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

Abstract

BackgroundControllers for assistive robotic devices can be divided into two main categories: controllers using neural signals and controllers using mechanically intrinsic signals. Both approaches are prevalent in research devices, but a direct comparison between the two could provide insight into their relative advantages and disadvantages. We studied subjects walking with robotic ankle exoskeletons using two different control modes: dynamic gain proportional myoelectric control based on soleus muscle activity (neural signal), and timing-based mechanically intrinsic control based on gait events (mechanically intrinsic signal). We hypothesized that subjects would have different measures of metabolic work rate between the two controllers as we predicted subjects would use each controller in a unique manner due to one being dependent on muscle recruitment and the other not.MethodsThe two controllers had the same average actuation signal as we used the control signals from walking with the myoelectric controller to shape the mechanically intrinsic control signal. The difference being the myoelectric controller allowed step-to-step variation in the actuation signals controlled by the user’s soleus muscle recruitment while the timing-based controller had the same actuation signal with each step regardless of muscle recruitment.ResultsWe observed no statistically significant difference in metabolic work rate between the two controllers. Subjects walked with 11% less soleus activity during mid and late stance and significantly less peak soleus recruitment when using the timing-based controller than when using the myoelectric controller. While walking with the myoelectric controller, subjects walked with significantly higher average positive and negative total ankle power compared to walking with the timing-based controller.ConclusionsWe interpret the reduced ankle power and muscle activity with the timing-based controller relative to the myoelectric controller to result from greater slacking effects. Subjects were able to be less engaged on a muscle level when using a controller driven by mechanically intrinsic signals than when using a controller driven by neural signals, but this had no affect on their metabolic work rate. These results suggest that the type of controller (neural vs. mechanical) is likely to affect how individuals use robotic exoskeletons for therapeutic rehabilitation or human performance augmentation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12984-018-0379-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Walking with a powered ankle-foot orthosis: the effects of actuation timing and stiffness level on healthy users

“…In some studies, after a period of adaptation, the powered assistance provided at the push-off did not have any effect on the activity of more proximal muscles [14,15,17,59]. As opposed to this, other studies found that the assistance provided at the push-off phase was reducing the activity of some muscles at the hip joint [2,11,22,23]. In this study, no significant effects were found at the left REC at the end of the walking trials (Additional file 4 and Additional file 5).…”

“…Powered ankle-foot orthoses (PAFOs) are robotic devices meant to assist the ankle joint of their users. Recently, several PAFOs have been developed and tested to investigate their potential in reducing the biological effort of healthy users during assisted walking as compared to unassisted or normal walking [1][2][3][4][5], but also to evaluate their performance when used as assistive or rehabilitation devices with weakened users such as the elderly [6,7] and impaired subjects [8][9][10]. In these studies, PAFOs where shown to be able to reduce the metabolic cost of walking of healthy users as compared to the unassisted configuration [1,5,11], and in some cases also as compared to walking without the device [3,4].…”

The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy

“…This strategy directly modulates exoskeleton torque based on the timing and magnitude of a targeted muscle's activity, which can adapt the device to the users changing biomechanics. However, this strategy has yielded mixed results [42,79,80] and is challenging to effectively use due to quick adaptations that occur to accommodate various tasks as well as slower changes that occur due to learning the device [41]. Scientists have made exciting advances using machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques to fuse information from both sensors on the user and device to better merge the user and exoskeleton [81,82], but these techniques have not yet been commercially translated to exoskeleton technology to the authors' knowledge.…”

Acceleration-based Assistive Strategy to Control a Back-support Exoskeleton for Load Handling: Preliminary Evaluation

“…The easiest approach is to manually drive the assistance, using extra joysticks or buttons (e.g., Muscle Suit [11] for back-support). However, the two most prevalent approaches in research and commercial devices are: controllers using mechanically intrinsic signals and controllers using neural signals (e.g., brain activity or muscle activity) [12].…”

“…Control driven by mechanically intrinsic signals relies on measures that are intrinsic to the device itself (e.g., gait events, joint angles or forces, segments movements) [12]. For back-support exoskeleton, trunk or legs movements can be registered thanks to Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) or encoders embedded in the exoskeleton structure.…”