In this review, user experience (UX) of recent lower limb exoskeletons (LLEs) and its improvement methodologies are investigated. First, statistics based on standardised and custom UX evaluations are presented. It is indicated that, LLE users have positive UX, especially in the aspects of safety, dimension and effectiveness. Further, overall, UX levels of ankle and hip-knee exoskeletons are higher than those of other exoskeleton types; unilateral LLEs have higher mean UX levels than that of the bilateral ones. Then, design practices for improving UX are studied; the focused points are burden reduction and improvement of device fit. The former is achieved through lightweight design and approaches that reduce device’s moment of inertia (MOI) at mechanical joints. Works on the latter refer to the endeavours to enhance static and dynamic fit; they mainly rely on the optimisations of human-robot interface (HRS) and endeavours to rectify misalignment of axes of mechanical and anatomic joints, respectively. The following section is control approaches to enhance wearing comfort level; it is mainly focused on adaptive, interaction and compensation-based controls. Finally, existing problems and future directions are stated and prospected respectively.
AlimanNRamliRHarisSM.Design and development of lower limb exoskeletons: a survey. Rob Auton Syst2017; 95: 102–116.
2.
DollarAMHerrH.Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses: challenges and state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Rob2008; 24(1): 144–158.
3.
YuSHanCChoI.Design considerations of a lower limb exoskeleton system to assist walking and load-carrying of infantry soldiers. Appl Bionics Biomech2014; 11(3): 119–134.
4.
YuSLeeSLeeH, et al. Design and feasibility verification of a knee assistive exoskeleton system for construction workers. In Balaguer C and Abderrahim M (eds): Robotics and automation in construction. Rijeka: InTech, 2008, pp.307–328.
5.
LuRLiZSuCY, et al. Development and learning control of a human limb with a rehabilitation exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2013; 61(7): 3776–3785.
6.
WangYLiuZFengZ.Design of a control framework for lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robot based on predictive assessment. Clin Biomech2022; 95: 105660.
7.
GaoMWangZPangZ, et al. Electrically driven lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robot based on anthropomorphic design. Machines2022; 10(4): 266.
8.
GaoMWangZLiS, et al. Design and optimization of exoskeleton structure of lower limb knee joint based on cross four-bar linkage. AIP Adv2021; 11(6): 065124.
9.
JammeliIChemoriAMoonH, et al. An assistive explicit model predictive control framework for a knee rehabilitation exoskeleton. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2021; 27(5): 3636–3647.
WatersRLMulroyS.The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture1999; 9(3): 207–231.
12.
SerrancolíGFalisseADembiaC, et al. Subject-exoskeleton contact model calibration leads to accurate interaction force predictions. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2019; 27(8): 1597–1605.
13.
YandellMBZiemnickiDMMcDonaldKA, et al. Characterizing the comfort limits of forces applied to the shoulders, thigh and shank to inform exosuit design. PLoS One2020; 15(2): e0228536.
14.
KermavnarTO’SullivanKJde EytoA, et al. The effect of simulated circumferential soft exoskeleton compression at the knee on discomfort and pain. Ergonomics2020; 63(5): 618–628.
15.
KermavnarTO’SullivanKJCaseyV, et al. Circumferential tissue compression at the lower limb during walking, and its effect on discomfort, pain and tissue oxygenation: application to soft exoskeleton design. Appl Ergon2020; 86: 103093.
16.
PanCTLeeMCHuangJS, et al. Active assistive design and multiaxis self-tuning control of a novel lower limb rehabilitation exoskeleton. Machines2022; 10(5): 318.
17.
IshmaelMKArchangeliDLenziT.A powered hip exoskeleton with high torque density for walking, running, and stair ascent. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2022; 27(6): 4561–4572.
18.
NuckolsRLeeSSwaminathanK, et al. Individualization of exosuit assistance based on measured muscle dynamics during. Synthesis2021; 28(30): 90.
19.
SharifiMMehrJKMushahwarVK, et al. Adaptive cpg-based gait planning with learning-based torque estimation and control for exoskeletons. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2021; 6(4): 8261–8268.
20.
JyräkoskiTMerilampiSPuustinenJ, et al. Over-ground robotic lower limb exoskeleton in neurological gait rehabilitation: user experiences and effects on walking ability. Technol Disabil2021; 33(1): 53–63.
21.
HsuCCHuangYKKangJH, et al. Novel design for a dynamic ankle foot orthosis with motion feedback used for training in patients with hemiplegic gait: a pilot study. J NeuroEng Rehabil2020; 17(1): 1–9.
22.
WangYQiuJChengH, et al. Analysis of human–exoskeleton system interaction for ergonomic design. Hum Factors2023; 65(5): 909–922.
23.
SongG.Improving comfort in clothing. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2011.
24.
DemersLWeiss-LambrouRSkaB.The quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (quest 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Technol Disabil2002; 14(3): 101–105.
25.
LewisJR. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Int J Hum Comput Interact2018; 34(7): 577–590.
26.
LewisJR. Comparison of four TAM item formats: effect of response option labels and order. J Usability Stud2019; 14(4): 224–236.
WilliamsN.The Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Occup Med2017; 67(5): 404–405.
29.
KnightJFBaberC.A tool to assess the comfort of wearable computers. Hum Factors2005; 47(1): 77–91.
30.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA.Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales. J Pers Soc Psychol1988; 54(6): 1063.
31.
ElpramaSAVanderborghtBJacobsA.An industrial exoskeleton user acceptance framework based on a literature review of empirical studies. Appl Ergon2022; 100: 103615.
32.
RiccòMRanzieriSVezzosiL, et al. Wearable exoskeletons on the workplaces: knowledge, attitudes and perspectives of health and safety managers on the implementation of exoskeleton technology in northern italy. Acta Biomed2022; 92(6): e2021310.
33.
WolffJParkerCBorisoffJ, et al. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J Neuroeng Rehabil2014; 11(1): 169.
34.
HillDHollowayCSRamirezDZM, et al. What are user perspectives of exoskeleton technology? a literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care2017; 33(2): 160–167.
35.
OtáloraSBallen-MorenoFArciniegas-MayagL, et al. Biomechanical effects of adding an ankle soft actuation in a unilateral exoskeleton. Biosensors2022; 12(10): 873.
36.
de Miguel-FernándezJPescatoreCMesa-GarridoA, et al. Immediate biomechanical effects of providing adaptive assistance with an ankle exoskeleton in individuals after stroke. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2022; 7(3): 7574–7580.
37.
Gomez-VargasDBallen-MorenoFBarriaP, et al. The actuation system of the ankle exoskeleton t-flex: first use experimental validation in people with stroke. Brain Sci2021; 11(4): 412.
38.
BarriaPPinoATovarN, et al. BCI-based control for ankle exoskeleton T-FLEX: comparison of visual and haptic stimuli with stroke survivors. Sensors2021; 21(19): 6431.
39.
ChungCLPaquetteMRDiAngeloDJ.Impact of a dynamic ankle orthosis on acute pain and function in patients with mechanical foot and ankle pain. Clin Biomech2021; 83: 105281.
40.
ZorkotMDacLHMoryaE, et al. G-Exos: a wearable gait exoskeleton for walk assistance. Front Neurorobot2022; 16: 939241.
41.
KumarSZwallMRBolivar-NietoEA, et al. Extremum seeking control for stiffness auto-tuning of a quasi-passive ankle exoskeleton. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2020; 5(3): 4604–4611.
42.
LopesJMFigueiredoJPinheiroC, et al. Biomechanical assessment of adapting trajectory and human-robot interaction stiffness in impedance-controlled ankle orthosis. J Intell Rob Syst Theory Appl2021; 102(4): 76.
43.
KhazoomCVéronneauCBiguéJPL, et al. Design and control of a multifunctional ankle exoskeleton powered by magnetorheological actuators to assist walking, jumping, and landing. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2019; 4(3): 3083–3090.
44.
AdiputraDAbdul RahmanMAMazlanSA, et al. Control reference parameter for stance assistance using a passive controlled ankle foot orthosis—a preliminary study. Appl Sci2019; 9(20): 4416.
45.
Gomez-VargasDBallen-MorenoFRodriguez-GuerreroC, et al. Experimental characterization of the T-FLEX ankle exoskeleton for gait assistance. Mechatronics2021; 78: 102608.
46.
KwonJParkJHKuS, et al. A soft wearable robotic ankle-foot-orthosis for post-stroke patients. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2019; 4(3): 2547–2552.
47.
MalcolmPGalleSVan Den BergheP, et al. Exoskeleton assistance symmetry matters: unilateral assistance reduces metabolic cost, but relatively less than bilateral assistance. J NeuroEng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 74.
48.
ZhouYLiuL.Design, analysis, and control of a user-adaptive ankle foot orthosis. J Med Devices Trans ASME2022; 16(4): 7.
49.
KimMJeongHKantharajuP, et al. Visual guidance can help with the use of a robotic exoskeleton during human walking. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 3881.
50.
HuoWArnez-PaniaguaVDingG, et al. Adaptive proxy-based controller of an active ankle foot orthosis to assist lower limb movements of paretic patients. Robotica2019; 37(12): 2147–2164.
51.
WangJTangBPangM, et al. Self-adaptive particle swarm optimization with human-in-the-loop for ankle exoskeleton control. Sens Mater2021; 33: 3125–3151.
52.
MoonHMaitiRSharmaKD, et al. Hybrid half-gaussian selectively adaptive fuzzy control of an actuated ankle-foot orthosis. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2022; 7(4): 9635–9642.
53.
SchubertTWollesenBWeidnerR.Development and preliminary evaluation of a lower body exosuit to support ankle dorsiflexion. Appl Sci2021; 11(11): 5007.
54.
Russell EspositoESchmidtbauerKAWilkenJM. Experimental comparisons of passive and powered ankle-foot orthoses in individuals with limb reconstruction. J NeuroEng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 111.
55.
TamburellaFTagliamonteNLPisottaI, et al. 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 Eng2020; 28(5): 1157–1167.
56.
OrekhovGFangYCuddebackCF, et al. Usability and performance validation of an ultra-lightweight and versatile untethered robotic ankle exoskeleton. J NeuroEng Rehabil2021; 18(1): 163.
57.
HarveyTAConnerBCLernerZF.Does ankle exoskeleton assistance impair stability during walking in individuals with cerebral palsy?Ann Biomed Eng2021; 49(9): 2522–2532.
58.
WangCDaiLShenD, et al. Design of an ankle exoskeleton that recycles energy to assist propulsion during human walking. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2021; 69(3): 1212–1224.
59.
OrekhovGFangYLuqueJ, et al. Ankle exoskeleton assistance can improve over-ground walking economy in individuals with cerebral palsy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28(2): 461–467.
60.
FangYLernerZF.Feasibility of augmenting ankle exoskeleton walking performance with step length biofeedback in individuals with cerebral palsy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2021; 29: 442–449.
61.
FangYOrekhovGLernerZF.Adaptive ankle exoskeleton gait training demonstrates acute neuromuscular and spatiotemporal benefits for individuals with cerebral palsy: a pilot study. Gait Posture2022; 95: 256–263.
62.
PengXAcosta-SojoYWuMI, et al. Actuation timing perception of a powered ankle exoskeleton and its associated ankle angle changes during walking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2022; 30: 869–877.
63.
ZhangJCongMLiuD, et al. Design of an active and passive control system for a knee exoskeleton with variable stiffness based on a shape memory alloy. J Intell Rob Syst2021; 101(3): 1–15.
64.
KennardMKadoneHShimizuY, et al. Passive exoskeleton with gait-based knee joint support for individuals with cerebral palsy. Sensors2022; 22(22): 8935.
65.
WangJLiXHuangTH, et al. Comfort-centered design of a lightweight and backdrivable knee exoskeleton. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2018; 3(4): 4265–4272.
66.
HuangTHZhangSYuS, et al. Modeling and stiffness-based continuous torque control of lightweight quasi-direct-drive knee exoskeletons for versatile walking assistance. IEEE Trans Rob2022; 38(3): 1442–1459.
67.
ChenLWangCSongX, et al. Dynamic trajectory adjustment of lower limb exoskeleton in swing phase based on impedance control strategy. Proc IMechE, Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering2020; 234(10): 1120–1132.
68.
WangFYanLXiaoJ, et al. Design and simulation analysis of an improved wearable power knee exoskeleton. J Vibroeng2019; 21(5): 1472–1482.
69.
PeñaGGConsoniLJdos SantosWM, et al. Feasibility of an optimal emg-driven adaptive impedance control applied to an active knee orthosis. Rob Auton Syst2019; 112: 98–108.
70.
LongYPengY.Design and control of a quasi-direct drive actuated knee exoskeleton. J Bionic Eng2022; 19(3): 678–687.
71.
YuSHuangTHDi LalloA, et al. Bio-inspired design of a self-aligning, lightweight, and highly-compliant cable-driven knee exoskeleton. Front Hum Neurosci2022; 16: 1018160.
72.
LiuXWangQ.Real-time locomotion mode recognition and assistive torque control for unilateral knee exoskeleton on different terrains. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2020; 25(6): 2722–2732.
73.
HuoWMohammedSAmiratY.Impedance reduction control of a knee joint human-exoskeleton system. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol2018; 27(6): 2541–2556.
74.
MartínezADurroughCGoldfarbM.A single-joint implementation of flow control: knee joint walking assistance for individuals with mobility impairment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28(4): 934–942.
75.
NunesPFOstanISiqueiraAAG. Evaluation of motor primitive-based adaptive control for lower limb exoskeletons. Front Rob AI2020; 7: 575217.
76.
BraunJMWörgötterFManoonpongP.Modular neural mechanisms for gait phase tracking, prediction, and selection in personalizable knee-ankle-foot-orthoses. Front Neurorobot2018; 12: 37.
77.
Puyuelo-QuintanaGCano-De-La-CuerdaRPlaza-FloresA, et al. A new lower limb portable exoskeleton for gait assistance in neurological patients: a proof of concept study. J NeuroEng Rehabil2020; 17(1): 60.
78.
Font-LlagunesJMLugrísUClosD, et al. Design, control, and pilot study of a lightweight and modular robotic exoskeleton for walking assistance after spinal cord injury. J Mech Rob2020; 12(3): 031008.
79.
HeoYChoiHJHwangSJ, et al. Development of a knee actuated exoskeletal gait orthosis for paraplegic patients with incomplete spinal cord injury: a single case study. Appl Sci2021; 11(1): 58.
80.
LeeDMcLainBJKangI, et al. Biomechanical comparison of assistance strategies using a bilateral robotic knee exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2021; 68(9): 2870–2879.
81.
Rodríguez-FernándezALobo-PratJTarragóR, et al. Comparing walking with knee-ankle-foot orthoses and a knee-powered exoskeleton after spinal cord injury: a randomized, crossover clinical trial. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 19150.
82.
McGibbonCSextonAJayaramanA, et al. Evaluation of a lower-extremity robotic exoskeleton for people with knee osteoarthritis. Assist Technol2022; 34(5): 543–556.
83.
McGibbonCASextonAJayaramanA, et al. Evaluation of the keeogo exoskeleton for assisting ambulatory activities in people with multiple sclerosis: an open-label, randomized, cross-over trial. J NeuroEng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 117.
84.
CaoWChenCHuH, et al. Effect of hip assistance modes on metabolic cost of walking with a soft exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng2020; 18(2): 426–436.
85.
YuSHuangTHYangX, et al. Quasi-direct drive actuation for a lightweight hip exoskeleton with high backdrivability and high bandwidth. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2020; 25(4): 1794–1802.
86.
ChenLChenCWangZ, et al. A novel lightweight wearable soft exosuit for reducing the metabolic rate and muscle fatigue. Biosensors2021; 11(7): 215.
87.
LeeSEKilpatrickCKangI, et al. Investigating the impact of the user interface for a powered hip orthosis on metabolic cost and user comfort: a preliminary study. J Prosthet Orthot2021; 33(2): 133–140.
88.
NaghaviNAkbarzadehATahamipour-ZSM, et al. Assist-as-needed control of a hip exoskeleton based on a novel strength index. Rob Auton Syst2020; 134: 103667.
89.
QiuSGuoWZhaF, et al. Exoskeleton active walking assistance control framework based on frequency adaptive dynamics movement primitives. Front Neurorob2021; 15: 672582.
90.
ShaferBAPowellJCYoungAJ, et al. Emulator-based optimization of a semi-active hip exoskeleton concept: sweeping impedance across walking speeds. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2022; 70(1): 271–282.
91.
YangWXuLYuL, et al. Hybrid oscillator-based no-delay hip exoskeleton control for free walking assistance. Ind Rob Int J Rob Res Appl2021; 48(6): 906–914.
92.
QianYWangYChenC, et al. Predictive locomotion mode recognition and accurate gait phase estimation for hip exoskeleton on various terrains. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2022; 7(3): 6439–6446.
93.
GordonDFNMcGreavyCChristouA, et al. Human-in-the-loop optimization of exoskeleton assistance via online simulation of metabolic cost. IEEE Trans Rob2022; 38(3): 1410–1429.
94.
JinXPradoAAgrawalSK.Retraining of human gait-are lightweight cable-driven leg exoskeleton designs effective?IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2018; 26(4): 847–855.
95.
GuiKTanUXLiuH, et al. Electromyography-driven progressive assist-as-needed control for lower limb exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Med Rob Bionics2020; 2(1): 50–58.
96.
TranHTTanLNHanSH.Model-learning-based partitioned control of a human-powered augmentation lower exoskeleton. J Electr Eng Technol2022; 17(1): 533–550.
97.
WeiQLiZZhaoK, et al. Synergy-based control of assistive lower-limb exoskeletons by skill transfer. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2019; 25(2): 705–715.
98.
LauJCLMombaurK. Preliminary study on a novel protocol for improving familiarity with a lower-limb robotic exoskeleton in able-bodied, first-time users. Front Rob AI2022; 8: 785251.
99.
LaffranchiMD’AngellaSVassalloC, et al. User-centered design and development of the modular TWIN lower limb exoskeleton. Front Neurorob2021; 15: 709731.
100.
PlazaAHernandezMGutierrezA, et al. Design of a modular exoskeleton based on distributed central pattern generators. IEEE Syst J2022 17(1): 816–827.
101.
LiHSuiDJuH, et al. Mechanical compliance and dynamic load isolation design of lower limb exoskeleton for locomotion assistance. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2022; 27(6): 5392–5402.
102.
ZhuSZhouSChenZ, et al. Gait-stride-and-frequency-based human intention recognition approach and experimental verification on lower limb exoskeleton. Trans Inst Meas Control2022; 44(5): 1149–1160.
103.
SunMOuyangXMattilaJ, et al. Lightweight electrohydrostatic actuator drive solution for exoskeleton robots. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2022; 27(6): 4631–4642.
104.
LiYGuanXHanX, et al. Design and preliminary validation of a lower limb exoskeleton with compact and modular actuation. IEEE Access2020; 8: 66338–66352.
105.
LiuDXXuJChenC, et al. Vision-assisted autonomous lower-limb exoskeleton robot. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst2019; 51(6): 3759–3770.
106.
TuYZhuASongJ, et al. An adaptive sliding mode variable admittance control method for lower limb rehabilitation exoskeleton robot. Appl Sci2020; 10(7): 2536.
107.
WooHKongKRhaDW.Lower-limb-assisting robotic exoskeleton reduces energy consumption in healthy young persons during stair climbing. Appl Bionics Biomech2021; 2021: 8833461.
108.
WangDHuBChenW, et al. Design and preliminary validation of a lightweight powered exoskeleton during level walking for persons with paraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2021; 29: 2112–2123.
109.
LeeYLeeJChoiB, et al. Flexible gait enhancing mechatronics system for lower limb assistance (gems l-type). IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2019; 24(4): 1520–1531.
110.
LiZZhaoKZhangL, et al. Human-in-the-loop control of a wearable lower limb exoskeleton for stable dynamic walking. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2021; 26(5): 2700–2711.
111.
ZhangZWLiuGFZhengTJ, et al. Blending control method of lower limb exoskeleton toward tripping-free stair climbing. ISA Trans2022; 131: 610–627.
112.
HuangRChengHGuoH, et al. Hierarchical learning control with physical human-exoskeleton interaction. Inf Sci2018; 432: 584–595.
113.
YuanYLiZZhaoT, et al. DMP-Based motion generation for a walking exoskeleton robot using reinforcement learning. IEEE Trans Ind Electron2019; 67(5): 3830–3839.
114.
ChenBZhongCHZhaoX, et al. Reference joint trajectories generation of cuhk-exo exoskeleton for system balance in walking assistance. IEEE Access2019; 7: 33809–33821.
115.
HuangPLiZZhouM, et al. Fuzzy enhanced adaptive admittance control of a wearable walking exoskeleton with step trajectory shaping. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst2022; 30(6): 1541–1552.
116.
ChenCFDuZJHeL, et al. Development and hybrid control of an electrically actuated lower limb exoskeleton for motion assistance. IEEE Access2019; 7: 169107–169122.
117.
van DijsseldonkRBvan NesIJGeurtsAC, et al. Exoskeleton home and community use in people with complete spinal cord injury. Sci Rep2020; 10(1): 1–8.
118.
GoffredoMGuanziroliEPournajafS, et al. Overground wearable powered exoskeleton for gait training in subacute stroke subjects: clinical and gait assessments. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2019; 55(6): 710–721.
119.
GagnonDHVermetteMDuclosC, et al. Satisfaction and perceptions of long-term manual wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury upon completion of a locomotor training program with an overground robotic exoskeleton. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2019; 14(2): 138–145.
120.
SalePRussoEFScartonA, et al. Training for mobility with exoskeleton robot in spinal cord injury patients: a pilot study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2018; 54(5): 745–751.
121.
ThomassenGKKJørgensenVNormannB. “Back at the same level as everyone else”—user perspectives on walking with an exoskeleton, a qualitative study. Spinal Cord Ser Cases2019; 5(1): 103.
122.
RussoMMaggioMGNaroA, et al. Can powered exoskeletons improve gait and balance in multiple sclerosis? A retrospective study. Int J Rehabil Res2021; 44(2): 126–130.
123.
HøyerEOpheimAJørgensenV.Implementing the exoskeleton Ekso GTTM for gait rehabilitation in a stroke unit–feasibility, functional benefits and patient experiences. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2022; 17(4): 473–479.
124.
SwankCSikkaSDriverS, et al. Feasibility of integrating robotic exoskeleton gait training in inpatient rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol2020; 15(4): 409–417.
125.
McDonaldCFingletonCMurphyS, et al. Stroke survivor perceptions of using an exoskeleton during acute gait rehabilitation. Sci Rep2022; 12(1): 1–9.
126.
ChenSWangZLiY, et al. Safety and feasibility of a novel exoskeleton for locomotor rehabilitation of subjects with spinal cord injury: a prospective, multi-center, and cross-over clinical trial. Front Neurorobot2022; 16: 848443.
127.
Pais-VieiraCAllahdadMNeves-AmadoJ, et al. Method for positioning and rehabilitation training with the ExoAtlet ® powered exoskeleton. MethodsX2020; 7: 100849.
128.
ChangSHZhuFPatelN, et al. Combining robotic exoskeleton and body weight unweighing technology to promote walking activity in tetraplegia following SCI: a case study. J Spinal Cord Med2020; 43(1): 126–129.
129.
LaubscherCAGooAFarrisRJ, et al. Hybrid impedance-sliding mode switching control of the indego explorer lower-limb exoskeleton in able-bodied walking. J Intell Rob Syst Theory Appl2022; 104(4): 76.
130.
LuoLFooMJRamanathanM, et al. Trajectory generation and control of a lower limb exoskeleton for gait assistance. J Intell Rob Syst Theory Appl2022; 106(3): 64.
131.
SharifiMMehrJKMushahwarVK, et al. Autonomous locomotion trajectory shaping and nonlinear control for lower limb exoskeletons. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron2022; 27(2): 645–655.
132.
ChoiHNaBLeeJ, et al. A user interface system with see-through display for walkon suit: a powered exoskeleton for complete paraplegics. Appl Sci2018; 8(11): 2287.
133.
HuoWMoonHAlouaneMA, et al. Impedance modulation control of a lower-limb exoskeleton to assist sit-to-stand movements. IEEE Trans Rob2022; 38(2): 1230–1249.
134.
PengZLuoRHuangR, et al. Data-driven optimal assistance control of a lower limb exoskeleton for hemiplegic patients. Front Neurorob2020; 14: 37.
135.
ZhangLSongGZouC, et al. Trajectory modulation for impact reducing of lower-limb exoskeletons. Micromachines2022; 13(6): 816.
136.
Muijzer-WitteveenHSibumNVan DijsseldonkR, et al. Questionnaire results of user experiences with wearable exoskeletons and their preferences for sensory feedback 17 psychology and cognitive sciences 1701 psychology. J NeuroEng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 112.
137.
BaserOKizilhanHKilicE.Biomimetic compliant lower limb exoskeleton (biocomex) and its experimental evaluation. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng2019; 41(5): 1–15.
138.
BryanGMFranksPWKleinSC, et al. A hip–knee–ankle exoskeleton emulator for studying gait assistance. Int J Rob Res2021; 40(4–5): 722–746.
139.
Di NataliCSadeghiAMondiniA, et al. Pneumatic quasi-passive actuation for soft assistive lower limbs exoskeleton. Front Neurorob2020; 14: 31.
140.
RajasekaranVLópez-LarrazETrincado-AlonsoF, et al. Volition-adaptive control for gait training using wearable exoskeleton: preliminary tests with incomplete spinal cord injury individuals. J NeuroEng Rehabil2018; 15(1): 1–15.
141.
FranksPWBryanGMReyesR, et al. The effects of incline level on optimized lower-limb exoskeleton assistance: a case series. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2022; 30: 2494–2505.
142.
PostolNSprattNJBivardA, et al. Physiotherapy using a free-standing robotic exoskeleton for patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study. J NeuroEng Rehabil2021; 18(1): 180.
143.
ShahrokhshahiAKhadivMTaherifarA, et al. Sample-efficient policy adaptation for exoskeletons under variations in the users and the environment. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2022; 7(4): 9020–9027.
144.
Sanchez-VillamañanMDCGonzalez-VargasJTorricelliD, et al. Compliant lower limb exoskeletons: a comprehensive review on mechanical design principles. J NeuroEng Rehabil2019; 16(1): 55.
145.
MengQZengQXieQ, et al. Flexible lower limb exoskeleton systems: a review. NeuroRehabilitation2022; 50(4): 367–390.
146.
HussainFGoeckeRMohammadianM.Exoskeleton robots for lower limb assistance: a review of materials, actuation, and manufacturing methods. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2021; 235(12): 1375–1385.
147.
ElstubLJFineSJZelikKE.Exoskeletons and exosuits could benefit from mode-switching body interfaces that loosen/tighten to improve thermal comfort. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18(24): 13115.
148.
NäfMBJuniusKRossiniM, et al. Misalignment compensation for full human-exoskeleton kinematic compatibility: state of the art and evaluation. Appl Mech Rev2018; 70(5): 050802.
149.
LandauIDLozanoRM’SaadM, et al. Adaptive control: algorithms, analysis and applications. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2011.
150.
AjayiMODjouaniKHamamY.Interaction control for human-exoskeletons. J Control Sci Eng2020; 2020: 8472510.
