Authors:
(1) Mohammad Shushtari, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo (smshushtari@uwaterloo.ca);
(2) Julia Foellmer, Mechanics and Ocean Engineering Department, Hamburg University of Technology (julia.foellmer@tuhh.de);
(3) Sanjay Krishna Gouda, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo and Toronto Rehabilitation Institute (KITE), University Health Network (arash.arami@uwaterloo.ca). Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Results 2.1 Initial Processed Data for a Representative Participant 2.2 Overall Performance Analysis 2.3 Interaction Portrait Analysis 2.4 Individual Adaptation Strategy 3 Discussion 3.1 Human Adaptation 3.2 Importance of IP Analysis 4 Conclusion 5 Methods 5.1 Feedforward Control Strategies 5.2 Experimental Setup 5.3 Experimental Protocol 5.4 Data Analysis Declarations Appendix A Complementary Example Data Appendix B Comparison with Natural Walking References 3.1 Human Adaptation An interesting observation in Fig. 2 is the variation in metrics associated with the TBC controller. For instance, Participant #1 experienced varying interaction torques at ultra-slow and slow walking speeds, as shown in Fig. 2A. Conversely, at moderate speed walking, the variation in the interaction torque decreases, demonstrating a more consistent performance by the participant. A similar observation is evident in the case of GM muscle activation (Fig. 2B). For further investigation, Fig. 6 illustrates the average profile of GM activation and hip interaction torque, temporally normalized with respect to the gait phase at ultra-slow, slow, and moderate-speed walking. Both metrics exhibit a large standard deviation (shaded area) during ultra-slow and slow walking, while the standard deviation significantly drops during moderate-speed walking. This indicates an inconsistency in the participant’s performance in both spatial and temporal aspects. The inherent difference between the TBC and the other two controllers can explain this observation. During the TBC block, the feedforward torque is generated regardless of the user’s performance, and the exoskeleton has no capacity for adapting to the user. Therefore, it is entirely up to the user to adapt to the torque delivered by the exoskeleton. In ultra-slow and slow walking, the participant was unable to adjust their gait timing to the exoskeleton, resulting in inconsistent interaction with the exoskeleton. At the higher speed, however, the user was able to synchronize their gait with the exoskeleton assistance and, therefore, adopted a solid interaction strategy, which emerges as a lower variation in all the above metrics. This has not been the case for all participants, as six of them were not successful in effectively synchronizing their walking to the TBC-controlled exoskeleton assistance at any speed. These results highlight the importance of human-robot co-adaptation, which is not achievable with a time-based controller. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Mohammad Shushtari, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo (smshushtari@uwaterloo.ca); (2) Julia Foellmer, Mechanics and Ocean Engineering Department, Hamburg University of Technology (julia.foellmer@tuhh.de); (3) Sanjay Krishna Gouda, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo and Toronto Rehabilitation Institute (KITE), University Health Network (arash.arami@uwaterloo.ca). Authors: Authors: (1) Mohammad Shushtari, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo (smshushtari@uwaterloo.ca); (2) Julia Foellmer, Mechanics and Ocean Engineering Department, Hamburg University of Technology (julia.foellmer@tuhh.de); (3) Sanjay Krishna Gouda, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo and Toronto Rehabilitation Institute (KITE), University Health Network (arash.arami@uwaterloo.ca). Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Results 2.1 Initial Processed Data for a Representative Participant 2.1 Initial Processed Data for a Representative Participant 2.2 Overall Performance Analysis 2.2 Overall Performance Analysis 2.3 Interaction Portrait Analysis 2.3 Interaction Portrait Analysis 2.4 Individual Adaptation Strategy 2.4 Individual Adaptation Strategy 3 Discussion 3.1 Human Adaptation 3.1 Human Adaptation 3.2 Importance of IP Analysis 3.2 Importance of IP Analysis 4 Conclusion 4 Conclusion 5 Methods 5.1 Feedforward Control Strategies 5.1 Feedforward Control Strategies 5.2 Experimental Setup 5.2 Experimental Setup 5.3 Experimental Protocol 5.3 Experimental Protocol 5.4 Data Analysis 5.4 Data Analysis Declarations Declarations Appendix A Complementary Example Data Appendix A Complementary Example Data Appendix B Comparison with Natural Walking Appendix B Comparison with Natural Walking References References 3.1 Human Adaptation An interesting observation in Fig. 2 is the variation in metrics associated with the TBC controller. For instance, Participant #1 experienced varying interaction torques at ultra-slow and slow walking speeds, as shown in Fig. 2A. Conversely, at moderate speed walking, the variation in the interaction torque decreases, demonstrating a more consistent performance by the participant. A similar observation is evident in the case of GM muscle activation (Fig. 2B). For further investigation, Fig. 6 illustrates the average profile of GM activation and hip interaction torque, temporally normalized with respect to the gait phase at ultra-slow, slow, and moderate-speed walking. Both metrics exhibit a large standard deviation (shaded area) during ultra-slow and slow walking, while the standard deviation significantly drops during moderate-speed walking. This indicates an inconsistency in the participant’s performance in both spatial and temporal aspects. The inherent difference between the TBC and the other two controllers can explain this observation. During the TBC block, the feedforward torque is generated regardless of the user’s performance, and the exoskeleton has no capacity for adapting to the user. Therefore, it is entirely up to the user to adapt to the torque delivered by the exoskeleton. In ultra-slow and slow walking, the participant was unable to adjust their gait timing to the exoskeleton, resulting in inconsistent interaction with the exoskeleton. At the higher speed, however, the user was able to synchronize their gait with the exoskeleton assistance and, therefore, adopted a solid interaction strategy, which emerges as a lower variation in all the above metrics. This has not been the case for all participants, as six of them were not successful in effectively synchronizing their walking to the TBC-controlled exoskeleton assistance at any speed. These results highlight the importance of human-robot co-adaptation, which is not achievable with a time-based controller. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Why Do Exoskeletons Work Better at Faster Walking Speeds?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

How to Test the Performance of an Exoskeleton

New Study Shows Exoskeletons Now Adapt to You, Not the Other Way Around

Which Exoskeleton Technology Is Easiest on Your Muscles?

Why Some Exoskeletons Make Walking Easier Than Others

How User Weight Affects Exoskeleton Performance

What’s the Best Way to Control an Exoskeleton?

How to Test the Performance of an Exoskeleton

New Study Shows Exoskeletons Now Adapt to You, Not the Other Way Around

Which Exoskeleton Technology Is Easiest on Your Muscles?

Why Some Exoskeletons Make Walking Easier Than Others

How User Weight Affects Exoskeleton Performance

What’s the Best Way to Control an Exoskeleton?

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps