Cargando…
A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton
BACKGROUND: Despite a large increase in robotic exoskeleton research, there are few studies that have examined human performance with different control strategies on the same exoskeleton device. Direct comparison studies are needed to determine how users respond to different types of control. The pu...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491916/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28713810 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00037 |
_version_ | 1783247216640524288 |
---|---|
author | Young, Aaron J. Gannon, Hannah Ferris, Daniel P. |
author_facet | Young, Aaron J. Gannon, Hannah Ferris, Daniel P. |
author_sort | Young, Aaron J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Despite a large increase in robotic exoskeleton research, there are few studies that have examined human performance with different control strategies on the same exoskeleton device. Direct comparison studies are needed to determine how users respond to different types of control. The purpose of this study was to compare user performance using a robotic hip exoskeleton with two different controllers: a controller that targeted a biological hip torque profile and a proportional myoelectric controller. METHODS: We tested both control approaches on 10 able-bodied subjects using a pneumatically powered hip exoskeleton. The state machine controller targeted a biological hip torque profile. The myoelectric controller used electromyography (EMG) of lower limb muscles to produce a proportional control signal for the hip exoskeleton. Each subject performed two 30-min exoskeleton walking trials (1.0 m/s) using each controller and a 10-min trial with the exoskeleton unpowered. During each trial, we measured subjects’ metabolic cost of walking, lower limb EMG profiles, and joint kinematics and kinetics (torques and powers) using a force treadmill and motion capture. RESULTS: Compared to unassisted walking in the exoskeleton, myoelectric control significantly reduced metabolic cost by 13% (p = 0.005) and biological hip torque control reduced metabolic cost by 7% (p = 0.261). Subjects reduced muscle activity relative to the unpowered condition for a greater number of lower limb muscles using myoelectric control compared to the biological hip torque control. More subjects subjectively preferred the myoelectric controller to the biological hip torque control. CONCLUSION: Myoelectric control had more advantages (metabolic cost and muscle activity reduction) compared to a controller that targeted a biological torque profile for walking with a robotic hip exoskeleton. However, these results were obtained with a single exoskeleton device with specific control configurations while level walking at a single speed. Further testing on different exoskeleton hardware and with more varied experimental protocols, such as testing over multiple types of terrain, is needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of myoelectric control for exoskeleton technology. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5491916 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54919162017-07-14 A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton Young, Aaron J. Gannon, Hannah Ferris, Daniel P. Front Bioeng Biotechnol Bioengineering and Biotechnology BACKGROUND: Despite a large increase in robotic exoskeleton research, there are few studies that have examined human performance with different control strategies on the same exoskeleton device. Direct comparison studies are needed to determine how users respond to different types of control. The purpose of this study was to compare user performance using a robotic hip exoskeleton with two different controllers: a controller that targeted a biological hip torque profile and a proportional myoelectric controller. METHODS: We tested both control approaches on 10 able-bodied subjects using a pneumatically powered hip exoskeleton. The state machine controller targeted a biological hip torque profile. The myoelectric controller used electromyography (EMG) of lower limb muscles to produce a proportional control signal for the hip exoskeleton. Each subject performed two 30-min exoskeleton walking trials (1.0 m/s) using each controller and a 10-min trial with the exoskeleton unpowered. During each trial, we measured subjects’ metabolic cost of walking, lower limb EMG profiles, and joint kinematics and kinetics (torques and powers) using a force treadmill and motion capture. RESULTS: Compared to unassisted walking in the exoskeleton, myoelectric control significantly reduced metabolic cost by 13% (p = 0.005) and biological hip torque control reduced metabolic cost by 7% (p = 0.261). Subjects reduced muscle activity relative to the unpowered condition for a greater number of lower limb muscles using myoelectric control compared to the biological hip torque control. More subjects subjectively preferred the myoelectric controller to the biological hip torque control. CONCLUSION: Myoelectric control had more advantages (metabolic cost and muscle activity reduction) compared to a controller that targeted a biological torque profile for walking with a robotic hip exoskeleton. However, these results were obtained with a single exoskeleton device with specific control configurations while level walking at a single speed. Further testing on different exoskeleton hardware and with more varied experimental protocols, such as testing over multiple types of terrain, is needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of myoelectric control for exoskeleton technology. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5491916/ /pubmed/28713810 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00037 Text en Copyright © 2017 Young, Gannon and Ferris. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Bioengineering and Biotechnology Young, Aaron J. Gannon, Hannah Ferris, Daniel P. A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton |
title | A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton |
title_full | A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton |
title_fullStr | A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton |
title_full_unstemmed | A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton |
title_short | A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton |
title_sort | biomechanical comparison of proportional electromyography control to biological torque control using a powered hip exoskeleton |
topic | Bioengineering and Biotechnology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491916/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28713810 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2017.00037 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT youngaaronj abiomechanicalcomparisonofproportionalelectromyographycontroltobiologicaltorquecontrolusingapoweredhipexoskeleton AT gannonhannah abiomechanicalcomparisonofproportionalelectromyographycontroltobiologicaltorquecontrolusingapoweredhipexoskeleton AT ferrisdanielp abiomechanicalcomparisonofproportionalelectromyographycontroltobiologicaltorquecontrolusingapoweredhipexoskeleton AT youngaaronj biomechanicalcomparisonofproportionalelectromyographycontroltobiologicaltorquecontrolusingapoweredhipexoskeleton AT gannonhannah biomechanicalcomparisonofproportionalelectromyographycontroltobiologicaltorquecontrolusingapoweredhipexoskeleton AT ferrisdanielp biomechanicalcomparisonofproportionalelectromyographycontroltobiologicaltorquecontrolusingapoweredhipexoskeleton |