Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

a Biomechanical comparison of Proportional electromyography control to Biological Torque control Using a Powered hip exoskeleton

 

For your doctor to determine if this could help you. That does assume your doctor and stroke hospital are keeping up with research.

a Biomechanical comparison of Proportional electromyography control to Biological Torque control Using a Powered hip exoskeleton


 
June 2017 | Volume 5 | Article 37
1ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 30 June 2017doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00037Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology | www.frontiersin.org
 Edited by:
 Jan Veneman, Tecnalia, Spain
 Reviewed by:
Laurent Simon, New Jersey Institute of Technology, United States Fausto Antonio Panizzolo, Harvard University, United States
*Correspondence:
 Aaron J. Young  aaron.young@me.gatech.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to Bionics and Biomimetics,  a section of the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
 Received:
 08 July 2016
 Accepted:
 06 June 2017
 Published:
 30 June 2017
Citation:
Young AJ, Gannon H and Ferris DP (2017) A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 5:37. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2017.00037
 A Biomechanical Comparison of Proportional Electromyography Control to Biological Torque Control Using a Powered Hip Exoskeleton
 Aaron J. Young 1*, 
Hannah Gannon 2 
and Daniel P. Ferris  2,3
1  Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States,
 2  Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States,
3  School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan,  Ann Arbor, MI, United States
Background:
 Despite a large increase in robotic exoskeleton research, there are few studies that have examined human performance with different control strategies on the same exoskeleton device. Direct comparison studies are needed to determine how users respond to different types of control. The purpose of this study was to compare user performance using a robotic hip exoskeleton with two different controllers: a controller that targeted a biological hip torque profile and a proportional myoelectric controller.
Methods:
 We tested both control approaches on 10 able-bodied subjects using a pneu-matically powered hip exoskeleton. The state machine controller targeted a biological hip torque profile. The myoelectric controller used electromyography (EMG) of lower limb muscles to produce a proportional control signal for the hip exoskeleton. Each subject performed two 30-min exoskeleton walking trials (1.0 m/s) using each controller and a 10-min trial with the exoskeleton unpowered. During each trial, we measured subjects’ metabolic cost of walking, lower limb EMG profiles, and joint kinematics and kinetics (torques and powers) using a force treadmill and motion capture.
Results:
 Compared to unassisted walking in the exoskeleton, myoelectric control significantly reduced metabolic cost by 13% (p= 0.005) and biological hip torque control reduced metabolic cost by 7% (p=0.261). Subjects reduced muscle activity relative to the unpowered condition for a greater number of lower limb muscles using myoelectric control compared to the biological hip torque control. More subjects subjectively preferred the myoelectric controller to the biological hip torque control.
Conclusion:
 Myoelectric control had more advantages (metabolic cost and muscle activity reduction) compared to a controller that targeted a biological torque profile for walking with a robotic hip exoskeleton. However, these results were obtained with a single exoskeleton device with specific control configurations while level walking at a single speed. Further testing on different exoskeleton hardware and with more varied experimental protocols, such as testing over multiple types of terrain, is needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of myoelectric control for exoskeleton technology.

No comments:

Post a Comment