regeneration. Nine subjects performed 20 sitting and standing movements while lower-limb kinematics and ground reaction forces were measured. Subject-specific body segment parameters were estimated using parameter identification. Joint mechanical power was calculated from joint torques and rotational velocities and numerically integrated over time to estimate the joint biomechanical energy. The hip produced the largest peak negative mechanical power (1.8 ± 0.5 W/kg), followed by the knee (0.8 ± 0.3 W/kg) and ankle (0.2 ± 0.1 W/kg). Negative mechanical work from the hip, knee, and ankle joints per stand-to-sit movement were 0.35 ± 0.06 J/kg, 0.15 ± 0.08 J/kg, and 0.02 ± 0.01 J/kg, respectively. Assuming known regenerative actuator efficiencies (i.e., maximum 63%), robotic exoskeletons and prostheses could regenerate ~26 Joules of electrical energy while sitting down, compared to ~19 Joules per walking stride. Given that these regeneration performance calculations are based on healthy young adults, future research should include seniors and/or rehabilitation patients to better estimate the biomechanical energy available for electrical regeneration.Reference:Laschowski B, Razavian RS, and McPhee J. (2020). Simulation of Stand-to-Sit Biomechanics for Design of Lower-Limb Exoskeletons and Prostheses with Energy Regeneration. bioRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/801258.
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) | 0.002 | 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".