↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanics and energetics of walking in powered ankle exoskeletons using myoelectric control versus mechanically intrinsic control

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biomechanics and energetics of walking in powered ankle exoskeletons using myoelectric control versus mechanically intrinsic control
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12984-018-0379-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey R. Koller, C. David Remy, Daniel P. Ferris

Abstract

Controllers for assistive robotic devices can be divided into two main categories: controllers using neural signals and controllers using mechanically intrinsic signals. Both approaches are prevalent in research devices, but a direct comparison between the two could provide insight into their relative advantages and disadvantages. We studied subjects walking with robotic ankle exoskeletons using two different control modes: dynamic gain proportional myoelectric control based on soleus muscle activity (neural signal), and timing-based mechanically intrinsic control based on gait events (mechanically intrinsic signal). We hypothesized that subjects would have different measures of metabolic work rate between the two controllers as we predicted subjects would use each controller in a unique manner due to one being dependent on muscle recruitment and the other not. The two controllers had the same average actuation signal as we used the control signals from walking with the myoelectric controller to shape the mechanically intrinsic control signal. The difference being the myoelectric controller allowed step-to-step variation in the actuation signals controlled by the user's soleus muscle recruitment while the timing-based controller had the same actuation signal with each step regardless of muscle recruitment. We observed no statistically significant difference in metabolic work rate between the two controllers. Subjects walked with 11% less soleus activity during mid and late stance and significantly less peak soleus recruitment when using the timing-based controller than when using the myoelectric controller. While walking with the myoelectric controller, subjects walked with significantly higher average positive and negative total ankle power compared to walking with the timing-based controller. We interpret the reduced ankle power and muscle activity with the timing-based controller relative to the myoelectric controller to result from greater slacking effects. Subjects were able to be less engaged on a muscle level when using a controller driven by mechanically intrinsic signals than when using a controller driven by neural signals, but this had no affect on their metabolic work rate. These results suggest that the type of controller (neural vs. mechanical) is likely to affect how individuals use robotic exoskeletons for therapeutic rehabilitation or human performance augmentation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 20%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 69 53%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 37 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,830,858
of 23,337,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,009
of 1,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,662
of 331,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,337,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.