Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Karl E. Zelik

dblp:155/6001 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-5054-2479ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Accessibility and assistive technology · 67% Human-robot interaction · 33%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Motion planning and robot control · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Accessibility and assistive technology
assistive technology
0.712023
A method for selecting stumble recovery response in a knee exoskeleton · ICRA 2023
Human-robot interaction › wearable robot
exoskeleton
0.712023
A method for selecting stumble recovery response in a knee exoskeleton · ICRA 2023
Accessibility and assistive technology › assistive technology
lower limb exoskeleton
0.712023
A method for selecting stumble recovery response in a knee exoskeleton · ICRA 2023
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
real-time control
0.212023
A method for selecting stumble recovery response in a knee exoskeleton · ICRA 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

stumble detection · 1.3recovery strategy identification · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 A method for selecting stumble recovery response in a knee exoskeleton
abstract
Powered lower-limb exoskeletons have been shown to assist and augment walking, but most such devices do not currently have the ability to explicitly accommodate a stumble perturbation. A major challenge in doing so is identifying a stumble event and selecting in real-time which recovery strategy (elevating or lowering) to employ, particularly since the exoskeleton should ideally select the same strategy selected by the user. In order to do so, the authors conducted experiments involving five young, healthy adults wearing a knee exoskeleton. Each participant underwent a stumble experiment in order to collect an exoskeleton sensor dataset of stumbles throughout swing phase, which was used for stumble detection and recovery strategy identification algorithm development and testing. Overall, the proposed detection and identification algorithms provide improved accuracy with fewer required sensors relative to previous works, and were tested on the largest exoskeleton sensor stumble dataset to date, showing the feasibility of such algorithms for real-time implementation, which is an essential first step in developing lower-limb assistive devices that are robust to stumbles.
Maura Eveld, Shane T. King, Karl E. Zelik, Michael Goldfarb
ICRA3
2021 Design and implementation of a stumble recovery controller for a knee exoskeleton
abstract
This paper presents a stumble recovery controller for a knee exoskeleton that detects a stumble perturbation; selects an anticipated recovery strategy; and provides appropriate recovery assistance. In order to assess the efficacy of the controller in providing an assistive response to a stumble perturbation, the controller was implemented in a knee exoskeleton and evaluated in a single healthy adult participant against several other controller reactions, and against the participant’s response without an exoskeleton. Results show that the stumble recovery controller successfully detected the perturbation and correctly selected the strategy that matched the participant’s response for all 29 trials in which the exoskeleton was used. Further, results show improvements in stumble recovery metrics when using the exoskeleton with the stumble recovery controller, compared to the control cases of: 1) no change in the nominal controller when stumble is detected; 2) turning off exoskeleton torque when a stumble is detected; and 3) not wearing an exoskeleton.
Maura Eveld, Shane T. King, Karl E. Zelik, Michael Goldfarb
IROS3