Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Nicola Lotti
dblp:208/1764
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-8125-4712ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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 |
Human-robot interaction · 87% Health and well-being technologies · 13% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-robot interaction › wearable robot
exosuit control |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Myoelectric or Force Control? A Comparative Study on a Soft Arm Exosuit · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Human-robot interaction
intention recognition |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Myoelectric or Force Control? A Comparative Study on a Soft Arm Exosuit · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
myoelectric control · 0.6inverse dynamics · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Myoelectric or Force Control? A Comparative Study on a Soft Arm ExosuitabstractThe intention-detection strategy used to drive an exosuit is fundamental to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the device. Yet, current literature on wearable soft robotics lacks evidence on the comparative performance of different control approaches for online intention-detection. In the present work, we compare two different and complementary controllers on a wearable robotic suit, previously formulated and tested by our group; a model-based myoelectric control (myoprocessor), which estimates the joint torque from the activation of target muscles, and a force control that estimates human torques using an inverse dynamics model (dynamic arm). We test them on a cohort of healthy participants performing tasks replicating functional activities of daily living involving a wide range of dynamic movements. Our results suggest that both controllers are robust and effective in detecting human–motor interaction, and show comparable performance for augmenting muscular activity. In particular, the biceps brachii activity was reduced by up to 74% under the assistance of thedynamic armand up to 47% under themyoprocessor, compared to a no-suit condition. However, themyoprocessoroutperformed thedynamic armin promptness and assistance during movements that involve high dynamics. The exosuit work normalized with respect to the overall work was$68.84 \pm 3.81\%$when it was ran by themyoprocessor, compared to$45.29 \pm 7.71\%$during thedynamic armcondition. The reliability and accuracy of motor intention detection strategies in wearable device is paramount for both the efficacy and acceptability of this technology. In this article, we offer a detailed analysis of the two most widely used control approaches, trying to highlight their intrinsic structural differences and to discuss their different and complementary performance. Nicola Lotti, Michele Xiloyannis, Francesco Missiroli, Casimir Bokranz, Domenico Chiaradia, Antonio Frisoli, Robert Riener, Lorenzo Masia |
IEEE Trans. Robotics | 1 |