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 sti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE robotics & automation magazine 2008-09, Vol.15 (3), p.60-69
Hauptverfasser: Vallery, H., Veneman, J., van Asseldonk, E., Ekkelenkamp, R., Buss, M., van Der Kooij, H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 69
container_issue 3
container_start_page 60
container_title IEEE robotics & automation magazine
container_volume 15
creator Vallery, H.
Veneman, J.
van Asseldonk, E.
Ekkelenkamp, R.
Buss, M.
van Der Kooij, H.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/MRA.2008.927689
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_RIE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_862630865</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>4624584</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>2324635421</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-9e99a7704ce4447f41957c4c00adb5d89d90f703eb52576a602b2c0c2a4929333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1LAzEQhoMoWKtnD16KFy9uO_lOjqX4BRVBFLyFbJrFlO2mJtmD_94tKx48zcvwvMPwIHSJYY4x6MXz63JOANRcEymUPkITzLmqCKEfx0MGCZXWlJyis5y3AJgpqibodhV3-zbYrsysK70tIXaz2MyS_7R1aEMZNynWseRzdNLYNvuL3zlF7_d3b6vHav3y8LRaritHmSyV9lpbKYE5zxiTDcOaS8ccgN3UfKP0RkMjgfqaEy6FFUBq4sARyzTRlNIpuhnv7lP86n0uZhey821rOx_7bJTSVAFwNpDX_8ht7FM3PGeUIIKCEnyAFiPkUsw5-cbsU9jZ9G0wmIM7M7gzB3dmdDc0rsZG8N7_0UwQxhWjP5Z8aHg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>862630865</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</source><creator>Vallery, H. ; Veneman, J. ; van Asseldonk, E. ; Ekkelenkamp, R. ; Buss, M. ; van Der Kooij, H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Vallery, H. ; Veneman, J. ; van Asseldonk, E. ; Ekkelenkamp, R. ; Buss, M. ; van Der Kooij, H.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1070-9932</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-223X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/MRA.2008.927689</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IRAMEB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: IEEE</publisher><subject>Actuation ; Actuators ; Bandwidth ; compliance ; Couplings ; Exoskeletons ; Gait ; gait training ; Haptic interfaces ; Humans ; passivity-based control ; Patients ; Rehabilitation robotics ; Rehabilitation robots ; Robot control ; Robots ; Safety ; series elastic actuators ; Springs ; Stability analysis ; Stiffness ; stroke ; Studies</subject><ispartof>IEEE robotics &amp; automation magazine, 2008-09, Vol.15 (3), p.60-69</ispartof><rights>Copyright The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-9e99a7704ce4447f41957c4c00adb5d89d90f703eb52576a602b2c0c2a4929333</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-9e99a7704ce4447f41957c4c00adb5d89d90f703eb52576a602b2c0c2a4929333</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4624584$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,793,27905,27906,54739</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4624584$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vallery, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veneman, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Asseldonk, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekkelenkamp, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buss, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Der Kooij, H.</creatorcontrib><title>Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots</title><title>IEEE robotics &amp; automation magazine</title><addtitle>MRA</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Actuation</subject><subject>Actuators</subject><subject>Bandwidth</subject><subject>compliance</subject><subject>Couplings</subject><subject>Exoskeletons</subject><subject>Gait</subject><subject>gait training</subject><subject>Haptic interfaces</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>passivity-based control</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Rehabilitation robotics</subject><subject>Rehabilitation robots</subject><subject>Robot control</subject><subject>Robots</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>series elastic actuators</subject><subject>Springs</subject><subject>Stability analysis</subject><subject>Stiffness</subject><subject>stroke</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1070-9932</issn><issn>1558-223X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1LAzEQhoMoWKtnD16KFy9uO_lOjqX4BRVBFLyFbJrFlO2mJtmD_94tKx48zcvwvMPwIHSJYY4x6MXz63JOANRcEymUPkITzLmqCKEfx0MGCZXWlJyis5y3AJgpqibodhV3-zbYrsysK70tIXaz2MyS_7R1aEMZNynWseRzdNLYNvuL3zlF7_d3b6vHav3y8LRaritHmSyV9lpbKYE5zxiTDcOaS8ccgN3UfKP0RkMjgfqaEy6FFUBq4sARyzTRlNIpuhnv7lP86n0uZhey821rOx_7bJTSVAFwNpDX_8ht7FM3PGeUIIKCEnyAFiPkUsw5-cbsU9jZ9G0wmIM7M7gzB3dmdDc0rsZG8N7_0UwQxhWjP5Z8aHg</recordid><startdate>20080901</startdate><enddate>20080901</enddate><creator>Vallery, H.</creator><creator>Veneman, J.</creator><creator>van Asseldonk, E.</creator><creator>Ekkelenkamp, R.</creator><creator>Buss, M.</creator><creator>van Der Kooij, H.</creator><general>IEEE</general><general>The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)</general><scope>97E</scope><scope>RIA</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080901</creationdate><title>Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots</title><author>Vallery, H. ; Veneman, J. ; van Asseldonk, E. ; Ekkelenkamp, R. ; Buss, M. ; van Der Kooij, H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c347t-9e99a7704ce4447f41957c4c00adb5d89d90f703eb52576a602b2c0c2a4929333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Actuation</topic><topic>Actuators</topic><topic>Bandwidth</topic><topic>compliance</topic><topic>Couplings</topic><topic>Exoskeletons</topic><topic>Gait</topic><topic>gait training</topic><topic>Haptic interfaces</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>passivity-based control</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Rehabilitation robotics</topic><topic>Rehabilitation robots</topic><topic>Robot control</topic><topic>Robots</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>series elastic actuators</topic><topic>Springs</topic><topic>Stability analysis</topic><topic>Stiffness</topic><topic>stroke</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vallery, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veneman, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Asseldonk, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekkelenkamp, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buss, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Der Kooij, H.</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 2005-present</collection><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 1998-Present</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>IEEE robotics &amp; automation magazine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vallery, H.</au><au>Veneman, J.</au><au>van Asseldonk, E.</au><au>Ekkelenkamp, R.</au><au>Buss, M.</au><au>van Der Kooij, H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots</atitle><jtitle>IEEE robotics &amp; automation magazine</jtitle><stitle>MRA</stitle><date>2008-09-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>60</spage><epage>69</epage><pages>60-69</pages><issn>1070-9932</issn><eissn>1558-223X</eissn><coden>IRAMEB</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/MRA.2008.927689</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1070-9932
ispartof IEEE robotics & automation magazine, 2008-09, Vol.15 (3), p.60-69
issn 1070-9932
1558-223X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_862630865
source IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)
subjects Actuation
Actuators
Bandwidth
compliance
Couplings
Exoskeletons
Gait
gait training
Haptic interfaces
Humans
passivity-based control
Patients
Rehabilitation robotics
Rehabilitation robots
Robot control
Robots
Safety
series elastic actuators
Springs
Stability analysis
Stiffness
stroke
Studies
title Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T17%3A37%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_RIE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Compliant%20actuation%20of%20rehabilitation%20robots&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20robotics%20&%20automation%20magazine&rft.au=Vallery,%20H.&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=60&rft.epage=69&rft.pages=60-69&rft.issn=1070-9932&rft.eissn=1558-223X&rft.coden=IRAMEB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/MRA.2008.927689&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_RIE%3E2324635421%3C/proquest_RIE%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=862630865&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=4624584&rfr_iscdi=true