2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-009-0437-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving backdrivability in geared rehabilitation robots

Abstract: Many rehabilitation robots use electric motors with gears. The backdrivability of geared drives is poor due to friction. While it is common practice to use velocity measurements to compensate for kinetic friction, breakaway friction usually cannot be compensated for without the use of an additional force sensor that directly measures the interaction force between the human and the robot. Therefore, in robots without force sensors, subjects must overcome a large breakaway torque to initiate user-driven movement… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These results are however encouraging, and they have to be balanced with the literature illustrating the challenge related to reduce the metabolic cost of free walking with an assistive device [9,37,38,51]. Possible directions to improve this result would require to (i) make the LOPES more transparent [25,46], (ii) increase the level of assistance, (iii) give longer familiarization trials to the users (Fig. 8 already suggests a further improvement at the very end of the trial), and (iv) develop a more sensible assistance scheme.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These results are however encouraging, and they have to be balanced with the literature illustrating the challenge related to reduce the metabolic cost of free walking with an assistive device [9,37,38,51]. Possible directions to improve this result would require to (i) make the LOPES more transparent [25,46], (ii) increase the level of assistance, (iii) give longer familiarization trials to the users (Fig. 8 already suggests a further improvement at the very end of the trial), and (iv) develop a more sensible assistance scheme.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Friction of the motor gear combination is velocity dependent and identified by using a constant velocity controller [22]. We moved each joint with constant velocities from 0.1 to 60.0°/s over its entire range of motion.…”
Section: Friction Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since static friction is not modeled, the prediction errors for joint velocities near zero are bigger (see Figure 5 at the beginning or end of the movement). The static friction parameters could also be extracted from the friction measurements and added to the model, but the nonlinearity of static friction makes it difficult to validate or use the model without direct measurement of the interaction forces with force or torque sensors [22].…”
Section: Inverse Dynamic Robot Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though healthy subjects could easily move the robot, the inertia of the exoskeleton and the static friction of the actuators impeded full transparency of the device. By adding the recently developed static friction compensation method, we could further improve the transparency [28]. Extending the robot with acceleration sensors to the robot would be needed to also compensate for inertia.…”
Section: Patient-cooperative Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%