Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots

This article discusses the pros and cons of compliant actuation for rehabilitation robots on the example of LOPES, focusing on the cons. After illustrating the bandwidth limitations, a new result has been derived: if stability in terms of passivity of the haptic device is desired, the renderable stiffness is bounded by the stiffness of the SEA's elastic component. In practical experiments with the VMC, the aforementioned limitations affected the control performance. Desired gait modifications were not tracked exactly, because the subjects were able to deviate from the prescribed pattern even in the stiffest possible configuration. Despite the limitations, the practical experiments also demonstrated the general effectiveness of the realization. Manipulation of selected gait parameters is possible, whereby other parameters are left unaffected. This high selectivity is made possible by the low level of undesired interaction torques, which is achieved by elastic decoupling of motor mass and a lightweight exoskeleton. The discrepancy between theoretical bounds and rendered stiffness indicated that healthy subjects might represent a stabilizing component of the coupled system, which could be different for patients. In light of the theoretical stability analysis and with the focus on patients, the LOPES actuation was slightly modified. The robot was equipped with stiffer springs to obtain sufficient stiffness and to ensure stability without relying on stabilizing effects of the human. For this application, the disadvantages of compliant actuation can thus be tolerated or dealt with, and they are small compared with the advantages. Given that a rehabilitation robot, in the first place, is supposed to imitate therapist action, the limitations of bandwidth and stiffness do not pose severe problems. In contrast, safety and backdrivability are highly relevant, and they can be ensured easier with a compliant actuator. Therefore, we conclude that compliant actuation and a lightweight exoskeleton provide effective means to accomplish the desired AAN behavior of a rehabilitation robot. The next step is to evaluate the robot behavior, control performance, and therapeutic effectiveness in patient studies.

[1]  S Hesse,et al.  Repetitive locomotor training and physiotherapy improve walking and basic activities of daily living after stroke: a single-blind, randomized multicentre trial (DEutsche GAngtrainerStudie, DEGAS) , 2007, Clinical rehabilitation.

[2]  J.E. Colgate,et al.  KineAssist: a robotic overground gait and balance training device , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[3]  Gordon Wyeth,et al.  Control issues for velocity sourced series elastic actuators , 2006 .

[4]  D. Herring,et al.  Adjustable Robotic Tendon using a ‘ Jack Spring ’ TM , 2005 .

[5]  Warren P. Seering,et al.  Understanding bandwidth limitations in robot force control , 1987, Proceedings. 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[6]  David W. Robinson,et al.  Design and analysis of series elasticity in closed-loop actuator force control , 2000 .

[7]  H. van der Kooij,et al.  LOPES: selective control of gait functions during the gait rehabilitation of CVA patients , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[8]  S.J. Harkema,et al.  A Robot and Control Algorithm That Can Synchronously Assist in Naturalistic Motion During Body-Weight-Supported Gait Training Following Neurologic Injury , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[9]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis. , 1997, Stroke.

[10]  Roger Weber,et al.  Tools for understanding and optimizing robotic gait training. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[11]  R. Ekkelenkamp,et al.  Selective control of a subtask of walking in a robotic gait trainer(LOPES) , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[12]  Ieee Robotics,et al.  IEEE robotics & automation magazine , 1994 .

[13]  Martin Buss,et al.  Passive and accurate torque control of series elastic actuators , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[14]  Francis L. Merat,et al.  Introduction to robotics: Mechanics and control , 1987, IEEE J. Robotics Autom..

[15]  Chee-Meng Chew,et al.  Virtual Model Control: An Intuitive Approach for Bipedal Locomotion , 2001, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[16]  T. Hornby,et al.  Metabolic Costs and Muscle Activity Patterns During Robotic- and Therapist-Assisted Treadmill Walking in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury , 2006, Physical Therapy.

[17]  H. van der Kooij,et al.  Design and Evaluation of the LOPES Exoskeleton Robot for Interactive Gait Rehabilitation , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[18]  G.A. Pratt,et al.  Late motor processing in low-impedance robots: impedance control of series-elastic actuators , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference.

[19]  V. Dietz,et al.  Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[20]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke , 2003, Neurology.

[21]  K.W. Hollander,et al.  Adjustable robotic tendon using a 'Jack Spring'/spl trade/ , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[22]  M. Buss,et al.  Complementary Limb Motion Estimation based on Interjoint Coordination: Experimental Evaluation , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[23]  J. Edward Colgate The control of dynamically interacting systems , 1988 .

[24]  J.A. Galvez,et al.  Measuring human trainers' skill for the design of better robot control algorithms for gait training after spinal cord injury , 2005, 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005..

[25]  N. Hogan,et al.  Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery. , 2006, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[26]  F. Müller,et al.  Effects of Locomotion Training With Assistance of a Robot-Driven Gait Orthosis in Hemiparetic Patients After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study , 2007, Stroke.

[27]  J. Burdick,et al.  Implications of Assist-As-Needed Robotic Step Training after a Complete Spinal Cord Injury on Intrinsic Strategies of Motor Learning , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Frans C. T. van der Helm,et al.  An alternative approach to synthesizing bipedal walking , 2003, Biological Cybernetics.

[29]  Lihua Huang,et al.  On the Control of the Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX) , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[30]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  Control law design for haptic interfaces to virtual reality , 2002, IEEE Trans. Control. Syst. Technol..

[31]  Martin Buss,et al.  Bewegungsintentionsschätzung auf Basis von Gelenkkoordination (Motion Intention Estimation Based on Interjoint Coordination) , 2007, Autom..

[32]  Frans C. T. van der Helm,et al.  A Series Elastic- and Bowden-Cable-Based Actuation System for Use as Torque Actuator in Exoskeleton-Type Robots , 2006, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[33]  S.K. Agrawal,et al.  Active Leg Exoskeleton (ALEX) for Gait Rehabilitation of Motor-Impaired Patients , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[34]  Robert Teasell,et al.  The Role of Timing and Intensity of Rehabilitation Therapies , 2005, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.