Exoskeleton transparency: feed-forward compensation vs. disturbance observer

Abstract Undesired forces during human-robot interaction limit training effectiveness with rehabilitation robots. Thus, avoiding such undesired forces by improved mechanics, sensorics, kinematics, and controllers are the way to increase exoskeleton transparency. In this paper, the arm therapy exoskeleton ARMin IV+ was used to compare the differences in transparency offered by using the previous feed-forward model-based controller, with a disturbance observer in a study. Systematic analysis of velocity-dependent effects of controller transparency in single- and multi-joint scenarios performed in this study highlight the advantage of using disturbance observers for obtaining consistent transparency behavior at different velocities in single-joint and multi-joint movements. As the main result, the concept of the disturbance observer sets a new benchmark for ARMin transparency.

[1]  Anis Sahbani,et al.  Robotic Exoskeletons: A Perspective for the Rehabilitation of Arm Coordination in Stroke Patients , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[2]  Dale A. Lawrence Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation , 1993, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[3]  Giulio Rosati,et al.  Planar Robotic Systems for Upper-Limb Post-Stroke Rehabilitation , 2008 .

[4]  Marc Bolliger,et al.  Systematic analysis of transparency in the gait rehabilitation device the FLOAT , 2016, 2016 14th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV).

[5]  H. Krebs,et al.  Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy on Upper Limb Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[6]  P. Dupont Avoiding stick-slip through PD control , 1994, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[7]  Agnes Roby-Brami,et al.  Upper-Limb Robotic Exoskeletons for Neurorehabilitation: A Review on Control Strategies , 2016, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[8]  Robert Riener,et al.  Online adaptive compensation of the ARMin Rehabilitation Robot , 2016, 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob).

[9]  V. Dietz,et al.  Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial , 2014, The Lancet Neurology.

[10]  Jacob Rosen,et al.  Admittance control of an upper limb exoskeleton - Reduction of energy exchange , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[11]  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..

[12]  A Roby-Brami,et al.  A Methodology to Quantify Alterations in Human Upper Limb Movement During Co-Manipulation With an Exoskeleton , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[13]  Scott L. Delp,et al.  A Model of the Upper Extremity for Simulating Musculoskeletal Surgery and Analyzing Neuromuscular Control , 2005, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  Robert Riener,et al.  Motor Inertia Compensation of the ARMin Rehabilitation Robot , 2016 .

[15]  T. Hothorn,et al.  Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[16]  Robert Riener,et al.  Optimized passive dynamics improve transparency of haptic devices , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[17]  Antonio Frisoli,et al.  Development of a new exoskeleton for upper limb rehabilitation , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[18]  T. Platz,et al.  Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.