Unveiling the underlying motor control mechanism of arm-trunk-leg coordinated humanoid exoskeletal interlimb locomotor robotic neurorehabilitation

Abstract

Background

Arm-leg coordinated humanoid exoskeletal robots offer a solution to the ‘unnatural’ gait patterns seen in current leg-only exoskeletons, but their neuromechanical control mechanisms require further exploration.

Objective

This study investigates the neuromechanical properties and modulation of cervical and lumbar central pattern generators (CPGs) across different gait training conditions.

Methods

Eleven healthy adults (mean age: 25.27 ± 1.95 years; 5 females, 6 males) participated in gait analysis involving kinematics, kinetics, and electromyography during treadmill-based arm-leg interlimb coordination (TIT), robot-assisted arm-leg coordination (RIT), and robot-assisted leg-only coordination (RLT).

Results

Trunk counterrotation and shoulder, hip, and knee kinematics in RIT closely resembled those in TIT (5–10% variance) but significantly differed from RLT (30–40% variance). Electromyography revealed normalized reciprocal activation between the anterior and posterior deltoids (r = -0.48), tibialis anterior, and gastrocnemius (r = -0.68) during RIT, while RLT showed altered agonist-antagonist co-activation (r = 0.84).

Conclusions

These findings highlight the importance of cervical and lumbar CPG interaction in natural locomotion, suggesting that arm-leg coordinated exoskeletons could improve neurorehabilitation for individuals recovering from stroke or spinal cord injury.

Keywords

robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT)arm swing trunk counterrotation exoskeletal robot interlimb-coordination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alwardat

Etoom

Al Dajah

Schirinzi

Di Lazzaro

Salimei

P. S.

Pisani

(2018). Effectiveness of robot-assisted gait training on motor impairments in people with Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 41(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000312

Aurich-Schuler

Gut

Labruyère

(2019). The FreeD module for the Lokomat facilitates a physiological movement pattern in healthy people–a proof of concept study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil, 16, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0454-z

Barroso

Santos

Moreno

J. C.

(2013). Influence of the robotic exoskeleton lokomat on the control of human gait: An electromyographic and kinematic analysis, in 2013 IEEE 3rd Port. Meeting in Bioengineering (ENBENG), February 2013, Braga, Portugal 1–6.

Boccia

Rainoldi

(2014). Innervation zones location and optimal electrodes position of obliquus internus and obliquus externus abdominis muscles. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol, 24(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.10.017

Bovi

Rabuffetti

Mazzoleni

Ferrarin

(2011). A multiple-task gait analysis approach: Kinematic, kinetic and EMG reference data for healthy young and adult subjects. Gait Posture, 33(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.08.009

Cole

M. H.

Grimshaw

P. N.

(2009). The X-factor and its relationship to golfing performance. J. Quant. Anal. Sports, 5(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1134

Davis

R. B.

III Õunpuu

Tyburski

Gage

J. R.

(1991). A gait analysis data collection and reduction technique. Hum. Mov. Sci, 10(5), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(91)90046-Z

DeBerardinis

Dufek

J. S.

Trabia

M. B.

Lidstone

D. E.

(2018). Assessing the validity of pressure-measuring insoles in quantifying gait variables. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng, 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668317752088

Elrahim

R. M. A.

Embaby

E. A.

Ali

M. F.

Kamel

R. M.

(2016). Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of Kinovea software for measurement of shoulder range of motion. Bull. Fac. Phys. Ther, 21, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.4103/1110-6611.196778

10.

Fernández-González

, et al. (2020). Reliability of Kinovea® software and agreement with a three-dimensional motion system for gait analysis in healthy subjects. Sensors (Basel), 20, 3154. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113154

11.

Frigon

(2017). The neural control of interlimb coordination during mammalian locomotion. J. Neurophysiol, 117(6), 2224–2241. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00978.2016

12.

Gould

Z. I.

Oliver

J. L.

Lloyd

R. S.

Neil

Bull

(2021). The golf movement screen is related to spine control and X-factor of the golf swing in low handicap golfers. J. Strength Cond. Res, 35(1), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002664

13.

Hermens

H. J.

Freriks

Disselhorst-Klug

Rau

(2000). Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol, 10(5), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1050-6411(00)00027-4

14.

Hidler

J. M.

Wall

A. E.

(2005). Alterations in muscle activation patterns during robotic-assisted walking. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol Avon), 20(2), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.09.016

15.

Kang

T. W.

D. W.

Lee

J. H.

Cynn

H. S.

(2018). Effects of integrating rhythmic arm swing into robot-assisted walking in patients with subacute stroke: A randomized controlled pilot study. Int. J. Rehabil. Res, 41(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000260

16.

Kim

S. Y.

, et al. (2015). Effects of innovative WALKBOT robotic-assisted locomotor training on balance and gait recovery in hemiparetic stroke: A prospective, randomized, experimenter blinded case control study with a four-week follow-up. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng, 23(4), 636–642. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2404936

17.

Klobucká

Klobucký

Kollár

(2020). Effect of robot-assisted gait training on motor functions in adolescent and young adult patients with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: A randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabilitation, 47(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-203102

18.

Kubo

Miyoshi

Kanai

Terashima

(2011). Gait rehabilitation device in central nervous system disease: A review. J. Robot, 2011, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/348207

19.

Loro

Borg

M. B.

Battaglia

Amico

A. P.

Antenucci

Benanti

Baricich

(2023). Balance rehabilitation through robot-assisted gait training in post-stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Sciences, 13(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13010092

20.

Matsuda

, et al. (2018). Immediate effects of a single session of robot-assisted gait training using Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL) for cerebral palsy. J. Phys. Ther. Sci, 30(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.30.207

21.

Meyns

, et al. (2012). Is interlimb coordination during walking preserved in children with cerebral palsy? Res. Dev. Disabil, 33(5), 1418–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.03.020

22.

Meyns

Bruijn

S. M.

Duysens

(2013). The how and why of arm swing during human walking. Gait Posture, 38(4), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.02.006

23.

Neckel

N. D.

Blonien

Nichols

Hidler

(2008). Abnormal joint torque patterns exhibited by chronic stroke subjects while walking with a prescribed physiological gait pattern. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil, 5, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-5-19

24.

Nienhuis, B., Alingh, J. F., Weerdesteyn, V., Geurts, A. C. H., Groen, B. E., & van Asseldonk, E. H. F. (2019). Immediate after-effects of robot-assisted gait with pelvic support or pelvic constraint on overground walking in healthy subjects. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0506-z

25.

Ogawa

, et al. (2015). Rhythmic arm swing enhances patterned locomotor-like muscle activity in passively moved lower extremities. Physiol. Rep, 3(3), e12317. https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12317

26.

Park

You

S. J. H.

(2021). Validity and test-retest reliability of an intelligent robotic shoulder joint kinematics system for rehabilitation. J. Mech. Med. Biol, 21(10), 2140065. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219519421400650

27.

Prost

, et al. (2021). Description of spine motion during gait in normal adolescents and young adults. Eur. Spine J, 30, 2520–2530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06918-w

28.

Smith

A. C.

Roberts

J. R.

Wallace

E. S.

Kong

Forrester

S. E.

(2016). Comparison of two- and three-dimensional methods for analysis of trunk kinematic variables in the golf swing. J. Appl. Biomech, 32(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2015-0032

29.

Swinnen

, et al. (2015). Robot-assisted walking with the Lokomat: The influence of different levels of guidance force on thorax and pelvis kinematics. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol Avon), 30(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.01.006

30.

Umberger

B. R.

(2008). Effects of suppressing arm swing on kinematics, kinetics, and energetics of human walking. J. Biomech, 41(11), 2575–2580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.05.024

31.

Van Criekinge

, et al. (2017). Trunk biomechanics during hemiplegic gait after stroke: A systematic review. Gait Posture, 54, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.03.004

32.

Van Kammen

Boonstra

Reinders-Messelink

den Otter

(2014). The combined effects of body weight support and gait speed on gait related muscle activity: A comparison between walking in the Lokomat exoskeleton and regular treadmill walking. PLOS ONE, 9(9), e107323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107323

33.

Weber

C. F.

McClinton

(2020). Validity and reliability of video-based analysis of upper trunk rotation during running. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther, 15(6), 910–919. https://doi.org/10.26603/ijspt20200910

34.

Yang

H. S.

Atkins

L. T.

Jensen

D. B.

James

C. R.

(2015). Effects of constrained arm swing on vertical center of mass displacement during walking. Gait Posture, 42(4), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.07.010