Coordination Between Partial Robotic Exoskeletons and Human Gait: A Comprehensive Review on Control Strategies

Lower-limb robotic exoskeletons have become powerful tools to assist or rehabilitate the gait of subjects with impaired walking, even when they are designed to act only partially over the locomotor system, as in the case of unilateral or single-joint exoskeletons. These partial exoskeletons require a proper method to synchronize their assistive actions and ensure correct inter-joint coordination with the user’s gait. This review analyzes the state of the art of control strategies to coordinate the assistance provided by these partial devices with the actual gait of the wearers. We have analyzed and classified the different approaches independently of the hardware implementation, describing their basis and principles. We have also reviewed the experimental validations of these devices for impaired and unimpaired walking subjects to provide the reader with a clear view of their technology readiness level. Eventually, the current state of the art and necessary future steps in the field are summarized and discussed.

1 Introduction

Robotic exoskeletons are wearable mechanisms capable of augmenting, restoring, or assisting the function of human limbs by acting in parallel (Pons, 2008). This technology can be applied in many fields, ranging from industrial (Fox et al., 2019) or military (Chu et al., 2006) domains, where the user is empowered to perform a heavy task, to space teleoperation (Lovasz et al., 2017) or health care (Cardona et al., 2020). More specifically, two of the fields in which lower-limb robotic exoskeletons have shown promising results are rehabilitation (Louie and Eng, 2016; Holanda et al., 2017) or assistance (Yan et al., 2015a) of human gait.

In this context, significant research efforts have been made to develop and improve wearable robotic devices that provide proper assistance during gait. A considerable amount of works have addressed different aspects of the design, control strategies, and experimental validation of these devices. To understand and organize the large body of information on this topic, several authors have reviewed the development of lower-limb robotic exoskeletons from multiple perspectives [see (Sanchez-Villamañan et al., 2019) for a complete review of compliant actuators currently used in robotic exoskeletons or (Pinto-Fernandez et al., 2020) for a detailed analysis of performance metrics, for instance].

In terms of control strategies, Tucker et al. provided an overview of the different control strategies for lower-limb robotic prostheses and orthoses and introduced a three-level paradigm controller development (Tucker et al., 2015). This same paradigm was recently updated and completed by Baud et al., who systematically analyzed the control strategies of lower-limb exoskeletons by dividing them into functional units (Baud et al., 2021). Considering these three-level paradigms, Ma et al. performed a deeper review of the high-level controllers responsible for the voluntary control of robotic devices (Ma et al., 2019), while Miscon et al. focused on middle-level controllers, in particular, joint trajectory generation for robotic exoskeletons (Miskon and Yusof, 2014). Low-level controllers responsible for direct actuator control were reviewed by Meng et al. (2015). The review proposed by Yan et al. also focused on control strategies for lower-limb exoskeletons, more specifically, on strategies that assisted user’s gait (Yan et al., 2015a). Similarly, Li et al. also reviewed control strategies for lower-limb exoskeletons but centered on rehabilitation purposes (Li et al., 2021).

Considering the number of actuated joints, robotic exoskeletons can be classified as single-joint or multi-joint (former, if they actuate over one unique joint; latter if more than one joint is assisted) (Yan et al., 2015a). Some authors have focused their reviews on single-joint exoskeleton robots. For instance, ankle robots have been reviewed by Mills et al. (2010) and also by Shi et al. (2019), while Chen et al. analyzed both knee (Chen et al., 2019) and hip (Chen et al., 2020) devices.

In contrast with complete lower-limb exoskeletons, which act over the hips and knees (even ankles) of both limbs, partial exoskeletons act partially over the locomotor system of the wearer by exclusively assisting one joint (single-joint exoskeletons) or one leg of the user (unilateral exoskeletons). Although they present several advantages [they are simpler and lighter than bilateral devices (Baud et al., 2021) and can target the specific function of the assisted joint during gait (Yan et al., 2015a)], they need to ensure proper interjoint coordination, especially with non-actuated joints. Unlike complete exoskeletons, which can impose the appropriate coordination between joints and legs, partial exoskeletons cannot actuate globally in the entire locomotor system; therefore, this interjoint coordination needs to be resolved by the controller of the device. Such coordination requires a dual interaction with humans: cognitive and physical. Proper delivery of the assistance is required to ensure that the user can benefit from the exoskeleton’s assistance, but also, a predictable timing that matches the user’s pre-estimation is required to achieve the exoskeleton’s embodiment. This would lead wearers to assimilate the robot’s action; so the exoskeleton would not be used as a tool but as a part of the user’s body (Li et al., 2021).

Understanding strategies that achieve proper coordination of human and robotic systems has become crucial, especially for those devices which aim to rehabilitate or assist the gait of impaired walking users. Although coordinated operation is crucial for the proper operation of a partial robotic exoskeleton, it has not yet been systematically analyzed in previous works. The main objective of this paper is to perform a comprehensive analysis of the different control strategies that are used to coordinate the action of partial exoskeletons with the user’s gait to ensure proper interjoint coordination. We have also included those strategies initially developed for bilateral or complete exoskeletons, that could be used to synchronize the action of partial exoskeletons. We have paid particular attention to the assessments and validations that the authors have carried out with their devices and strategies. The reported effects of each work on impaired or unimpaired walking subjects have also been summarized in this review. The content of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reports the literature search methodology that we followed. Section 3 describes the state of the art, organized into the five main coordination strategies that we identified. Finally, section 4 and section 5 discuss and conclude the main findings of this review.

2 Literature Search Methodology

We conducted a literature search using two different databases: Scopus and Web of Science from January 2004 until December 2021. To obtain results that cover the coordination issue between humans and robots, especially in unilateral or single-joint devices, we used the following search query in the title, abstract, and keywords:

Topic = {leg OR hip OR knee OR ankle OR foot OR [lower AND (limb* OR extremity OR body)]} AND Topic= (power* OR robot*) AND Topic = [ortho* OR exoskeleton* OR (wearable robot*) OR (portable robot*) OR (robot* suit) OR (robot exosuit)] AND Topic= (control* OR validation* AND Topic= (coord* OR unilateral OR (mono joint) OR (single joint) OR ((sound OR impaired OR paretic) AND (leg OR limb)) OR (hemip*))

Inclusion criteria for this review were as follows:

1) English full-text journal articles or conference proceedings.

2) Studies related to the design and control of a unilateral or single-joint robotic exoskeleton to assist gait.

3) Studies that involved a bilateral exoskeleton whose control strategy could be directly applied to the unilateral or single-joint paradigms.

4) Studies with a description of the experimental validation and assistance results of the devices mentioned above.

Exclusion Criteria Included

1) Documents that only described the mechanical structure of the device or the design of actuators or new materials intended for gait assistance.

2) Documents that described prosthesis or passive and uncontrolled orthosis.

3) Documents that lacked complete methods, results, or discussion sections.

The initial number of articles (844) was reduced to 671 after looking for duplicated documents. After checking the title and abstract, we discarded 467 papers and 204 were selected for full-text reading. Based on the authors’ experience and the bibliography of the reviewed articles, 34 documents that were not included in the initial search were also considered for full-text reading. Then, we selected the 161 documents that fulfilled the inclusion criteria to be reported in this review. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the literature search and the document selection procedure.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1. Flow diagram of the literature search methodology for document selection.

3 State of the Art

Our analysis of the selected documents was focused on two main aspects: 1) coordination strategies with the actual user’s gait and 2) experimental validation of the devices regarding the subjects (number and pathology) and obtained results. The control strategies were analyzed regardless of the device’s morphology or actuation principle, based on the working principles that ensure proper interjoint coordination between the robotic exoskeleton and the user’s gait. The individual details of each reviewed paper are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

Across the literature, we have identified five strategies to synchronize the action of wearable robotic devices with human gait. The most extended methodology exploits the cyclic nature of human gait by using a finite state machine. Some authors leverage this cyclic property to estimate the continuous gait phase, which is a function that increases monotonically from 0 to 100% between consecutive heel strikes, and use this variable for the timing of the robot assistance. Other methodologies are based on the activity generated by the user, relying on either the movement itself or the muscle activity. Finally, mathematical tools have been developed, as in the case of central pattern generators that simulate the full gait dynamics of a subject. Figure 2 shows a diagram of the proposed classification.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2. Classification of the different kinds of human-robot coordination strategies identified throughout the systematic review.

3.1 Coordination Based on Finite State Machine

Since human gait is a continuous repetition of the same states and events, some authors have taken advantage of this cyclic nature to coordinate the action of robotic exoskeletons with human locomotion (Blaya and Herr, 2004; Kawamoto and Sankai, 2005; Zhang et al., 2017). Due to its simplicity, authors have used this strategy since the 1960s (Popovic et al., 1991, 1995; Tomovic and McGhee, 1966). Figure 3 represents the conceptual description of this coordination strategy between robot and human gait. This coordination relies on detecting key events and consequent gait division into states. These key-events are related to the joint kinematics (maximum and minimum of the joint angle or the angular velocity) or events about the foot’s contact with the floor (heel-strike, flat-foot, toe-off, etc.,). A common method to follow the sequence of gait events is the use of a finite state machine (FSM) based on angular sensors (such as gyroscopes or potentiometers) (Di Natali et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2020) or pressure sensors (such as insole force resisting sensors—FSR or foot switches) (Blaya and Herr, 2004; Kawamoto and Sankai, 2005; Shorter et al., 2011).

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 3. Conceptual representation of the robot-gait coordination based on a finite state machine: each gait state or the transitions between them are associated to a different action in the exoskeleton.

Within this strategy, robot coordination can be achieved by different approaches. Some authors triggered a specific action when a key-event was detected (Kawamoto and Sankai, 2005; Zhang et al., 2017), while others changed the actuation mode of the robot depending on the current gait states determined by the FSM (Blaya and Herr, 2004).

3.1.1 Actuation Mode Depending on the Gait Subphase

The contact of each foot with the floor can be used to divide the gait cycle of each leg into states, defining the stance and swing states for the contact and noncontact stages, respectively. Several authors tailored the actuation mode of their system according to the current gait state in different ways, modifying the impedance of the actuators (Blaya and Herr, 2004; dos Santos et al., 2017), their stiffness (Shamaei et al., 2013; 2014a; 2014b, 2015) or the torque levels (Horst, 2009; Forrester et al., 2016).

The most extended method was to modulate the impedance level of the robotic joint according to the biomechanical requirements of the human joint during each gait state. Typically, a high-impedance model was applied during stance to assist weight acceptance, while a low-impedance model allowed free movement of the leg during the swing state (Blaya and Herr, 2004; Chinimilli et al., 2020; dos Santos et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2015; Shamaei et al., 2013; Villa-Parra et al., 2017; El Zahraa Wehbi et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2016).

A different approach consisted of adjusting the torque assistant profile depending on the gait state derived from biomechanical models. Thus, ankle exoskeletons applied plantarflexion torque during weight loading to prevent foot drop, and applied plantarflexion torque during preswing and dorsiflexion torque during swing phase to prevent toe drag (Kim et al., 2011, 2020; Roy et al., 2013; Forrester et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2018). Meanwhile, knee exoskeletons reinforced the extension of the joint during stance and guide the movement during the swing phase of the gait (Horst, 2009; Wong et al., 2012; Stein et al., 2014; Arazpour et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2020; Liu and Wang, 2020).

In other cases, this state-dependent actuation mode was exploited by elastic actuators to store energy during the loading phase and release it afterwards to assist the movement of the joint. Thus, body inertia during the stance phase collaborated to compress an elastic actuator that was decompressed during the swing, releasing the elastic energy and assisting the movement of the leg (Ward et al., 2011; Di Natali et al., 2019).

3.1.2 Action Triggered by the Detection of Key-Events

Some exoskeletons based the timing of their assistance on detecting certain key-events, typically the heel strike. When this event was detected, the device triggered the application of a predefined position and velocity (Kawamoto et al., 2009), torque (Shorter et al., 2011; Sridar et al., 2018, 2020), or work profiles (Mooney et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Mooney and Herr, 2016). In addition to the heel strike, other foot events could also be used to trigger a different assistive profile, such as push-off (Acosta-Sojo and Stirling, 2022) or flat-foot events (Lerner et al., 2018). A set of different joint events can also be used to trigger different assistive profiles in different gait states (Gomez-Vargas et al., 2021; Lerner et al., 2017b, 2017a; Xia et al., 2020; Yeung et al., 2017, 2021).

To improve the efficacy of the assistance, some authors scaled the duration of the reference profile to the duration of previous steps (Beyl et al., 2011; Knaepen et al., 2014; Jackson and Collins, 2015, 2019; Lim et al., 2015; Witte et al., 2015; Galle et al., 2017; Steele et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2018; Malcolm et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2019; Bacek et al., 2021). By doing so, the assistive profile was adapted to different gait velocities and could be used independently of the individual gait features of the user. However, the trigger of these profiles was still limited to the event detection moment.

3.2 Coordination Based on the Real-Time Estimation of the Continuous Gait Phase

For the coordination between wearable robots and human gait, several authors have opted to use the concept of continuous gait phase in their control paradigms (Ronsse et al., 2011; Giovacchini et al., 2015; Awad et al., 2017b; Jin et al., 2017). The gait phase is a continuous function that increases monotonically from 0 to 100% between consecutive heel strikes, so it provides continuous information of the timing inside the current step and can be used to synchronize the robot’s action with the current step timing.

We have identified two main methods to estimate the gait phase in real-time: the first method is based on the duration of previous steps (Awad et al., 2017b; Jin et al., 2017; Ding et al., 2018), while the second method uses adaptive frequency oscillators (also called adaptive oscillators, AOs) to learn features of the gait as a cyclic process, including the gait phase (Ronsse et al., 2011; Giovacchini et al., 2015; Seo et al., 2016). Additionally, a third residual subgroup includes those methods that use kinematic information and machine learning or optimization techniques. In Figure 4, we depict a representation of a coordination strategy based on the gait phase estimated by an AO.

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 4. Conceptual representation of the robot-gait coordination based on the gait phase estimation performed by an Adaptive Frequency Oscillator: the AFO estimates the continuous gait phase and uses it to synchronize the application of an assistive profile.

3.2.1 Step Time Based Gait Phase Estimation

The core of this strategy consists of estimating the phase of the gait cycle considering the duration of the last step and the time lapse from the last heel strike. Therefore, it is a quite simple strategy to estimate the continuous gait phase while the step duration remained constant. Once the gait phase is known, it is used to determine the timing of the assistive actions of the robotic exoskeleton (Oymagil et al., 2007; Bae et al., 2015, 2018a, 2018b; Ding et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018; Lee et al., 2016, Lee et al., 2017 G.; Awad et al., 2017a, 2017b; Jin et al., 2017; Young et al., 2017; Bougrinat et al., 2019; Huo et al., 2019; Kang et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Siviy et al., 2020; Haufe et al., 2021).

3.2.2 Adaptive Frequency Oscillators

To synchronize the action of a robotic exoskeleton with the human gait, several authors considered the periodic nature of gait-related signals (such as kinematics or muscular activity) and used its features (e.g., amplitude, frequency, or phase) for the control of the robot. AOs are mathematical tools that can be synchronized with a quasi-periodic signal by learning its features as variable states (Ronsse et al., 2013). Although this approach initially worked for quasi-sinusoidal signals, it was extended to non-sinusoidal periodic signals by coupling a pool of AOs to a kernel-based non-linear filter (Ronsse et al., 2011). Once converged, the amplitude, frequency, and phase of the AO corresponded to the amplitude, frequency, and phase of the input signal. If this input was a characteristic gait signal, its features could be used inside the control strategy of a robotic wearable device.

The information provided by the AO could be used only for assistance timing, considering the phase and frequency of the gait (Lenzi et al., 2013; Aguirre-Ollinger, 2015; Yan et al., 2015b; Cempini et al., 2015; Giovacchini et al., 2015; Ruiz Garate et al., 2016; Seo et al., 2016; Parri et al., 2017; Ruiz Garate et al., 2017; Sanz-Morere et al., 2018; Aguirre-Ollinger et al., 2019; Ishmael et al., 2019; Aguirre-Ollinger and Yu, 2021; Talatian et al., 2021; Tricomi et al., 2021), or it could also be used to reconstruct the source signal to use it directly as a reference for the low-level controller (Zanotto et al., 2014) or as filtered information to generate an assistive reference (Ronsse et al., 2011).

Although the input of an AO was usually a kinematic signal, as reported in the mentioned articles, other signals could also be used. Measures from insole pressure sensors (Grazi et al., 2015; van Dijk et al., 2017), the linear envelope of muscular activity (Aguirre-Ollinger, 2013), or joint torques (Han et al., 2019) were also demonstrated to be reliable sources of information to estimate the gait phase with AOs.

An extended approach, called Particularly Shaped Adaptive Oscillator (PSAO), was used to determine the gait phase and frequency from the hip angle (Seo et al., 2016; Lee H.-J. et al., 2017, Lee et al., 2017 S.-H., 2019). In addition, other information such as the user’s speed and the ground inclination was also estimated from the PSAO states and one inertial measurement unit (IMU) located at the user’s back.

3.2.3 Kinematics-Based Gait Phase Estimation

These methods rely on the kinematic information of the joints to estimate the continuous real-time gait phase of the user. For example, the ANdROS prototype compared the movement of both knees and hips with reference trajectories and minimized the difference between them to estimate the current gait phase (Aoyagi et al., 2007; Unluhisarcikli et al., 2011).

Other methods used machine learning techniques to learn the gait features from experimental data. In (Kang et al., 2020), the authors used a neural network model based on hip and thigh angles to estimate the gait phase in real-time. In contrast, in (Li et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2021), the authors opted for learning a model to characterize the kinematics of the gait and then used a cross-correlation method (Li et al., 2011) or a particle swarm optimization (Zhang et al., 2021) to estimate the continuous gait phase.

3.3 Coordination Based on User Kinetics and Kinematics

This section presents the coordination methodologies that relied on the users’ movements. These techniques calculate the assistance according to the current movement of the limbs and can be divided according to the movements or restrictions that are considered: 1) residual movements of the assisted limb, 2) movements of the unassisted limb, or 3) coupling restriction between joint movements. Figure 5 represents an example of the working principle of these strategies.

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 5. Conceptual representation of the robot-gait coordination based on the kinematics of the gait: a flow control imposed restrictions between the movement of hip and knee to generate the assistive profile that is applied by the robot.

3.3.1 Coordination Based on the Movement of the Assisted Limb

Some authors calculated the assistive action of their robotic devices based on the residual movements of the leg that was aimed to be assisted. For example, in (Lai et al., 2013), the authors exploited the strong correlation between the knee angle and hip angular velocity during the swing phase of gait. Other sources of information were the pressure measurements between the thigh muscles and the exoskeleton straps (Wu et al., 2015) for generating a velocity reference profile, or the biological moment of the ankle for generating assistive (Fang and Lerner, 2021; Gasparri et al., 2019; Orekhov et al., 2020, 2021) or resistive (Conner et al., 2020) torque profiles.

3.3.2 Coordination Based on the Movement of the Non-Assisted Limb

The assistance provided by a unilateral exoskeleton can be based on the assumption that the movement of both legs is delayed 180°. This paradigm is called echo-control (Wang et al., 2013) and implies that the movement of one leg can be used to estimate the movement of the contralateral leg to apply an assistive strategy or directly replicate the gait pattern of the non-assisted leg (Nguyen et al., 2013; Kawamoto et al., 2014, 2015; Zhang et al., 2016; Xie and Huang, 2019; Baser et al., 2020; Lora-Millan et al., 2020). The prototype developed by Peng et al. also based its movement on sound limb kinematics, but according to a leader-follower multi-agent system framework (Peng et al., 2020).

Instead of directly using the trajectory depicted by the unimpaired leg, some authors used regression models to estimate the desired position of the impaired limb according to the position of the unimpaired limb. The complementary limb motion estimation (CLME) strategy computed the paretic limb’s targeted joint positions based on the healthy one’s current position by using synergetic information by referencing unimpaired walking subjects (Vallery and Buss, 2006; Vallery et al., 2007, 2009).

This method was extended by Hassan et al., who included the movement of a walking aid (a cane) as an input of the PCA algorithm (Hassan et al., 2012, 2018) to estimate a target trajectory for the hip and knee joints. Nunes et al. also extended the PCA approach, but to obtain the torque primitives that originated the movement and used them as references for their knee exoskeleton (Nunes et al., 2018).

3.3.3 Coordination Based on the Restriction Between the Movements of the Joints

Some authors exploited the inter-joint restrictions to coordinate the assistance provided by a robotic exoskeleton. This is the case for the force-field control that imposed a force field around a healthy foot trajectory in the joint space, so that users could be forced to move the foot inside this trajectory (Banala et al., 2007, 2009). The second version of this controller included a tangential force to the prescribed trajectory to assist the user in the movement (Winfree et al., 2011; Jin et al., 2015, 2018; Srivastava et al., 2015; Hidayah et al., 2020).

Although the path control reinforced the constraints between hips and knees in the joint space during the swing (Martinez et al., 2018), it also allowed the user to modify the step length, because the users were able to control the exoskeleton freely during the stance phase. This controller was expanded by adding a tangential force to the prescribed path to assist the movement across it. This new version was called flow control (Martinez et al., 2019). Although this controller was initially developed for bilateral exoskeletons, it was adapted to be used in a knee exoskeleton in a single-joint flow control paradigm (Martinez et al., 2020).

Considering a complete biomechanical model also leads to restrictions on the joint configuration. This is the case for the controller that considered the virtual pivot point (VPP) as the point above the center of mass through which the ground reaction forces should pass to obtain a stable gait. This controller aimed to apply such joint torques to modify the directions of these forces and ensure a stable gait by guiding them through the VPP (Zhao et al., 2017; Sharbafi et al., 2018).

3.4 Coordination Based on Muscular Activity

Limb movements are inevitably coordinated with the biosignals that recruit the muscles involved in movements. Because of this, some authors used these signals to control their robotic exoskeletons, as represented in Figure 6. Three different approaches have been found in the literature: 1) using muscular activity as a trigger to execute predefined trajectories in the exoskeleton (Kawamoto et al., 2010), 2) calculating the assistive torque proportionally to the muscular activity (the approach called myoelectric proportional control) (Gordon and Ferris, 2007; Nilsson et al., 2014) or 3) employing neuromechanical models to calculate the joint torque from the activity of the muscles involved in the gait (Fleischer and Hommel, 2008).

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 6. Conceptual representation of the robot-gait coordination based on the EMG signals from the user: the controller generates an assistance whose timing and amplitude depend on the muscular activity.

3.4.1 Exoskeleton Actions Triggered by Muscular Activity

Similar to detecting certain gait key-events, muscular activity can also be detected and used to trigger a variety of actions in a device. Typically, this controller detects when muscular activity is above a certain threshold to perform an assistive action, such as triggering a torque profile (Kawamoto et al., 2010) or some predefined movements (Nilsson et al., 2014; Watanabe et al., 2014, 2020).

3.4.2 Proportional Myoelectric Control

In contrast to the previous strategy, in which muscular activity is discretely evaluated through a comparison with a threshold, proportional myoelectric control uses information from voluntarily activated gait muscles to continuously assist limb movement. This controller generates an assistance profile that is proportional to the recruitment of these muscles (Nilsson et al., 2014; Sczesny-Kaiser et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2018; Watanabe et al., 2014, 2020). The muscles involved in this controller depends on the morphology of the robotic exoskeleton, while the above mentioned works use flexor/extensor muscles of the hip and knee to assist these joints, soleus and gastrocnemius activity can be used to command an ankle exoskeleton (Cain et al., 2007; Gordon and Ferris, 2007; Sawicki and Ferris, 2008; Kinnaird and Ferris, 2009; Kao et al., 2010; Koller et al., 2017).

Although the myoelectric proportional control usually utilize a fixed gain to calculate the assistance profile, Koller et al. introduced an adaptive gain that is a function of muscular activity (Koller et al., 2015). This adaptive paradigm leads to a more efficient assistive strategy by allowing users to find the optimal gait. An extension of the myoelectric proportional control avoids the co-contraction of pneumatic artificial muscle actuators by inhibiting flexor actuators when the extensor muscle is recruited (Sawicki and Ferris, 2009).

As an improvement of the proportional myoelectric control, the proportional myoelectric propulsion (PMP) controller adjusts not only the amplitude of the assistance but also its timing (Takahashi et al., 2015). The PMP controller generates a torque profile proportional to the muscular activation when the ground reaction force is directed anteriorly to assist the plantar flexion ankle in hemiparetic subjects. In the second version of this controller, exoskeleton assistance is also modulated by gait speed, as a higher gait speed needed higher assistance (McCain et al., 2019).

3.4.3 Neuromechanical Models for Joint Torque Estimation

The muscular activation signal can also be used to estimate joint torque using neuromechanical models. For example, Fleischer et al. developed a biomechanical model to estimate knee torque based on EMG recordings from the knee flexor/extensor muscles and provided it through an exoskeleton to assist the gait (Fleischer and Hommel, 2008). In contrast, Durandau et al. exploited the synergies between muculo-tendom units, so they developed a user-specific neuromechanical model based on 12 units, although measurements of only 8 of them were used (Durandau et al., 2019). This model estimated the joint torque, and a fraction of it was provided to the users to assist the movement of their lower limbs.

3.5 Central Pattern Generators

Following a biomimetic approach, some authors have opted to emulate the central pattern generators (CPGs) responsible for generating coordinated patterns of cyclic activity that play a crucial role in the locomotion of vertebrate and invertebrate animals (Ijspeert, 2008). By mathematically modeling these CPG neural networks, it is possible to obtain robust and rhythmic movement characteristics of bipedal locomotion (Mishra et al., 2013). If CPGs are synchronized with an external signal, typically a kinematic signal, they can also be used to coordinate the assistance provided by a robotic exoskeleton (Figure 7).

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 7. Conceptual representation of the robot-gait coordination based on the use of a CPG: it estimates cyclic signals coordinated with the user’s gait that is used to generate the assistive profile for the robot.

For example, Mishra et al. described an algorithm that used a CPG with the movement of the sound leg of a stroke survivor to determine the trajectory of a rehabilitation robot that would assist the movement of their paretic leg (Mishra et al., 2014). In contrast, the CPG proposed for the Curara prototype simulated the excitation and inhibition of neurons of the central nervous system. It used the interaction torque between the robot and the impaired limb to estimate the gait phase and generate an assistive reference trajectory from a predefined pattern (Tsukahara and Hashimoto, 2016; Mizukami et al., 2018). Other authors opted for synchronizing the CPG output with the detection of floor contact events (Dzeladini et al., 2016; Tamburella et al., 2020) or with the estimated knee torque from the knee flexor/extensor EMG (Gui et al., 2017).

3.6 Experimental Validation

Across the reviewed literature, the inconsistency found in the experimental validation of the reviewed control strategies is remarkable. As reported in other reviews (Pinto-Fernandez et al., 2020; Baud et al., 2021), the lack of common validation protocols and metrics makes it extremely difficult to compare results from different devices and reliably assess the benefits of each control strategy. Regarding the reviewed works, we found two main issues that were divergent: 1) the subject population that tested the devices and 2) the evaluated outcomes. Both items are summarized in Supplementary Table S1 for each reviewed paper.

3.6.1 Subjects Involved in the Validation

The validation tests reported in the reviewed literature can be divided into three types. The first concerns the technical feasibility of the proposed device and/or the control method. In this case, some papers presented results in which no subjects were involved in the evaluation. In other cases, the authors reported simulation results (Mishra et al., 2014; Sharbafi et al., 2018) or experimental results on the robot’s ability to follow a prescribed trajectory, reject disturbances, or generate assistive profiles in time (Aoyagi et al., 2007; Unluhisarcikli et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). Similarly, people with unimpaired or impaired walking were involved in other works just because their data were needed for the control strategies to use as input. In these cases, the authors only evaluated the assistance generation and how it was provided, instead of the effects on the unimpaired walking participants (Fleischer and Hommel, 2008; Hassan et al., 2012; Shamaei et al., 2013; Giovacchini et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2016; Gui et al., 2017) or impaired walking participants involved (Sanz-Morere et al., 2018; Huo et al., 2019; Baser et al., 2020).

In contrast, other studies involved human subjects because they were focused on evaluating the real effects of the exoskeleton’s assistance. Some authors involved unimpaired walking subjects because they were the target users (Mooney et al., 2014b; Galle et al., 2017; Malcolm et al., 2018; Acosta-Sojo and Stirling, 2022), although sometimes they participated as an earlier validation before involving impaired walking subjects (Vallery et al., 2007; Winfree et al., 2011; Hassan et al., 2012; Dzeladini et al., 2016; Seo et al., 2016). Typically, after such an early validation stage, the effects of the devices were evaluated in actually impaired walking subjects (Srivastava et al., 2015; Lee H.-J. et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2018; Tamburella et al., 2020). On other occasions, these subjects were directly involved in experimental validations to assess the effect of a robotic exoskeleton in this population without the need for previous validations (Bae et al., 2015; Lerner et al., 2017a; Tan et al., 2018).

3.6.2 Assessed Outcomes

As mentioned above, some authors reported technical validation of their devices, in which they evaluated the robot’s ability to follow a prescribed trajectory, reject disturbances, or generate assistive profiles at the correct time (Fleischer and Hommel, 2008; Beyl et al., 2011; Hassan et al., 2012; Shamaei et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2016). Most of the reviewed articles reported information about how assistance affected those subjects who wore the exoskeleton.

These effects were measured in impaired and unimpaired walking subjects while the robotic devices were assisting their gait. Throughout the reviewed literature, the authors focused on three different aspects during these validations. Most of them assessed how assistance modified the kinematics of the gait to produce a more symmetric gait (Bae et al., 2015; Arazpour et al., 2016; Liu and Wang, 2020) or a pattern closer to natural gait (Kawamoto et al., 2009; Winfree et al., 2011; Srivastava et al., 2015; Martinez et al., 2020; Gomez-Vargas et al., 2021) reduce drop-foot (Blaya and Herr, 2004; Yeung et al., 2017) or crouch gait (Lerner et al., 2017a), improve step length and height (Hidayah et al., 2020), or increase gait speed (Ruiz Garate et al., 2017; Mizukami et al., 2018).

Other authors went beyond and evaluated the physiological effects of the provided gait assistance. Several authors detected changes in the lower limbs’ muscular activity due to the robot’s action, pointing out that the subjects adapted their natural patterns according to the provided assistance (Gordon and Ferris, 2007; Steele et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018). Similarly, some authors found reductions in the metabolic cost of transport, indicating that robotic assistance led to more efficient gait patterns with lower energetic cost (Koller et al., 2015; Lee H.-J. et al., 2017; Ding et al., 2018).

4 Discussion

In this paper, we have reviewed and classified the main control strategies that aim to synchronize the action of partial robotic exoskeletons with the current gait of their users. The distribution of the analyzed literature is represented in Figure 8. We have grouped the articles in this review according to their coordination strategies. The FSM-based coordination strategy was the most frequent, appearing in 34.8% of the reported articles due to its simplicity and favorable results. The second most common coordination strategy was based on continuous gait phase estimation, which occurred in 28.6% of the total reviewed articles. Among all of them, the methods based on the user’s kinematics were 21.1%, while the approaches based on muscular activity or CPG were only 11.8% and 3.7%, respectively.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 8. Articles distribution according to the strategy proposed to coordinate the action of a partial robotic exoskeleton with the actual user gait.

Regarding the number of devices that have been used in each coordination methodology, Figure 9 represents the ratio of articles per device that have been reported in each strategy. This ratio indicates the average number of papers that reported results with the same device, so a high ratio means that the published articles involved few different devices, and therefore, the application of the control paradigm is not as widespread as it could seem. Remarkably, the highest ratios correspond to the time-based gait phase estimation and the myoelectric proportional coordination strategies. This is because the Soft Exosuit from Harvard University (Bae et al., 2015, 2018a, 2018b; Ding et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018; Lee et al., 2016, Lee et al., 2017 G.; Awad et al., 2017a, 2017b; Kim et al., 2019; Siviy et al., 2020) was used in 68.4% of articles that estimated the continuous gait phase using the step time, whereas the HAL prototype (Kawamoto et al., 2010; Nilsson et al., 2014; Sczesny-Kaiser et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2018, 2020; Watanabe et al., 2014, 2020) and the ankle-foot-orthosis from the University of Michigan (Cain et al., 2007; Gordon and Ferris, 2007; Sawicki and Ferris, 2008; Kinnaird and Ferris, 2009; Kao et al., 2010; Koller et al., 2015, 2017) supposed, each one, the 43.8% of articles that reported results using a myoelectric proportional controller.

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 9. Average number of articles per device in each of the coordination strategies analyzed.

Figure 10 illustrates the cumulative frequency of articles related to each identified coordination strategy. As previously mentioned, FSM-based methods have been postulated to be the most frequent technique. However, the increasing tendency of algorithms that estimate the continuous gait phase is remarkable, surpassing muscular coordination and kinematics-based techniques, although their use started several years later. This implies the high interest aroused by these algorithms as tools for successfully coordinating the action of partial exoskeletons.

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 10. Cumulative frequency of the number of published articles related to each of the identified coordination methodologies between partial exoskeletons and human movements.

Regarding the experimental validations that the authors proposed for their devices, we have identified three main kinds: 1) technical validations that only assessed the generation of the assistance without analyzing its effects, 2) validations where the assistance was provided to unimpaired walking subjects, and 3) validations where the assistance was provided to impaired walking subjects. An overview of the distribution of the experimental validations in the reviewed articles is depicted in Figure 11.

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 11. Experimental validations of the proposed coordination strategies. We represent the overall distributions and the detailed distributions for each of the five main coordination methodologies. Each color (red, amber, and green) represents a kind of validation (technical, with unimpaired walking subjects, or with impaired walking subjects, respectively). The lightness of the color indicates the outcome used during the validation: darkest, medium, and lightest correspond to gait kinematics, EMG, and metabolic cost validations, respectively.

Regarding the technical validations, it is a common practice that some authors reported the feasibility of their devices to provide the commanded assistance. However, some of them merely present these technical results without assessing the effects on the targeted population in subsequent studies (Aoyagi et al., 2007; Fleischer and Hommel, 2008; Shorter et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016; Huo et al., 2019). Therefore, the validations of these exoskeletons are very limited and, although they can generate the desired assistance, they lack the assessment of the main objective of the device, i.e., assisting the gait of the user.

The main difference between experimental validation with impaired and unimpaired walking subjects is remarkable. Device validations with impaired walking subjects were mainly focused on the effects of the gait kinematics, as indicated by the high ratio (78.1%) of papers reporting such results. In contrast, the articles with unimpaired walking subject validations reported this information only in 33.3% of the articles, while focusing equally on muscular response (31%) and metabolic cost (35.7%). Compared to these ratios, the validations with impaired walking subjects reported muscular and metabolic results only in 9.4 and 12.5% of the cases, respectively.

These differences between the validation with impaired or unimpaired walking subjects show that the literature focused on different objectives for different kinds of users. While the assistance of unimpaired walking subjects was intended to reduce their muscular effort and metabolic cost during gait, the assistance of impaired walking subjects focused on the functional aspects of gait. While this is logical because the primary purpose of the assistance for these subjects is to achieve an autonomous and stable gait, it also shows a lack of understanding of how impaired walking subjects react to the assistance provided; especially whether they were able to integrate the robot action and consequently adapted their muscular activity due to the robotic assistance.

Among the validations performed on impaired walking subjects, 73.1% focused on the instantaneous effects of the applied assistance during walking. However, some authors have explored the effects of the robot’s action on the gait of the impaired walking subject after long-term rehabilitation therapies, and 26.9% of the studies that involved impaired walking subjects focused on the therapeutic benefits of using robotic devices. However, these studies focused on six different devices: anklebot (Roy et al., 2013; Forrester et al., 2016), AlterG Bionic Leg (Wong et al., 2012; Stein et al., 2014), HAL exoskeleton (Kawamoto et al., 2009; Nilsson et al., 2014; Sczesny-Kaiser et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2018; Watanabe et al., 2014, 2020), T-Flex (Gomez-Vargas et al., 2021), the first (Banala et al., 2009) and the second version (Srivastava et al., 2015) of the ALEX prototype and the Samsung’s GEMS device (Lee et al., 2019).

The promising results obtained in these studies showed that robotic therapies based on coordinated gait assistance of the impaired limb are valid approaches to rehabilitate subjects with impaired gait. However, the role of these strategies in the muscular recruitment and physiological response of users is not yet clear, although these aspects are quite relevant to the success of rehabilitation therapy. Consequently, more studies are still needed to fully validate rehabilitation therapies that could be performed using the control algorithms and devices detailed in this review.

Another interesting aspect to consider is the number of subjects involved in the experimental validations. As shown in Figure 12, most of the reviewed papers involved a small number of subjects, limiting the level of significance of these works. The average numbers of subjects involved in the experimental validations were 5.6 for unimpaired walking subjects and 7.65 for impaired walking subjects. In this regard, only 11 of the reviewed works involved more than 15 subjects, all involving impaired walking subjects. Using a reduced sample size can be justified in studies that validate a device’s technical approach. However, rehabilitation or motor control studies should include a larger sample size to guarantee the statistical power of the conclusions.

FIGURE 12

FIGURE 12. Number of subjects involved in each reported experimental validation grouped by coordination strategies. Light circular markers represent unimpaired walking subjects while dark triangular markers represent impaired walking subjects.

Regarding the differences between the reported algorithms and devices, the variety is remarkable, not only in the coordination strategies, which is the scope of this document but also, in the low-level controllers and their actuation principles. There is a lack of comparative studies that establish the effects of these aspects in the assistance provided to the user. According to the reviewed literature, only a few studies have tried to compare the performance of the proposed device, usually focusing on the therapeutic outcome (Forrester et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2019; Sczesny-Kaiser et al., 2019; Stein et al., 2014; Watanabe et al., 2014, 2020), although other authors have compared the performance of two different controllers with the same device (Cain et al., 2007; Vallery et al., 2009; Koller et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2018; Martinez et al., 2019). However, it is not yet clear which is the best method to coordinate robot assistance with the user’s gait.

As previously noted by other authors (Pinto-Fernandez et al., 2020; Baud et al., 2021), we have identified a high variability in the experimental validations that authors carried out with their devices. The absence of common protocols to evaluate the effects of robotic assistance makes it extremely difficult to extrapolate the results published by different articles for comparison. In this regard, we encourage following a common benchmark when assessing lower limb exoskeletons and their effects, as Torricelli et al. previously proposed (Torricelli et al., 2015). This would include common clinical scales to evaluate gait quality, as well as concrete assessments to evaluate robot performance, which would also be applicable to the partial exoskeletons reviewed in this document. From this perspective, previous comparisons between robotic devices that did not follow the same validation protocol should be viewed with caution as they could lead to misunderstandings.

A standardization in the assessment of robotic exoskeleton performance is required to ensure proper transition of the exoskeletons from research to clinical and domestic environments. It is necessary the definition of new “Gold-standards” to objectively assess the performance of these devices and the implications in wearer’s activities. These metrics would unify the validation process of robotic exoskeletons and would justify the scientific evidence and clinical relevance of their role in gait assistance or rehabilitation. In this regard, understanding and estimating the torque and force transmission from the robotic device to the user and the biomechanical effects of this interaction is crucial, as it could boost the therapeutic outcomes involving exoskeletons in rehabilitation therapies (Lerner et al., 2017a; George et al., 2021). These methods would enable the comparison between systems as they directly quantify the exoskeleton performance and establish a common paradigm that can be used independently of the evaluated device.

In this document, we reviewed the coordination strategies of partial robotic exoskeletons in a hardware-independent mode. Therefore, we grouped the articles only according to the coordination strategies, without considering the final implementation of the system. In fact, we considered not only single-joint or unilateral exoskeletons, but also strategies that were only related to software development (Mishra et al., 2014; Gui et al., 2017) or implemented in complete (Durandau et al., 2019; Martinez et al., 2018, 2019) or bilateral (Sawicki and Ferris, 2008; Lerner et al., 2017a, 2017b) exoskeletons whose strategies could be adapted to be used in partial robotic exoskeletons. The descriptions of the coordination strategies that we proposed were as general as possible so that other researchers could adapt them to different exoskeleton configurations independently from the original implementation. In this sense, for example, an FSM strategy can be applied regardless of the detected concrete events, or an EMG strategy can be used independently from the muscle measured and involved in the control.

Although these differences in the morphology did not affect the implementation of the coordination methods included in this review, they could affect the results obtained by the assistance. We have found multiple actuator systems and low-level controllers that include DC motors coupled to gearboxes with position (Wei et al., 2019) or impedance controllers (Villa-Parra et al., 2017) and compliant actuators under torque control, such as series elastic actuators (Giovacchini et al., 2015) or cable-driven systems (Siviy et al., 2020). This variety does not affect the implementation of the coordination strategies but still it is relevant for the interaction between the user and the device as well as the outcomes of the assistance.

These actuation and interface differences also highlight the need of common “gold-standard” metrics that globally assess the performance of these devices independently from their concrete implementational details. In this sense, other aspects, such as safety or stability, should also be objectively assessed for these wearable robotic devices, as they are key-factor to consider for a proper translation of these prototypes into real-life devices. Even the control strategies of these devices require to be assessed to ensure the robustness of future commercial robotic exoskeletons.

Independent of these implementational aspects, we can compare the coordination strategies according to each strategy’s working principle and their input and output information. As mentioned above, FSM algorithms are the most common approaches that we found. This is because they are the simplest methods from the processing and sensory points of view. Although simpler, they can adapt the action of the partial exoskeleton to discrete events, ensuring the correct coordination of both systems, human and robot, at specific instants.

In contrast to these methods, the strategies based on the estimation of the continuous gait phase lead to a continuous signal that can be used by other stages of the controller. This signal was a more versatile source of information, as it enabled its use beyond some discrete events. Regarding the methodologies for estimating this phase, the AO based approaches have a more adaptive behavior than the step-time based approaches, as they can instantaneously react to changes in gait velocity, instead of only responding to gait events. In addition, AO methodologies are simpler and require less computational effort than kinematics-based phase estimation approaches that generally rely on previous data analysis or artificial intelligence techniques.

The methods based on muscular activity require the most complex sensory systems, as they need to acquire muscular activity in real time, reject electromagnetic noise, and ensure that the movement of the robot did not interfere with the acquisition process. Additionally, neurological patients who cannot reliably recruit the involved muscles are not suitable to use this approach.

Additionally, if subjects cannot successfully generate movement in the paretic leg, they could not use those devices coordinated by the kinematics of the assisted leg or by coupling restrictions between joints. However, this disability did not interfere with the coordination strategy if it is based on the movements of the non-paretic leg, although these methodologies are more complex and usually require previous experimental data. Finally, strategies based on CPGs that simulate the generation of cyclic patterns by biological organisms are quite promising. However, the complexity of these methods and the reduced number of related papers suggest that more research is needed to completely validate their use.

Although all the reported methodologies have arisen promising results, the previously mentioned differences have implications for the safety and clinical application of these control approaches. The simpler the control algorithm, the safer implementation and wider the range of suitable users, although their performance could be slightly worse. In this sense, FSM and AO algorithms could be suitable for a greater patient typology than EMG based algorithms, although they would imply not considering the muscular activity into the therapy.

The performed review has demonstrated that this technology has reached the readiness level that ensures the proper control of partial exoskeletons. Additionally, reported muscular recruitment and metabolic cost effects are clues that point to the potential of these devices to be integrated into neural gait motor control, especially in unimpaired walking subjects. However, a research effort is still needed to validate this integration in neurologically impaired subjects.

Independent of the synchronization strategy followed, successful coordination between robot action and user’s gait will lead to the embodiment of the technology. Devices capable of matching their action with the one expected by the user will lead in integrating the exoskeleton into the body schema so it will be treated as part of the body instead of an external tool (Li et al., 2021). However, a research effort is required to demonstrate the capability of this technology of being embodied, as it has already been demonstrated for wheelchairs (Arnhoff and Mehl, 1963; Pazzaglia and Molinari, 2016) or prostheses (Penner et al., 2019; Bekrater-Bodmann, 2020).

This embodiment is the necessary next step for these robotic wearable devices. It will maximize the potential benefits of gait assistance, not only during rehabilitation therapies but also in non-supervised environments while assisting daily life activities.

5 Conclusion

The reviewed state of the art on coordination strategies between user gait and partial exoskeletons indicates that these techniques are mature enough to generate proper assistance for walking to both impaired and unimpaired walking subjects. More specifically, the algorithms based on FSM were the strategy most frequent, being validated repeatedly. However, the algorithms that estimate the continuous gait phase are being postulated as more robust alternatives, gaining relevance in recent years, especially those methods based on Adaptive Frequency Oscillators, due to their robustness and adaptability to gait speed changes. However, in the current state of the art, there is still a lack of studies that systematically analyze and isolate the role played by these coordination strategies, independent of the physical device on which they were implemented.

Although the theoretical objective of most robotic exoskeletons is to assist impaired walking subjects, there is a lack of information about how these subjects integrate the provided assistance in the gait neural control. Currently, the neurophysiological consequences of robotic assistance in impaired walking subjects remain elusive, including adaptation of muscle recruitment. In this context, research efforts should focus on the final states of the impaired walking users, deepening the understanding of physiological and cognitive interaction with the device, to lead to more effective neurorehabilitation and assistive approaches.

Author Contributions

JL-M designed and performed the main literature review, collected the information about the different devices, and drafted and wrote the manuscript. JM revised the manuscript and made substantial comments. ER designed the review, revised the draft, and made substantial comments. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, project Discover2Walk (PID 2019-105110RB-C31). JL-M received a Training Program for Academic Staff fellowship (FPU16/01313) from the Ministry of Universities of the Government of Spain. JM was supported by grant RTI 2018-097290-B-C32 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Nicola Vitiello from the Biorobotics Institute of Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna for his comments on this manuscript. We acknowledge support of the publication fee by the CSIC Open Access Publication Support Initiative through its Unit of Information Resources for Research (URICI).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.842294/full#supplementary-material

References

Acosta-Sojo, Y., and Stirling, L. (2022). Individuals Differ in Muscle Activation Patterns during Early Adaptation to a Powered Ankle Exoskeleton. Appl. Ergon. 98, 103593. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103593

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguirre-Ollinger, G. (2015). Exoskeleton Control for Lower-Extremity Assistance Based on Adaptive Frequency Oscillators: Adaptation of Muscle Activation and Movement Frequency. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H. 229, 52–68. doi:10.1177/0954411914567213

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguirre-Ollinger, G. (2013). “Learning Muscle Activation Patterns via Nonlinear Oscillators: Application to Lower-Limb Assistance,” in 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Tokyo, Japan, 3-7 Nov. 2013. Editor N. Amato (IEEE), 1182–1189. doi:10.1109/IROS.2013.6696500

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguirre-Ollinger, G., Narayan, A., and Yu, H. (2019). Phase-Synchronized Assistive Torque Control for the Correction of Kinematic Anomalies in the Gait Cycle. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27, 2305–2314. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2944665

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguirre-Ollinger, G., and Yu, H. (2021). Lower-Limb Exoskeleton with Variable-Structure Series Elastic Actuators: Phase-Synchronized Force Control for Gait Asymmetry Correction. IEEE Trans. Robot. 37, 763–779. doi:10.1109/TRO.2020.3034017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aoyagi, D., Ichinose, W. E., Harkema, S. J., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., and Bobrow, J. E. (2007). A Robot and Control Algorithm that Can Synchronously Assist in Naturalistic Motion during Body-Weight-Supported Gait Training Following Neurologic Injury. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15, 387–400. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2007.903922

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arazpour, M., Ahmadi, F., Bahramizadeh, M., Samadian, M., Mousavi, M. E., Bani, M. A., et al. (2016). Evaluation of Gait Symmetry in Poliomyelitis Subjects. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 40, 689–695. doi:10.1177/0309364615596063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnhoff, F. N., and Mehl, M. C. (1963). Body Image Deterioration in Paraplegia. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 137. doi:10.1097/00005053-196307000-00010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Awad, L. N., Bae, J., Kudzia, P., Long, A., Hendron, K., Holt, K. G., et al. (2017a). Reducing Circumduction and Hip Hiking during Hemiparetic Walking through Targeted Assistance of the Paretic Limb Using a Soft Robotic Exosuit. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 96, S157–S164. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000800

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Awad, L. N., Bae, J., O’Donnell, K., De Rossi, S. M. M., Hendron, K., Sloot, L. H., et al. (2017b). A Soft Robotic Exosuit Improves Walking in Patients after Stroke. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaai9084. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aai9084

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bacek, T., Moltedo, M., Serrien, B., Langlois, K., Vanderborght, B., Lefeber, D., et al. (2022). Human Musculoskeletal and Energetic Adaptations to Unilateral Robotic Knee Gait Assistance. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 69, 1141–1150. doi:10.1109/TBME.2021.3114737

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bae, J., Awad, L. N., Long, A., O'Donnell, K., Hendron, K., Holt, K. G., et al. (2018a). Biomechanical Mechanisms Underlying Exosuit-Induced Improvements in Walking Economy after Stroke. J. Exp. Biol. 221. doi:10.1242/jeb.168815

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bae, J., Maria De Rossi, S. M., O'Donnell, K., Hendron, K. L., Awad, L. N., Teles Dos Santos, T. R., et al. (2015). “A Soft Exosuit for Patients with Stroke: Feasibility Study with a Mobile Off-Board Actuation Unit,” in IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Singapore, 11-14 Aug. 2015 (IEEE). doi:10.1109/ICORR.2015.7281188

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bae, J., Siviy, C., Rouleau, M., Menard, N., Odonnell, K., Geliana, I., et al. (2018b). “A Lightweight and Efficient Portable Soft Exosuit for Paretic Ankle Assistance in Walking after Stroke,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 21-25 May 2018 (IEEE), 2820–2827. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2018.8461046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banala, S. K., Agrawal, S. K., and Scholz, J. P. (2007). “Active Leg Exoskeleton (ALEX) for Gait Rehabilitation of Motor-Impaired Patients,” in 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics ICORR, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 13-15 June 2007 (IEEE), 401–407. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428456

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banala, S. K., Kim, S. H., Agrawal, S. K., and Scholz, J. P. (2009). Robot Assisted Gait Training with Active Leg Exoskeleton (ALEX). IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17, 2–8. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2008.2008280

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baser, O., Kizilhan, H., and Kilic, E. (2020). Employing Variable Impedance (Stiffness/damping) Hybrid Actuators on Lower Limb Exoskeleton Robots for Stable and Safe Walking Trajectory Tracking. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 34, 2597–2607. doi:10.1007/s12206-020-0534-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baud, R., Manzoori, A. R., Ijspeert, A., and Bouri, M. (2021). Review of Control Strategies for Lower-Limb Exoskeletons to Assist Gait. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 18, 119. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00906-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bekrater-Bodmann, R. (2020). Perceptual Correlates of Successful Body-Prosthesis Interaction in Lower Limb Amputees: Psychometric Characterisation and Development of the Prosthesis Embodiment Scale. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–13. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70828-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beyl, P., Knaepen, K., Duerinck, S., Van Damme, M., Vanderborght, B., Meeusen, R., et al. (2011). Safe and Compliant Guidance by a Powered Knee Exoskeleton for Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation of Gait. Adv. Robot. 25, 513–535. doi:10.1163/016918611X558225

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blaya, J. A., and Herr, H. (2004). Adaptive Control of a Variable-Impedance Ankle-Foot Orthosis to Assist Drop-Foot Gait. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 12, 24–31. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2003.823266

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bortole, M., Venkatakrishnan, A., Zhu, F., Moreno, J. C., Francisco, G. E., Pons, J. L., et al. (2015). The H2 Robotic Exoskeleton for Gait Rehabilitation after Stroke: Early Findings from a Clinical Study. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 12, 54. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0048-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bougrinat, Y., Achiche, S., and Raison, M. (2019). Design and Development of a Lightweight Ankle Exoskeleton for Human Walking Augmentation. Mechatronics 64, 102297. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2019.102297

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cain, S. M., Gordon, K. E., and Ferris, D. P. (2007). Locomotor Adaptation to a Powered Ankle-Foot Orthosis Depends on Control Method. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 4, 1–13. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-4-48

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cardona, M., Destarac, M., and Cena, C. G. (2020). “Robotics for Rehabilitation: A State of the Art,” in SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology (Singapore: Springer), 1–11. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4732-4_1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cempini, M., Marconi, D., Muscolo, M., Moise, M., Fantozzi, M., Cortese, M., et al. (2015). “Relevance of Series-Elastic Actuation in Rehabilitation and Assistance Robotic: Two Cases of Study,” in 2015 IEEE 1st International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry, RTSI 2015 - Proceedings (BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore sant’Anna, viale Rinaldo Piaggio, Pontedera, PI, Italy, 76–81. doi:10.1109/RTSI.2015.7325074

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, B., Zi, B., Qin, L., and Pan, Q. (2020). State-of-the-art Research in Robotic Hip Exoskeletons: A General Review. J. Orthop. Transl. 20, 4–13. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2019.09.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, B., Zi, B., Wang, Z., Qin, L., and Liao, W.-H. (2019). Knee Exoskeletons for Gait Rehabilitation and Human Performance Augmentation: A State-Of-The-Art. Mech. Mach. Theory 134, 499–511. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2019.01.016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chinimilli, P. T., Rezayat Sorkhabadi, S. M., and Zhang, W. (2020). Assessment of Human Dynamic Gait Stability with a Lower Extremity Assistive Device. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 669–678. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2970207

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Choi, H., Park, Y. J., Seo, K., Lee, J., Lee, S.-e., and Shim, Y. (2018). A Multifunctional Ankle Exoskeleton for Mobility Enhancement of Gait-Impaired Individuals and Seniors. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3, 411–418. doi:10.1109/LRA.2017.2734239

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Conner, B. C., Luque, J., and Lerner, Z. F. (2020). Adaptive Ankle Resistance from a Wearable Robotic Device to Improve Muscle Recruitment in Cerebral Palsy. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 48, 1309–1321. doi:10.1007/s10439-020-02454-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Di Natali, C., Poliero, T., Sposito, M., Graf, E., Bauer, C., Pauli, C., et al. (2019). Design and Evaluation of a Soft Assistive Lower Limb Exoskeleton. Robotica 37, 2014–2034. doi:10.1017/S0263574719000067

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ding, Y., Galiana, I., Asbeck, A. T., De Rossi, S. M. M., Bae, J., Santos, T. R. T., et al. (2017). Biomechanical and Physiological Evaluation of Multi-Joint Assistance with Soft Exosuits. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 119–130. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2523250

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ding, Y., Galiana, I., Siviy, C., Panizzolo, F. A., and Walsh, C. (2016a). “IMU-based Iterative Control for Hip Extension Assistance with a Soft Exosuit,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden, 16-21 May 2016 (IEEE), 3501. –3508. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487530

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ding, Y., Kim, M., Kuindersma, S., and Walsh, C. J. (2018). Human-in-the-loop Optimization of Hip Assistance with a Soft Exosuit during Walking. Sci. Robot. 3, 1–9. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aar5438

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ding, Y., Panizzolo, F. A., Siviy, C., Malcolm, P., Galiana, I., Holt, K. G., et al. (2016b). Effect of Timing of Hip Extension Assistance during Loaded Walking with a Soft Exosuit. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 13, 87. doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0196-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

dos Santos, W. M., Caurin, G. A. P., and Siqueira, A. A. G. (2017). Design and Control of an Active Knee Orthosis Driven by a Rotary Series Elastic Actuator. Control Eng. Pract. 58, 307–318. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2015.09.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Durandau, G., Farina, D., Asín-Prieto, G., Dimbwadyo-Terrer, I., Lerma-Lara, S., Pons, J. L., et al. (2019). Voluntary Control of Wearable Robotic Exoskeletons by Patients with Paresis via Neuromechanical Modeling. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 16, 91. doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0559-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dzeladini, F., Wu, A. R., Renjewski, D., Arami, A., Burdet, E., van Asseldonk, E., et al. (2016). “Effects of a Neuromuscular Controller on a Powered Ankle Exoskeleton during Human Walking,” in 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), Singapore, 26-29 June 2016 (IEEE), 617–622. doi:10.1109/BIOROB.2016.7523694

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

El Zahraa Wehbi, F., Huo, W., Amirat, Y., Rafei, M. E., Khalil, M., and Mohammed, S. (2017). “Active Impedance Control of a Knee-Joint Orthosis during Swing Phase,” in 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17-20 July 2017 (IEEE), 435–440. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009286

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fahmi Bin Miskon, M., and Yusof, M. B. A. J. (2014). “Review of Trajectory Generation of Exoskeleton Robots,” in 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Manufacturing Automation (ROMA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 15-16 Dec. 2014, 12–17. doi:10.1109/ROMA.2014.7295854

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fang, Y., and Lerner, Z. F. (2021). Feasibility of Augmenting Ankle Exoskeleton Walking Performance with Step Length Biofeedback in Individuals with Cerebral Palsy. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 29, 442–449. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3055796

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Farris, R. J., Quintero, H. A., and Goldfarb, M. (2011). Preliminary Evaluation of a Powered Lower Limb Orthosis to Aid Walking in Paraplegic Individuals. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19, 652–659. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2163083

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fleischer, C., and Hommel, G. (2008). A Human--Exoskeleton Interface Utilizing Electromyography. IEEE Trans. Robot. 24, 872–882. doi:10.1109/TRO.2008.926860

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Forrester, L. W., Roy, A., Hafer-Macko, C., Krebs, H. I., and Macko, R. F. (2016). Task-specific Ankle Robotics Gait Training after Stroke: a Randomized Pilot Study. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 13, 51. doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0158-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fox, S., Aranko, O., Heilala, J., and Vahala, P. (2019). Exoskeletons. Jmtm 31, 1261–1280. doi:10.1108/JMTM-01-2019-0023

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Galle, S., Malcolm, P., Collins, S. H., and De Clercq, D. (2017). Reducing the Metabolic Cost of Walking with an Ankle Exoskeleton: Interaction between Actuation Timing and Power. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 14, 1–16. doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0235-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gasparri, G. M., Luque, J., and Lerner, Z. F. (2019). Proportional Joint-Moment Control for Instantaneously Adaptive Ankle Exoskeleton Assistance. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27, 751–759. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2905979

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

George, J. A., Gunnell, A. J., Archangeli, D., Hunt, G., Ishmael, M., Foreman, K. B., et al. (2021). Robust Torque Predictions from Electromyography across Multiple Levels of Active Exoskeleton Assistance Despite Non-linear Reorganization of Locomotor Output. Front. Neurorobot. 15. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2021.700823

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Giovacchini, F., Vannetti, F., Fantozzi, M., Cempini, M., Cortese, M., Parri, A., et al. (2015). A Light-Weight Active Orthosis for Hip Movement Assistance. Robotics Aut. Syst. 73, 123–134. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2014.08.015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gomez-Vargas, D., Ballen-Moreno, F., Barria, P., Aguilar, R., Azorín, J. M., Munera, M., et al. (2021). The Actuation System of the Ankle Exoskeleton T-FLEX: First Use Experimental Validation in People with Stroke. Brain Sci. 11, 412. doi:10.3390/brainsci11040412

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gordon, K. E., and Ferris, D. P. (2007). Learning to Walk with a Robotic Ankle Exoskeleton. J. Biomechanics 40, 2636–2644. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.12.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Grazi, L., Crea, S., Parri, A., Cortese, M., Giovacchini, F., Cempini, M., et al. (2015). “Gastrocnemius Myoelectric Control of a Robotic Hip Exoskeleton,” in 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Milan, Italy, 25-29 Aug. 2015 (IEEE), 3881–3884. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319241

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gui, K., Liu, H., and Zhang, D. (2017). A Generalized Framework to Achieve Coordinated Admittance Control for Multi-Joint Lower Limb Robotic Exoskeleton. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2017, 228–233. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009251

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Han, Y., Zhu, S., Zhou, Y., and Gao, H. (2019). An Admittance Controller Based on Assistive Torque Estimation for a Rehabilitation Leg Exoskeleton. Intel. Serv. Robot. 12, 381–391. doi:10.1007/s11370-019-00289-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassan, M., Kadone, H., Suzuki, K., and Sankai, Y. (2012). “Exoskeleton Robot Control Based on Cane and Body Joint Synergies,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vilamoura-Algarve, Portugal, 7-12 Oct. 2012 (IEEE), 1609–1614. doi:10.1109/IROS.2012.6386248

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassan, M., Kadone, H., Ueno, T., Hada, Y., Sankai, Y., and Suzuki, K. (2018). Feasibility of Synergy-Based Exoskeleton Robot Control in Hemiplegia. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26, 1233–1242. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2832657

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Haufe, F. L., Kober, A. M., Wolf, P., Riener, R., and Xiloyannis, M. (2021). Learning to Walk with a Wearable Robot in 880 Simple Steps: a Pilot Study on Motor Adaptation. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 18, 1–14. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00946-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hidayah, R., Bishop, L., Jin, X., Chamarthy, S., Stein, J., and Agrawal, S. K. (20201984–1993). Gait Adaptation Using a Cable-Driven Active Leg Exoskeleton (C-ALEX) with Post-Stroke Participants. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 1984–1993. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3009317

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Holanda, L. J., Silva, P. M. M., Amorim, T. C., Lacerda, M. O., Simão, C. R., and Morya, E. (2017). Robotic Assisted Gait as a Tool for Rehabilitation of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 14, 1–7. doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0338-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Horst, R. W. (2009). “A Bio-Robotic Leg Orthosis for Rehabilitation and Mobility Enhancement,” in 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 3-6 Sept. 2009 (IEEE), 5030–5033. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333581

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Huo, W., Arnez-Paniagua, V., Ding, G., Amirat, Y., and Mohammed, S. (2019). Adaptive Proxy-Based Controller of an Active Ankle Foot Orthosis to Assist Lower Limb Movements of Paretic Patients. Robotica 37, 2147–2164. doi:10.1017/S0263574719000250

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ijspeert, A. J. (2008). Central Pattern Generators for Locomotion Control in Animals and Robots: A Review. Neural Netw. 21, 642–653. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2008.03.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ishmael, M. K., Tran, M., and Lenzi, T. (2019). “ExoProsthetics: Assisting Above-Knee Amputees with a Lightweight Powered Hip Exoskeleton,” in 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Toronto, ON, Canada, 24-28 June 2019, 925–930. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2019.8779412

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jackson, R. W., and Collins, S. H. (2015). An Experimental Comparison of the Relative Benefits of Work and Torque Assistance in Ankle Exoskeletons. J. Appl. Physiology 119, 541–557. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01133.2014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jackson, R. W., and Collins, S. H. (2019). Heuristic-Based Ankle Exoskeleton Control for Co-adaptive Assistance of Human Locomotion. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27, 2059–2069. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2936383

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jin, S., Iwamoto, N., Hashimoto, K., and Yamamoto, M. (2017). Experimental Evaluation of Energy Efficiency for a Soft Wearable Robotic Suit. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 1192–1201. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2613886

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jin, X., Cui, X., and Agrawal, S. K. (2015). “Design of a Cable-Driven Active Leg Exoskeleton (C-ALEX) and Gait Training Experiments with Human Subjects,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA, USA, 26-30 May 2015, 5578–5583. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139979

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jin, X., Prado, A., and Agrawal, S. K. (2018). Retraining of Human Gait - Are Lightweight Cable-Driven Leg Exoskeleton Designs Effective? IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26, 847–855. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2815656

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kang, I., Hsu, H., and Young, A. (2019). The Effect of Hip Assistance Levels on Human Energetic Cost Using Robotic Hip Exoskeletons. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 4, 430–437. doi:10.1109/lra.2019.2890896

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kang, I., Kunapuli, P., and Young, A. J. (2020). Real-Time Neural Network-Based Gait Phase Estimation Using a Robotic Hip Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2, 28–37. doi:10.1109/TMRB.2019.2961749

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kao, P.-C., Lewis, C. L., and Ferris, D. P. (2010). Invariant Ankle Moment Patterns when Walking with and without a Robotic Ankle Exoskeleton. J. Biomechanics 43, 203–209. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.09.030

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawamoto, H., Hayashi, T., Sakurai, T., Eguchi, K., and Sankai, Y. (2009). “Development of Single Leg Version of HAL for Hemiplegia,” in 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 3-6 Sept. 2009, 5038–5043. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333698

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawamoto, H., Kadone, H., Sakurai, T., and Sankai, Y. (2015). “Modification of Hemiplegic Compensatory Gait Pattern by Symmetry-Based Motion Controller of HAL,” in 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Milan, Italy, 25-29 Aug. 2015 (IEEE), 4803–4807. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319468

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawamoto, H., Kandone, H., Sakurai, T., Ariyasu, R., Ueno, Y., Eguchi, K., et al. (2014). “Development of an Assist Controller with Robot Suit HAL for Hemiplegic Patients Using Motion Data on the Unaffected Side,” in 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Chicago, IL, USA, 26-30 Aug. 2014 (IEEE), 3077–3080. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944273

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawamoto, H., and Sankai, Y. (2005). Power Assist Method Based on Phase Sequence and Muscle Force Condition for HAL. Adv. Robot. 19, 717–734. doi:10.1163/1568553054455103

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawamoto, H., Taal, S., Niniss, H., Hayashi, T., Kamibayashi, K., Eguchi, K., et al. (2010). “Voluntary Motion Support Control of Robot Suit HAL Triggered by Bioelectrical Signal for Hemiplegia,” in 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 Aug.-4 Sept. 2010, 462–466. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626191

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, J.-H., Shim, M., Ahn, D. H., Son, B. J., Kim, S.-Y., Kim, D. Y., et al. (2015). Design of a Knee Exoskeleton Using Foot Pressure and Knee Torque Sensors. Int. J. Adv. Robotic Syst. 12, 112. doi:10.5772/60782

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, J., Hwang, S., Sohn, R., Lee, Y., and Kim, Y. (2011). Development of an Active Ankle Foot Orthosis to Prevent Foot Drop and Toe Drag in Hemiplegic Patients: A Preliminary Study. Appl. Bionics Biomechanics 8, 377–384. doi:10.3233/ABB-2011-0008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, J., Lee, G., Heimgartner, R., Arumukhom Revi, D., Karavas, N., Nathanson, D., et al. (2019). Reducing the Metabolic Rate of Walking and Running with a Versatile, Portable Exosuit. Science 365, 668–672. doi:10.1126/science.aav7536

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, S. J., Na, Y., Lee, D. Y., Chang, H., and Kim, J. (2020). Pneumatic AFO Powered by a Miniature Custom Compressor for Drop Foot Correction. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 1781–1789. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.3003860

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kinnaird, C. R., and Ferris, D. P. (2009). Medial Gastrocnemius Myoelectric Control of a Robotic Ankle Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17, 31–37. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2008.2008285

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Knaepen, K., Beyl, P., Duerinck, S., Hagman, F., Lefeber, D., and Meeusen, R. (2014). Human-Robot Interaction: Kinematics and Muscle Activity inside a Powered Compliant Knee Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 1128–1137. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2324153

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koller, J. R., David Remy, C., and Ferris, D. P. (2017). “Comparing Neural Control and Mechanically Intrinsic Control of Powered Ankle Exoskeletons,” in 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17-20 July 2017, 294–299. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009262

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Koller, J. R., Jacobs, D. A., Ferris, D. P., and Remy, C. D. (2015). Learning to Walk with an Adaptive Gain Proportional Myoelectric Controller for a Robotic Ankle Exoskeleton. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 12, 97. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0086-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lai, W.-Y., Ma, H., Liao, W.-H., Fong, D. T.-P., and Chan, K.-M. (2013). “HIP-KNEE Control for Gait Assistance with Powered Knee Orthosis,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Shenzhen, China, 12-14 Dec. 2013 (IEEE), 762–767. doi:10.1109/ROBIO.2013.6739554

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, D., Kwak, E. C., McLain, B. J., Kang, I., and Young, A. J. (2020). Effects of Assistance during Early Stance Phase Using a Robotic Knee Orthosis on Energetics, Muscle Activity, and Joint Mechanics during Incline and Decline Walking. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 914–923. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2972323

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, G., Ding, Y., Bujanda, I. G., Karavas, N., Zhou, Y. M., and Walsh, C. J. (2017a). “Improved Assistive Profile Tracking of Soft Exosuits for Walking and Jogging with Off-Board Actuation,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24-28 Sept. 2017 (IEEE), 1699–1706. doi:10.1109/IROS.2017.8205981

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, H.-J., Lee, S.-H., Seo, K., Lee, M., Chang, W. H., Choi, B.-O., et al. (2019). Training for Walking Efficiency with a Wearable Hip-Assist Robot in Patients with Stroke. Stroke 50, 3545–3552. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025950

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, H.-J., Lee, S., Chang, W. H., Seo, K., Shim, Y., Choi, B.-O., et al. (2017b). A Wearable Hip Assist Robot Can Improve Gait Function and Cardiopulmonary Metabolic Efficiency in Elderly Adults. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 1. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2664801

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, S.-H., Lee, H.-J., Chang, W. H., Choi, B.-O., Lee, J., Kim, J., et al. (2017c). Gait Performance and Foot Pressure Distribution during Wearable Robot-Assisted Gait in Elderly Adults. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 14, 1–10. doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0333-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, S., Crea, S., Malcolm, P., Galiana, I., Asbeck, A., and Walsh, C. (2016). “Controlling Negative and Positive Power at the Ankle with a Soft Exosuit,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden, 16-21 May 2016 (IEEE), 3509–3515. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487531

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lenzi, T., Carrozza, M. C., and Agrawal, S. K. (2013). Powered Hip Exoskeletons Can Reduce the User's Hip and Ankle Muscle Activations during Walking. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 21, 938–948. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2248749

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lerner, Z. F., Damiano, D. L., and Bulea, T. C. (2017a). Relationship between Assistive Torque and Knee Biomechanics during Exoskeleton Walking in Individuals with Crouch Gait. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2017, 491–497. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009296

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lerner, Z. F., Damiano, D. L., Park, H.-S., Gravunder, A. J., and Bulea, T. C. (2017b). A Robotic Exoskeleton for Treatment of Crouch Gait in Children with Cerebral Palsy: Design and Initial Application. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 650–659. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2595501

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lerner, Z. F., Gasparri, G. M., Bair, M. O., Lawson, J. L., Luque, J., Harvey, T. A., et al. (2018). An Untethered Ankle Exoskeleton Improves Walking Economy in a Pilot Study of Individuals with Cerebral Palsy. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26, 1985–1993. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2870756

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, D. Y., Becker, A., Shorter, K. A., Bretl, T., and Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T. (2011). Estimating System State during Human Walking with a Powered Ankle-Foot Orthosis. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 16, 835–844. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2011.2161769

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, W.-Z., Cao, G.-Z., and Zhu, A.-B. (2021). Review on Control Strategies for Lower Limb Rehabilitation Exoskeletons. IEEE Access 9, 123040–123060. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3110595

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lim, B., Kyungrock Kim, K., Jusuk Lee, J., Junwon Jang, J., and Youngbo Shim, Y. (2015). “An Event-Driven Control to Achieve Adaptive Walking Assist with Gait Primitives,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Hamburg, Germany, 28 Sept.-2 Oct. 2015, 5870–5875. doi:10.1109/IROS.2015.7354211

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, X., and Wang, Q. (2020). Real-Time Locomotion Mode Recognition and Assistive Torque Control for Unilateral Knee Exoskeleton on Different Terrains. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 25, 2722–2732. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2020.2990668

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lora-Millan, J. S., Moreno, J. C., and Rocon, E. (2020). “Assessment of Gait Symmetry, Torque Interaction and Muscular Response Due to the Unilateral Assistance provided by an Active Knee Orthosis in Healthy Subjects,” in 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), New York, NY, USA, 29 Nov.-1 Dec. 2020 (IEEE), 229–234. doi:10.1109/BioRob49111.2020.9224414

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Louie, D. R., and Eng, J. J. (2016). Powered Robotic Exoskeletons in Post-stroke Rehabilitation of Gait: A Scoping Review. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 13. doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0162-5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lovasz, E.-C., Mărgineanu, D. T., Ciupe, V., Maniu, I., Gruescu, C. M., Zăbavă, E. S., et al. (2017). Design and Control Solutions for Haptic Elbow Exoskeleton Module Used in Space Telerobotics. Mech. Mach. Theory 107, 384–398. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2016.08.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma, H., Zhong, C., Chen, B., Chan, K.-M., and Liao, W.-H. (2018). User-Adaptive Assistance of Assistive Knee Braces for Gait Rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26, 1994–2005. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2868693

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma, Y., Wu, X., Yi, J., Wang, C., and Chen, C. (2019). A Review on Human-Exoskeleton Coordination towards Lower Limb Robotic Exoskeleton Systems. Int. J. Robot. Autom. 34. doi:10.2316/J.2019.206-0193

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Malcolm, P., Galle, S., Van Den Berghe, P., and De Clercq, D. (2018). Exoskeleton Assistance Symmetry Matters: Unilateral Assistance Reduces Metabolic Cost, but Relatively Less Than Bilateral Assistance. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 15. doi:10.1186/s12984-018-0381-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martinez, A., Durrough, C., and Goldfarb, M. (2020). A Single-Joint Implementation of Flow Control: Knee Joint Walking Assistance for Individuals with Mobility Impairment. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 934–942. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2977339

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martinez, A., Lawson, B., Durrough, C., and Goldfarb, M. (2019). A Velocity-Field-Based Controller for Assisting Leg Movement during Walking with a Bilateral Hip and Knee Lower Limb Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Robot. 35, 307–316. doi:10.1109/TRO.2018.2883819

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martinez, A., Lawson, B., and Goldfarb, M. (2018). A Controller for Guiding Leg Movement during Overground Walking with a Lower Limb Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Robot. 34, 183–193. doi:10.1109/TRO.2017.2768035

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McCain, E. M., Dick, T. J. M., Giest, T. N., Nuckols, R. W., Lewek, M. D., Saul, K. R., et al. (2019). Mechanics and Energetics of Post-stroke Walking Aided by a Powered Ankle Exoskeleton with Speed-Adaptive Myoelectric Control. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 16, 57. doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0523-y

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meng, W., Liu, Q., Zhou, Z., Ai, Q., Sheng, B., and Xie, S. (2015). Recent Development of Mechanisms and Control Strategies for Robot-Assisted Lower Limb Rehabilitation. Mechatronics 31, 132–145. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2015.04.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meuleman, J., van Asseldonk, E., van Oort, G., Rietman, H., and van der Kooij, H. (2016). LOPES II-Design and Evaluation of an Admittance Controlled Gait Training Robot with Shadow-Leg Approach. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 24, 352–363. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2511448

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mills, K., Blanch, P., Chapman, A. R., McPoil, T. G., and Vicenzino, B. (2010). Foot Orthoses and Gait: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Literature Pertaining to Potential Mechanisms. Br. J. Sports Med. 44, 1035–1046. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.066977

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mishra, A., Ghosh, R., Coscia, M., Kukreja, S., Chisari, C., Micera, S., et al. (2014). “A Neurally Inspired Robotic Control Algorithm for Gait Rehabilitation in Hemiplegic Stroke Patients,” in 5th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 12-15 Aug. 2014 (IEEE), 650–655. doi:10.1109/BIOROB.2014.6913852

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mishra, A., Sunan, H., Yu, H., and Thakor, N. V. (2013). “Bipedal Locomotion Modeled as the Central Pattern Generator (CPG) and Regulated by Self Organizing Map for Model of Cortex,” in 2013 IEEE Point-of-Care Healthcare Technologies (PHT), Bangalore, India, 16-18 Jan. 2013 (IEEE), 50–53. doi:10.1109/PHT.2013.6461282

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mizukami, N., Takeuchi, S., Tetsuya, M., Tsukahara, A., Yoshida, K., Matsushima, A., et al. (2018). Effect of the Synchronization-Based Control of a Wearable Robot Having a Non-exoskeletal Structure on the Hemiplegic Gait of Stroke Patients. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26, 1011–1016. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2817647

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mooney, L. M., and Herr, H. M. (2016). Biomechanical Walking Mechanisms Underlying the Metabolic Reduction Caused by an Autonomous Exoskeleton. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 13, 4. doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0111-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mooney, L. M., Rouse, E. J., and Herr, H. M. (2014a). Autonomous Exoskeleton Reduces Metabolic Cost of Human Walking. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 11. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-151

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mooney, L. M., Rouse, E. J., and Herr, H. M. (2014b). Autonomous Exoskeleton Reduces Metabolic Cost of Human Walking during Load Carriage. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 11, 80. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-80

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mooney, L. M., Rouse, E. J., and Herr, H. M. (2014c). “Autonomous Exoskeleton Reduces Metabolic Cost of Walking,” in 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Chicago, IL, USA, 26-30 Aug. 2014 (IEEE), 3065–3068. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944270

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nilsson, A., Vreede, K., Häglund, V., Kawamoto, H., Sankai, Y., and Borg, J. (2014). Gait Training Early after Stroke with a New Exoskeleton - the Hybrid Assistive Limb: a Study of Safety and Feasibility. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabilitation 11, 92. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-92

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nunes, P. F., dos Santos, W. M., and Siqueira, A. A. G. (2018). Control Strategy Based on Kinetic Motor Primitives for Lower Limbs Exoskeletons. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 402–406. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.02.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orekhov, G., Fang, Y., Cuddeback, C. F., and Lerner, Z. F. (2021). Usability and Performance Validation of an Ultra-lightweight and Versatile Untethered Robotic Ankle Exoskeleton. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 18, 1–16. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00954-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orekhov, G., Fang, Y., Luque, J., and Lerner, Z. F. (2020). Ankle Exoskeleton Assistance Can Improve Over-ground Walking Economy in Individuals with Cerebral Palsy. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 461–467. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2965029

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Oymagil, A. M., Hitt, J. K., Sugar, T., and Fleeger, J. (2007). “Control of a Regenerative Braking Powered Ankle Foot Orthosis,” in 2007, IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 13-15 June 2007 (IEEE), 28–34. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428402

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Parri, A., Yan, T., Giovacchini, F., Cortese, M., Muscolo, M., Fantozzi, M., et al. (2017). “A Portable Active Pelvis Orthosis for Ambulatory Movement Assistance,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Wearable Robotics, WeRob2016, Segovia, Spain, October 18-21, 2016, 75–80. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46532-6_13

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pazzaglia, M., and Molinari, M. (2016). The Embodiment of Assistive Devices-From Wheelchair to Exoskeleton. Phys. Life Rev. 16, 163–175. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2015.11.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Peng, Z., Luo, R., Huang, R., Yu, T., Hu, J., Shi, K., et al. (2020). Data-Driven Optimal Assistance Control of a Lower Limb Exoskeleton for Hemiplegic Patients. Front. Neurorobot. 14. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2020.00037

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Penner, D., Abrams, A. M. H., Overath, P., Vogt, J., and Beckerle, P. (2019). Robotic Leg Illusion: System Design and Human-In-The-Loop Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst. 49, 372–380. doi:10.1109/THMS.2019.2896447

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pinto-Fernandez, D., Torricelli, D., Sanchez-Villamanan, M. D. C., Aller, F., Mombaur, K., Conti, R., et al. (2020). Performance Evaluation of Lower Limb Exoskeletons: A Systematic Review. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 1573–1583. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2989481

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pons, J. L. (2008). “Wearable Robots,” in Wearable Robots: Biomechatronic Exoskeletons. Editor J. L. Pons (Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons). doi:10.1002/9780470987667

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Popovic, D. B., Tomovic, R., and Stein, R. B. (1991). Finite State Models for Gait with Hybrid Assistive Systems. Proc. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 13, 928–930. doi:10.1109/IEMBS.1991.684266

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Popovic, D., Stein, R. B., and Tomovic, R. (1995). Nonanalytical Methods for Motor Control. World Scientific.

Google Scholar

Ronsse, R., De Rossi, S. M. M., Vitiello, N., Lenzi, T., Carrozza, M. C., and Ijspeert, A. J. (2013). Real-Time Estimate of Velocity and Acceleration of Quasi-Periodic Signals Using Adaptive Oscillators. IEEE Trans. Robot. 29, 783–791. doi:10.1109/TRO.2013.2240173

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ronsse, R., Lenzi, T., Vitiello, N., Koopman, B., van Asseldonk, E., De Rossi, S. M. M., et al. (2011). Oscillator-based Assistance of Cyclical Movements: Model-Based and Model-free Approaches. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 49, 1173–1185. doi:10.1007/s11517-011-0816-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roy, A., Krebs, H. I., Barton, J. E., Macko, R. F., and Forrester, L. W. (2013). “Anklebot-assisted Locomotor Training after Stroke: A Novel Deficit-Adjusted Control Approach,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Karlsruhe, Germany, 6-10 May 2013 (IEEE), 2175–2182. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630869

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruiz Garate, V., Parri, A., Yan, T., Munih, M., Molino Lova, R., Vitiello, N., et al. (2017). Experimental Validation of Motor Primitive-Based Control for Leg Exoskeletons during Continuous Multi-Locomotion Tasks. Front. Neurorobot. 11. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2017.00015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruiz Garate, V., Parri, A., Yan, T., Munih, M., Molino Lova, R., Vitiello, N., et al. (2016). Walking Assistance Using Artificial Primitives: A Novel Bioinspired Framework Using Motor Primitives for Locomotion Assistance through a Wearable Cooperative Exoskeleton. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 23, 83–95. doi:10.1109/MRA.2015.2510778

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sanchez-Villamañan, M. D. C., Gonzalez-Vargas, J., Torricelli, D., Moreno, J. C., and Pons, J. L. (2019). Compliant Lower Limb Exoskeletons: a Comprehensive Review on Mechanical Design Principles. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 16, 55. doi:10.1186/s12984-019-0517-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sanz-Morere, C. B., Fantozzi, M., Parri, A., Giovacchini, F., Baldoni, A., Crea, S., et al. (2018). “A Bioinspired Control Strategy for the CYBERLEGs Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis: Feasibility Study with Lower-Limb Amputees,” in 2018 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob), Enschede, Netherlands, 26-29 Aug. 2018 (IEEE), 503–508. doi:10.1109/BIOROB.2018.8487692

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sawicki, G. S., and Ferris, D. P. (2009). A Pneumatically Powered Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis (KAFO) with Myoelectric Activation and Inhibition. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 6, 1–16. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-23

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sawicki, G. S., and Ferris, D. P. (2008). Mechanics and Energetics of Level Walking with Powered Ankle Exoskeletons. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 1402–1413. doi:10.1242/jeb.009241

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sczesny-Kaiser, M., Trost, R., Aach, M., Schildhauer, T. A., Schwenkreis, P., and Tegenthoff, M. (2019). A Randomized and Controlled Crossover Study Investigating the Improvement of Walking and Posture Functions in Chronic Stroke Patients Using HAL Exoskeleton - the HALESTRO Study (HAL-Exoskeleton STROke Study). Front. Neurosci. 13, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00259

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Seo, K., Lee, J., Lee, Y., Ha, T., and Shim, Y. (2016). “Fully Autonomous Hip Exoskeleton Saves Metabolic Cost of Walking,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden, 16-21 May 2016, 4628–4635. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487663

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shamaei, K., Cenciarini, M., Adams, A. A., Gregorczyk, K. N., Schiffman, J. M., and Dollar, A. M. (2015). Biomechanical Effects of Stiffness in Parallel with the Knee Joint during Walking. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 62, 2389–2401. doi:10.1109/TBME.2015.2428636

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shamaei, K., Cenciarini, M., Adams, A. A., Gregorczyk, K. N., Schiffman, J. M., and Dollar, A. M. (2014a). Design and Evaluation of a Quasi-Passive Knee Exoskeleton for Investigation of Motor Adaptation in Lower Extremity Joints. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61, 1809–1821. doi:10.1109/TBME.2014.2307698

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shamaei, K., Napolitano, P. C., and Dollar, A. M. (2013). A Quasi-Passive Compliant Stance Control Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2013, 6650471. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650471

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shamaei, K., Napolitano, P. C., and Dollar, A. M. (2014b). Design and Functional Evaluation of a Quasi-Passive Compliant Stance Control Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 258–268. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2305664

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharbafi, M. A., Barazesh, H., Iranikhah, M., and Seyfarth, A. (2018). Leg Force Control through Biarticular Muscles for Human Walking Assistance. Front. Neurorobot. 12, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2018.00039

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shi, B., Chen, X., Yue, Z., Yin, S., Weng, Q., Zhang, X., et al. (2019). Wearable Ankle Robots in Post-stroke Rehabilitation of Gait: A Systematic Review. Front. Neurorobot. 13. doi:10.3389/fnbot.2019.00063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shorter, K. A., Kogler, G. F., Loth, E., Durfee, W. K., and Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T. (2011). A Portable Powered Ankle-Foot Orthosis for Rehabilitation. Jrrd 48, 459. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2010.04.0054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Siviy, C., Bae, J., Baker, L., Porciuncula, F., Baker, T., Ellis, T. D., et al. (2020). Offline Assistance Optimization of a Soft Exosuit for Augmenting Ankle Power of Stroke Survivors during Walking. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5, 828–835. doi:10.1109/LRA.2020.2965072

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sridar, S., Qiao, Z., Muthukrishnan, N., Zhang, W., and Polygerinos, P. (2018). A Soft-Inflatable Exosuit for Knee Rehabilitation: Assisting Swing Phase during Walking. Front. Robot. AI 5, 1–9. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00044

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sridar, S., Qiao, Z., Rascon, A., Biemond, A., Beltran, A., Maruyama, T., et al. (2020). Evaluating Immediate Benefits of Assisting Knee Extension with a Soft Inflatable Exosuit. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2, 216–225. doi:10.1109/TMRB.2020.2988305

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Srivastava, S., Kao, P.-C., Kim, S. H., Stegall, P., Zanotto, D., Higginson, J. S., et al. (2015). Assist-as-Needed Robot-Aided Gait Training Improves Walking Function in Individuals Following Stroke. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23, 956–963. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2360822

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steele, K. M., Jackson, R. W., Shuman, B. R., and Collins, S. H. (2017). Muscle Recruitment and Coordination with an Ankle Exoskeleton. J. Biomechanics 59, 50–58. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.05.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stein, J., Bishop, L., Stein, D. J., and Wong, C. K. (2014). Gait Training with a Robotic Leg Brace after Stroke. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 93, 987–994. doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000119

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Takahashi, K. Z., Lewek, M. D., and Sawicki, G. S. (2015). A Neuromechanics-Based Powered Ankle Exoskeleton to Assist Walking Post-stroke: A Feasibility Study. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabilitation 12, 23. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0015-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Talatian, H., Karami, M., Moradi, H., and Vossoughi, G. (2021). “Design and Implementation of an Intelligent Control System for a Lower-Limb Exoskeleton to Reduce Human Energy Consumption,” in 2021 10th International Conference on Modern Circuits and Systems Technologies, MOCAST, Thessaloniki, Greece, 5-7 July 2021 (IEEE), 1–4. doi:10.1109/MOCAST52088.2021.9493401

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tamburella, F., Tagliamonte, N. L., Pisotta, I., Masciullo, M., Arquilla, M., Van Asseldonk, E. H. F., et al. (2020). Neuromuscular Controller Embedded in a Powered Ankle Exoskeleton: Effects on Gait, Clinical Features and Subjective Perspective of Incomplete Spinal Cord Injured Subjects. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28, 1157–1167. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2984790

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tan, C. K., Kadone, H., Watanabe, H., Marushima, A., Hada, Y., Yamazaki, M., et al. (2020). Differences in Muscle Synergy Symmetry between Subacute Post-stroke Patients with Bioelectrically-Controlled Exoskeleton Gait Training and Conventional Gait Training. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00770

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tan, C. K., Kadone, H., Watanabe, H., Marushima, A., Yamazaki, M., Sankai, Y., et al. (2018). Lateral Symmetry of Synergies in Lower Limb Muscles of Acute Post-stroke Patients after Robotic Intervention. Front. Neurosci. 12, 1–13. doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00276

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tomovic, R., and McGhee, R. B. (1966). A Finite State Approach to the Synthesis of Bioengineering Control Systems. IEEE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron HFE-7, 65–69. doi:10.1109/THFE.1966.232325

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Torricelli, D., Vargas, J. G., Veneman, J. F., Mombaur, K., Tsagarakis, N., Del-Ama, A. J., et al. (2015). Benchmarking Bipedal Locomotion. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 22, 103–115. doi:10.1109/MRA.2015.244827

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tricomi, E., Lotti, N., Missiroli, F., Zhang, X., Xiloyannis, M., Muller, T., et al. (2022). Underactuated Soft Hip Exosuit Based on Adaptive Oscillators to Assist Human Locomotion. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 7, 936–943. doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3136240

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, T., Komeda, T., Miyoshi, T., and Ota, L. (2013). “The Powered Gait Training System Using Feedback from Own Walking Information,” in 2013 ISSNIP Biosignals and Biorobotics Conference: Biosignals and Robotics for Better and Safer Living (BRC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 18-20 Feb. 2013 (IEEE), 1–5. doi:10.1109/BRC.2013.6487529

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsukahara, A., and Hashimoto, M. (2016). “Pilot Study of Single-Legged Walking Support Using Wearable Robot Based on Synchronization Control for Stroke Patients,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, ROBIO, Qingdao, China, 3-7 Dec. 2016, 886–891. doi:10.1109/ROBIO.2016.7866436

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tucker, M. R., Olivier, J., Pagel, A., Bleuler, H., Bouri, M., Lambercy, O., et al. (2015). Control Strategies for Active Lower Extremity Prosthetics and Orthotics: a Review. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabilitation 12, 1. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-12-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Unluhisarcikli, O., Pietrusinski, M., Weinberg, B., Bonato, P., and Mavroidis, C. (2011). “Design and Control of a Robotic Lower Extremity Exoskeleton for Gait Rehabilitation,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, 25-30 Sept. 2011, 4893–4898. doi:10.1109/IROS.2011.6094973

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vallery, H., and Buss, M. (2006). “Complementary Limb Motion Estimation Based on Interjoint Coordination Using Principal Components Analysis,” in 2006 IEEE Conference on Computer Aided Control System Design, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, Munich, Germany, 4-6 Oct. 2006, 933–938. doi:10.1109/CACSD-CCA-ISIC.2006.4776770

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vallery, H., Ekkelenkamp, R., Buss, M., and van der Kooij, H. (2007). “Complementary Limb Motion Estimation Based on Interjoint Coordination: Experimental Evaluation,” in 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR’07, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 13-15 June 2007 (IEEE), 798–803. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428516

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vallery, H., Van Asseldonk, E. H. F., Buss, M., and Van Der Kooij, H. (2009). Reference Trajectory Generation for Rehabilitation Robots: Complementary Limb Motion Estimation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17, 23–30. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2008.2008278

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

van Dijk, W., Meijneke, C., and van der Kooij, H. (2017). Evaluation of the Achilles Ankle Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 151–160. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2527780

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Veneman, J. F., Kruidhof, R., Hekman, E. E. G., Ekkelenkamp, R., Van Asseldonk, E. H. F., and van der Kooij, H. (2007). Design and Evaluation of the LOPES Exoskeleton Robot for Interactive Gait Rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15, 379–386. doi:10.1109/tnsre.2007.903919

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Villa-Parra, A., Delisle-Rodriguez, D., Souza Lima, J., Frizera-Neto, A., and Bastos, T. (2017). Knee Impedance Modulation to Control an Active Orthosis Using Insole Sensors. Sensors 17, 2751. doi:10.3390/s17122751

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, W. J., Li, J., Li, W. D., and Sun, L. N. (2013). An Echo-Based Gait Phase Determination Method of Lower Limb Prosthesis. Amr 706-708, 629–634. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.706-708.629

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ward, J., Sugar, T., Boehler, A., Standeven, J., and Engsberg, J. R. (2011). Stroke Survivors' Gait Adaptations to a Powered Ankle-Foot Orthosis. Adv. Robot. 25, 1879–1901. doi:10.1163/016918611X588907

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Watanabe, H., Marushima, A., Kadone, H., Ueno, T., Shimizu, Y., Kubota, S., et al. (2020). Effects of Gait Treatment with a Single-Leg Hybrid Assistive Limb System after Acute Stroke: A Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Front. Neurosci. 13. doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.01389

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Watanabe, H., Tanaka, N., Inuta, T., Saitou, H., and Yanagi, H. (2014). Locomotion Improvement Using a Hybrid Assistive Limb in Recovery Phase Stroke Patients: a Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. Archives Phys. Med. Rehabilitation 95, 2006–2012. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.07.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wei, D., Li, Z., Wei, Q., Su, H., Song, B., He, W., et al. (2021). Human-in-the-Loop Control Strategy of Unilateral Exoskeleton Robots for Gait Rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 13, 57–66. doi:10.1109/TCDS.2019.2954289

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Winfree, K. N., Stegall, P., and Agrawal, S. K. (2011). Design of a Minimally Constraining, Passively Supported Gait Training Exoskeleton: ALEX II. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2011, 5975499. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975499

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Witte, K. A., Zhang, J., Jackson, R. W., and Collins, S. H. (2015). “Design of Two Lightweight, High-Bandwidth Torque-Controlled Ankle Exoskeletons,” in Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seattle, WA, USA, 26-30 May 2015, 1223–1228. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139347

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wong, C. K., Bishop, L., and Stein, J. (2012). A Wearable Robotic Knee Orthosis for Gait Training. Prosthetics Orthot. Int. 36, 113–120. doi:10.1177/0309364611428235

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, Q., Wang, X., Du, F., and Zhang, X. (2015). Design and Control of a Powered Hip Exoskeleton for Walking Assistance. Int. J. Adv. Robotic Syst. 12, 18. doi:10.5772/59757

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xia, H., Kwon, J., Pathak, P., Ahn, J., Shull, P. B., and Park, Y.-L. (2020). “Design of A Multi-Functional Soft Ankle Exoskeleton for Foot-Drop Prevention, Propulsion Assistance, and Inversion/Eversion Stabilization,” in 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), New York, NY, USA, 29 Nov.-1 Dec. 2020 (IEEE), 118–123. doi:10.1109/BioRob49111.2020.9224420

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xie, L., and Huang, L. (2019). Wirerope-driven Exoskeleton to Assist Lower-Limb Rehabilitation of Hemiplegic Patients by Using Motion Capture. Aa 40, 48–54. doi:10.1108/AA-11-2018-0221

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xu, D., Liu, X., and Wang, Q. (2019). Knee Exoskeleton Assistive Torque Control Based on Real-Time Gait Event Detection. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 1, 158–168. doi:10.1109/TMRB.2019.2930352

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yan, T., Cempini, M., Oddo, C. M., and Vitiello, N. (2015a). Review of Assistive Strategies in Powered Lower-Limb Orthoses and Exoskeletons. Robotics Aut. Syst. 64, 120–136. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.032

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yan, T., Parri, A., Fantozzi, M., Cortese, M., Muscolo, M., Cempini, M., et al. (2015b). “A Novel Adaptive Oscillators-Based Control for a Powered Multi-Joint Lower-Limb Orthosis,” in IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Singapore, 11-14 Aug. 2015. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2015.7281230

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yeung, L.-F., Lau, C. C. Y., Lai, C. W. K., Soo, Y. O. Y., Chan, M.-L., and Tong, R. K. Y. (2021). Effects of Wearable Ankle Robotics for Stair and Over-ground Training on Sub-acute Stroke: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 18, 19. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00814-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yeung, L.-F., Ockenfeld, C., Pang, M.-K., Wai, H.-W., Soo, O.-Y., Li, S.-W., et al. (2017). “Design of an Exoskeleton Ankle Robot for Robot-Assisted Gait Training of Stroke Patients,” in 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17-20 July 2017, 211–215. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009248

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Young, A. J., Foss, J., Gannon, H., and Ferris, D. P. (2017). Influence of Power Delivery Timing on the Energetics and Biomechanics of Humans Wearing a Hip Exoskeleton. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 5, 1–11. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2017.00004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zanotto, D., Stegall, P., and Agrawal, S. K. (2014). “Adaptive Assist-As-Needed Controller to Improve Gait Symmetry in Robot-Assisted Gait Training,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China, 31 May-7 June 2014, 724–729. doi:10.1109/icra.2014.6906934

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, B., Wang, S. a., Zhou, M., and Xu, W. (2021). An Adaptive Framework of Real-Time Continuous Gait Phase Variable Estimation for Lower-Limb Wearable Robots. Robotics Aut. Syst. 143, 103842. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2021.103842

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, C., Liu, G., Li, C., Zhao, J., Yu, H., and Zhu, Y. (2016). Development of a Lower Limb Rehabilitation Exoskeleton Based on Real-Time Gait Detection and Gait Tracking. Adv. Mech. Eng. 8, 168781401562798. doi:10.1177/1687814015627982

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Fiers, P., Witte, K. A., Jackson, R. W., Poggensee, K. L., Atkeson, C. G., et al. (2017). Human-in-the-loop Optimization of Exoskeleton Assistance during Walking. Science 356, 1280–1284. doi:10.1126/science.aal5054

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhao, G., Sharbafi, M., Vlutters, M., Van Asseldonk, E., and Seyfarth, A. (2017). Template Model Inspired Leg Force Feedback Based Control Can Assist Human Walking. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2017, 473–478. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009293

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhou, Z., Liao, Y., Wang, C., and Wang, Q. (2016). “Preliminary Evaluation of Gait Assistance during Treadmill Walking with a Light-Weight Bionic Knee Exoskeleton,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) (IEEE), Qingdao, China, 3-7 Dec. 2016, 1173–1178. doi:10.1109/ROBIO.2016.7866484

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zoss, A. B., Kazerooni, H., Chu, A., Zoss, A. B., Kazerooni, H., and Chu, A. (2006). Biomechanical Design of the Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX). IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 11, 128–138. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2006.871087

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar