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

Casimir Bokranz

dblp:316/9685 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-6631-9135ORCID · reported

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

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction › wearable robot
exosuit control
0.612022
Myoelectric or Force Control? A Comparative Study on a Soft Arm Exosuit · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022
Human-robot interaction
intention recognition
0.612022
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Myoelectric or Force Control? A Comparative Study on a Soft Arm Exosuit
abstract
The 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. Robotics4