Arvind Ramanujam1, Christopher M Cirnigliaro2, Erica Garbarini1, Pierre Asselin2, Rakesh Pilkar1,3, Gail F Forrest1,3. 1. a Kessler Foundation , Human Performance and Engineering Research , West Orange , New Jersey , USA. 2. b Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research & Development Service , National Center for the Medical Consequences of Spinal Cord Injury, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Bronx , New York , USA. 3. c Rutgers - New Jersey Medical School , Newark , New Jersey , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gait parameters and neuromuscular profiles of exoskeleton-assisted walking under Max Assist condition during a single-session for; (i) able bodied (AB) individuals walking assisted with (EXO) and without (non-EXO) a powered exoskeleton, (ii) non-ambulatory SCI individuals walking assisted with a powered exoskeleton. DESIGN: Single-session. SETTING: Motion analysis laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Four AB individuals and four individuals with SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Powered lower extremity exoskeleton. OUTCOME MEASURES: Temporal-spatial parameters, kinematics, walking velocity and electromyography data. RESULTS: AB individuals in exoskeleton showed greater stance time and a significant reduction in walking velocity (P < 0.05) compared to non-EXO walking. Interestingly, when the AB individuals voluntarily assisted the exoskeleton movements, they walked with an increased velocity and lowered stance time to resemble that of slow walking. For SCI individuals, mean percent stance time was higher and walking velocity was lower compared to all AB walking conditions (P < 0.05). There was muscle activation in several lower limb muscles for SCI group. For AB individuals, there were similarities among EXO and non-EXO walking conditions however there were differences in several lower limb EMGs for phasing of muscle activation. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that our AB individuals experienced reduction in walking velocity and muscle activation amplitudes while walking in the exoskeleton and moreover with voluntary control there is a greater temporal-spatial response of the lower limbs. Also, there are neuromuscular phasic adaptions for both AB and SCI groups while walking in the exoskeleton that are inconsistent to non-EXO gait muscle activation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gait parameters and neuromuscular profiles of exoskeleton-assisted walking under Max Assist condition during a single-session for; (i) able bodied (AB) individuals walking assisted with (EXO) and without (non-EXO) a powered exoskeleton, (ii) non-ambulatory SCI individuals walking assisted with a powered exoskeleton. DESIGN: Single-session. SETTING: Motion analysis laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Four AB individuals and four individuals with SCI. INTERVENTIONS: Powered lower extremity exoskeleton. OUTCOME MEASURES: Temporal-spatial parameters, kinematics, walking velocity and electromyography data. RESULTS: AB individuals in exoskeleton showed greater stance time and a significant reduction in walking velocity (P < 0.05) compared to non-EXO walking. Interestingly, when the AB individuals voluntarily assisted the exoskeleton movements, they walked with an increased velocity and lowered stance time to resemble that of slow walking. For SCI individuals, mean percent stance time was higher and walking velocity was lower compared to all AB walking conditions (P < 0.05). There was muscle activation in several lower limb muscles for SCI group. For AB individuals, there were similarities among EXO and non-EXO walking conditions however there were differences in several lower limb EMGs for phasing of muscle activation. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that our AB individuals experienced reduction in walking velocity and muscle activation amplitudes while walking in the exoskeleton and moreover with voluntary control there is a greater temporal-spatial response of the lower limbs. Also, there are neuromuscular phasic adaptions for both AB and SCI groups while walking in the exoskeleton that are inconsistent to non-EXO gait muscle activation.
Authors: Stephen Burns; Fin Biering-Sørensen; William Donovan; Daniel E Graves; Amitabh Jha; Mark Johansen; Linda Jones; Andrei Krassioukov; Steven Kirshblum; M J Mulcahey; Mary Schmidt Read; William Waring Journal: Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil Date: 2012
Authors: Steven C Kirshblum; William Waring; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Stephen P Burns; Mark Johansen; Mary Schmidt-Read; William Donovan; Daniel Graves; Amit Jha; Linda Jones; M J Mulcahey; Andrei Krassioukov Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Gail F Forrest; Sue Ann Sisto; Hugues Barbeau; Steven C Kirshblum; Janina Wilen; Quin Bond; Scott Bentson; Pierre Asselin; Christopher M Cirnigliaro; Susan Harkema Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Francesca Sylos-Labini; Yuri P Ivanenko; Michael J Maclellan; Germana Cappellini; Richard E Poppele; Francesco Lacquaniti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stephen Clive Hayes; Christopher Richard James Wilcox; Hollie Samantha Forbes White; Natalie Vanicek Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Christopher M Cirnigliaro; J Scott Parrott; Mary Jane Myslinski; Pierre Asselin; Alexander T Lombard; Michael F La Fountaine; Steven C Kirshblum; Gail F Forrest; Trevor Dyson-Hudson; Ann M Spungen; William A Bauman Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Arvind Ramanujam; Kamyar Momeni; Manikandan Ravi; Jonathan Augustine; Erica Garbarini; Peter Barrance; Ann M Spungen; Pierre Asselin; Steven Knezevic; Gail F Forrest Journal: Front Robot AI Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Stephen Clive Hayes; Matthew White; Christopher Richard James Wilcox; Hollie Samantha Forbes White; Natalie Vanicek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.240