| Literature DB >> 30001726 |
Sangjun Lee1,2, Jinsoo Kim1,2, Lauren Baker1,2, Andrew Long1,2, Nikos Karavas1,2, Nicolas Menard1,2, Ignacio Galiana1,2, Conor J Walsh3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Soft exosuits are a recent approach for assisting human locomotion, which apply assistive torques to the wearer through functional apparel. Over the past few years, there has been growing recognition of the importance of control individualization for such gait assistive devices to maximize benefit to the wearer. In this paper, we present an updated version of autonomous multi-joint soft exosuit, including an online parameter tuning method that customizes control parameters for each individual based on positive ankle augmentation power.Entities:
Keywords: Assistance; Augmentation power; Control; Exosuit; Metabolic cost; Tuning
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30001726 PMCID: PMC6044002 DOI: 10.1186/s12984-018-0410-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil ISSN: 1743-0003 Impact factor: 4.262
Fig. 1The autonomous multi-joint soft exosuit used in this study. a The apparel components and the hardware implementation. Bowden cable routings for multi-articular assistance and hip extension assistance are indicated by red and blue lines, respectively (thick lines: cable sheaths, thin lines: inner cables). Sensor placements for IMUs and loadcells are marked by green and yellow circles, respectively. b Two load paths specified by the textile architecture: multi-articular load path assisting with plantarflexion and hip flexion (highlighted in red) and hip extension load path assisting with hip extension (highlighted in blue). c A 3-D CAD model of the mobile actuation system consisting of four independent actuator units (highlighted in blue) and an exploded view of a multi-articular actuator unit
Fig. 2Representative data for the multi-articular controller: a Bowden cable position profile (top) and a resultant assistive force profile (bottom). The multi-articular assistance starts from the heel strike detected by the foot IMU, and delivers the majority of assistance during push off. The active cable retraction phase (highlighted in green) was parameterized into T1MA and DMA (T2MA - T1MA), and these parameters were customized by the augmentation-power-based control parameter tuning method
Fig. 3Representative data for the hip extension controller: a Bowden cable position profile (top) and a resultant assistive force profile (bottom). The hip extension assistance starts from the maximum hip flexion detected by the thigh IMU, and delivers the active assistance in early stance
Fig. 4Experimental setup. The components highlighted in red, i.e. the soft exosuit, the actuation system, and the battery pack, were not included in NO-DEVICE condition
Fig. 5Positive ankle augmentation power map of a representative subject (S5) from the control parameter tuning process. Stars indicate the conditions that the controller explored, and the number below each star indicates the unilateral positive augmentation power delivered at the ankle for each condition in watts. The arrows with numbers in circles (①, ②, ③, and ④) indicate the sequence of the exploration, along the grouped conditions indicated by the dotted lines. The stars labelled as “Failed” indicate the conditions that were excluded as the exosuit was limited from achieving a desired peak force of 400 N
Fig. 6Subject-specific multi-articular assistance found by the parameter tuning method. a Distribution of the subject-specific parameters (T1MA and DMA) across the seven participants (S1 to S7). b Resultant multi-articular assistive force profiles of three representative subjects: S1 (blue), S2 (red), and S7 (green)
Metabolic result for each participant
| Subject | STANDING [W/kg] | NO-DEVICE [W/kg] | EXO-OFF [W/kg] | EXO-ON [W/kg] | Net metabolic benefit [%] | Gross metabolic benefit [%] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 1.267 | 5.039 | 5.643 | 4.423 | 16.34% | 27.88% |
| S2 | 1.025 | 4.975 | 5.172 | 4.457 | 13.12% | 17.26% |
| S3 | 1.331 | 6.306 | 6.537 | 5.334 | 19.55% | 23.11% |
| S4 | 1.707 | 6.258 | 6.613 | 5.705 | 12.15% | 18.50% |
| S5 | 1.319 | 6.288 | 6.681 | 5.728 | 11.27% | 17.77% |
| S6 | 1.486 | 4.929 | 5.768 | 4.394 | 15.53% | 32.08% |
| S7 | 1.572 | 6.362 | 6.444 | 5.586 | 16.18% | 17.60% |
| Mean (± SEM) | 14.88% (± 1.09%) | 22.03% (± 2.23%) |
Fig. 7Metabolic cost of load carriage for the three experimental conditions. Solid bars indicate inter-subject mean of net metabolic rate of loaded walking, while error bars indicate SEM. Double asterisks (**) indicate that the difference between the two conditions is statistically significant (paired t-test; n = 7; P < 0.01). For EXO-ON, the net metabolic rate of loaded walking was significantly reduced by 14.88 ± 1.09% compared to NO-DEVICE (P = 5 × 10–5) and by 22.03 ± 2.23% compared to EXO-OFF (P = 2 × 10–5)