logo

SCIENTIA SINICA Informationis, Volume 48, Issue 1: 24-46(2018) https://doi.org/10.1360/N112017-00072

Interactive control methods for rehabilitation robot

More info
  • ReceivedApr 11, 2017
  • AcceptedJul 20, 2017
  • PublishedNov 17, 2017

Abstract

The rehabilitation robot is a strongly coupled system. Compliant and safe interaction training environment is of great significance to improve the rehabilitation effect on patients. The existing interaction control methods mainly involve movement intention recognition of the human body and interactive control strategies. Movement intention recognition of the human body is generally based on bioelectrical signals or interactive forces/moments, while interactive control strategies include virtual tunnels, impedance control, and functional electrical stimulation. Stable and safe interaction environment is essential to implement rehabilitation training smoothly and avoid secondary injuries to patients. This study fully reviews the above issues and analyzes the existing problems in depth.


Funded by

北京市自然科学基金(3171001)

北京市科技计划(Z161100001516004)

国家自然科学基金(91648208)

国家自然科学基金(61603386)

国家自然科学基金(U1613228)


References

[1] Wolfe C D A. The impact of stroke. Brit Med Bull, 2000, 56: 275--286. Google Scholar

[2] Wang L D. Report on the Chinese Stroke Prevention. Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Press, 2015. 53--62. Google Scholar

[3] Wang S, Marquez P, Langenbrunner J, et al. Toward a Healthy and Harmonious Life in China: Stemming the Rising Tide of Non-communicable Diseases. The World Bank Report Number 62318-CN, 2011. 1--48. Google Scholar

[4] Mendis S, Puska P, Norrving B, et al. Global Atlas on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Control. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011. 8--13. Google Scholar

[5] Krebs H I, Palazzolo J J, Dipietro L, et al. Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robot, 2003, 15: 7--20. Google Scholar

[6] Mohammad M F, Reza B. Impedance control of robots using voltage control strategy. Nonlinear Dynam, 2013, 74: 277--286. Google Scholar

[7] Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, et al. Assessing mechanisms of recovery during robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper extremity. Neurorehab Neural Repair, 2008, 22: 50--63. Google Scholar

[8] Koh C L, Hoffmann T, Bennett S, et al. Management of patients with cognitive impairment after stroke: a survey of australian occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J, 2009, 56: 324--331. Google Scholar

[9] Hogan N, Krebs H I, Rohrer B, et al. Motions or muscles? some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2006, 43: 605--618. Google Scholar

[10] Riener R, Lunenburger L, Colombo G. Human-centered robotics applied to gait training and assessment. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2006, 43: 679--693. Google Scholar

[11] Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, et al. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2014, 11: 3--32. Google Scholar

[12] Hu J, Hou Z G, Chen Y X, et al. Lower limb rehabilitation robots and interactive control methods. Act Autom Sin, 2014, 40: 2377--2390. Google Scholar

[13] Klamroth-Marganska V, Blanco J, Campen K, et al. Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial. Lancet Neurol, 2014, 13: 159--166. Google Scholar

[14] Lo A C, Guarino P D, Richards L G, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. New Engl J Med, 2010, 362: 1772--1783. Google Scholar

[15] Buerger S P, Palazzolo J J, Krebs H I, et al. Rehabilitation robotics: adapting robot behavior to suit patient needs and abilities. In: Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, Boston, 2004. 3239--3244. Google Scholar

[16] Tsukahara A, Hasegawa Y, Eguchi K, et al. Restoration of gait for spinal cord injury patients using HAL with intention estimator for preferable swing speed. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 308--318. Google Scholar

[17] Lunenburger L, Colombo G, Riener R. Biofeedback for robotic gait rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2007, 4: 1--11. Google Scholar

[18] Goffer A. EP Patent, 1 260 201, 2008-12-10. Google Scholar

[19] Prange G B, Jannink M J A, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C G M, et al. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2006, 43: 171--183. Google Scholar

[20] Zhang M M, Davies T C, Xie S N. Effectiveness of robot-assisted therapy on ankle rehabilitation-a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2013, 10: 1--16. Google Scholar

[21] Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer D J. Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2009, 6: 1--15. Google Scholar

[22] Qian B, Yang C J. Human-machine interaction force control: using a model-referenced adaptive impedance device to control an index finger exoskeleton. J Zhejiang Univ Sci C: Comput Electron, 2014, 15: 275--283. Google Scholar

[23] Mitsantisuk C, Ohishi K. Robotics-assisted rehabilitation therapy for the hands and wrists using force sensorless bilateral control with shadow and mirror mode. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, Nagoya, 2015. 541--546. Google Scholar

[24] Johnson M J, Loureiro R C, Harwin W S. Collaborative tele-rehabilitation and robot-mediated therapy for stroke rehabilitation at home or clinic. Intell Serv Robot, 2008, 1: 109--121. Google Scholar

[25] Dai H, Jiang G Y. Rehabilitation Medicine. 3rd ed. Beijing: Peking University Medical Press, 2013. 26--34. Google Scholar

[26] Pons T P, Garraghty P E, Ommaya A K, et al. Massive cortical reorganization after sensory deafferentation in adult macaques. Science, 1991, 252: 1857--1860. Google Scholar

[27] Takahashi C D, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, et al. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain, 2008, 131: 425--437. Google Scholar

[28] Lo H S, Sheng Q X. Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys, 2012, 34: 261--268. Google Scholar

[29] Formaggio E, Storti S F, Galazzo I B, et al. Modulation of event-related desynchronization in robot-assisted hand performance: brain oscillatory changes in active, passive and imagined movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2013, 10: 80--128. Google Scholar

[30] Lotze M, Braun C, Birbaumer N, et al. Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive. Brain, 2003, 126: 866--872. Google Scholar

[31] Cai L L, Fong A J, Otoshi C K, et al. Implications of assist-as-needed robotic step training after a complete spinal cordinjury on intrinsic strategies of motor learning. J Neurosci, 2006, 26: 10564--10568. Google Scholar

[32] Hussain S, Xie S Q, Liu G Y. Robot assisted treadmill training: mechanisms and training strategies. Med Eng Phys, 2011, 33: 527--533. Google Scholar

[33] Huang T H, Huang H P, Cheng C A, et al. Design of a new hybrid control and knee orthosis for human walking and rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Algarve, 2012. 3653--3658. Google Scholar

[34] Roy A, Krebs H I, Williams D J, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a novel robot for ankle rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Robot, 2009, 25: 569--582. Google Scholar

[35] Lawson B E, Varol H A, Goldfarb M. Ground adaptive standing controller for a powered transfemoral prosthesis. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Zurich, 2011. 1--6. Google Scholar

[36] Ibarra J C P, Siqueira A A G. Impedance control of rehabilitation robots for lower limbs, review. In: Proceedings of 2014 Joint Conference on Robotics: SBR-LARS Robotics Symposium and Robocontrol, Sao Carlos, 2014. 235--240. Google Scholar

[37] Robertson G, Caldwell G, Hamill J, et al. Research Methods in Biomechanics. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2013. 179--182. Google Scholar

[38] Luca C J D. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech, 1997, 13: 135--163. Google Scholar

[39] Tong L N, Hou Z G, Peng L, et al. Multi-channel sEMG time series analysis based human motion recognition method. Act Autom Sin, 2014, 40: 810--821. Google Scholar

[40] Zhang F, Li P F, Hou Z G, et al. sEMG-based continuous estimation of joint angles of human legs by using BP neural network. Neurocomputing, 2012, 78: 139--148. Google Scholar

[41] Artemiadis P. EMG-based robot control interfaces: past, present and future. Adv Robot Autom, 2012, 1: 1--3. Google Scholar

[42] Ding Q C, Xiong A B, Zhao X G, et al. A review on researches and applications of sEMG-based motion intent recognition methods. Act Autom Sin, 2016, 42: 13--25. Google Scholar

[43] Chu J U, Moon I, Lee Y J, et al. A supervised feature-projection-based real-time EMG pattern recognition for multifunction myoelectric hand control. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2007, 12: 282--290. Google Scholar

[44] Hashemi J, Morin E, Mousavi P, et al. Enhanced dynamic EMG-force estimation through calibration and PCI modeling. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 41--50. Google Scholar

[45] Daley H, Englehart K, Hargrove L, et al. High density electromyography data of normally limbed and transradial amputee subjects for multifunction prosthetic control. J Electromyogr Kines, 2012, 22: 478--484. Google Scholar

[46] Mulas M, Folgheraiter M, Gini G. An EMG-controlled exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, 2015. 371--374. Google Scholar

[47] Scheme E, Englehart K. Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: state of the art and challenges for clinical use. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2011, 48: 643--659. Google Scholar

[48] Ngeo J G, Tamei T, Shibata T. Continuous and simultaneous estimation of finger kinematics using inputs from an EMG-to-muscle activation model. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2014, 11: 1--14. Google Scholar

[49] Au S K, Herr H. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis. Robot Autom Mag, 2008, 15: 52--59. Google Scholar

[50] Makowski N S, Knutson J S, Chae J, et al. Control of robotic assistance using poststroke residual voluntary effort. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 221--231. Google Scholar

[51] Huang H, Zhou P, Li G, et al. Spatial filtering improves EMG classification accuracy following targeted muscle reinnervation. Ann Biomed Eng, 2009, 37: 1849--1857. Google Scholar

[52] Dosen S, Muceli S, Dideriksen J L, et al. Online tremor suppression using electromyography and low-level electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 385--395. Google Scholar

[53] Peng L, Hou Z G, Wang W Q. Synchronous active interaction control and its implementation for a rehabilitation robot. Act Autom Sin, 2015, 41: 1837--1846. Google Scholar

[54] Sun R, Song R, Tong K Y. Complexity analysis of EMG signals for patients after stroke during robot-aided rehabilitation training using fuzzy approximate entropy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2014, 22: 1013--1019. Google Scholar

[55] Peng L, Hou Z G, Peng L, et al. Experimental study of robot-assisted exercise training for knee rehabilitation based on a practical EMG-driven model. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, UTown, 2016. 810--814. Google Scholar

[56] Yin Y H, Fan Y J, Xu L D. EMG and EPP-integrated human-machine interface between the paralyzed and rehabilitation exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Inform Technol Biomed, 2012, 16: 542--549. Google Scholar

[57] Mulder T. Motor imagery and action observation: cognitive tools for rehabilitation. J Neural Transm, 2007, 114: 1265--1278. Google Scholar

[58] Dijkerman H C, Ietswaart M, Johnston M, et al. Does motor imagery training improve hand function in chronic stroke patients? a pilot study. Clin Rehabil, 2004, 18: 538--549. Google Scholar

[59] Wang W, Collinger J L, Perez M A, et al. Neural interface technology for rehabilitation: exploiting and promoting neuroplasticity. Phys Med Rehabil Cli, 2010, 21: 157--178. Google Scholar

[60] Xu B, Peng S, Song A, et al. Robot-aided upper-limb rehabilitation based on motor imagery EEG. Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2011, 33: 307--313. Google Scholar

[61] Gomez-Rodriguez M, Grosse-Wentrup M, Hill J, et al. Towards brain-robot interfaces in stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Zurich, 2011. 1--6. Google Scholar

[62] Buch E, Weber C, Cohen L G, et al. Think to move: a neuromagnetic brain-computer interface (BCI) system for chronic stroke. Stroke, 2008, 39: 910--917. Google Scholar

[63] Park W, Kwon G H, Kim D H, et al. Assessment of cognitive engagement in stroke patients from single-trial EEG during motor rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 351--362. Google Scholar

[64] Kalcher J, Flotzinger D, Neuper C, et al. Graz brain-computer enterface II-toward communication between humans and computers based on online classification of three different EEG patterns. Med Biol Eng Comput, 1996, 34: 382--388. Google Scholar

[65] Onose G, Grozea C, Anghelescu A, et al. On the feasibility of using motor imagery EEG-based brain-computer interface in chronic tetraplegics for assistive robotic arm control: a clinical test and long-term post-trial follow-up. Spinal Cord, 2012, 50: 599--608. Google Scholar

[66] Ma J, Zhang Y, Cichocki A, et al. A novel EOG/EEG hybrid human-machine interface adopting eye movements and ERPs: application to robot control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2015, 62: 876--889. Google Scholar

[67] Velliste M, Perel S, Spalding M C, et al. Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature, 2008, 453: 1098--1101. Google Scholar

[68] Hochberg L R, Daniel B, Beata J, et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature, 2011, 485: 372--375. Google Scholar

[69] Collinger J L, Wodlinger B, Downey J E, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet, 2013, 381: 557--564. Google Scholar

[70] Galan F, Nuttin M, Lew E, et al. A brain-actuated wheelchair: asynchronous and non-invasive brain-computer interfaces for continuous control of robots. Clin Neurophysiol, 2008, 119: 2159--2169. Google Scholar

[71] Kam T E, Suk H I, Lee S W. Non-homogeneous spatial filter optimization for electroencephalogram (EEG)-based motor imagery classification. Neurocomputing, 2013, 108: 58--68. Google Scholar

[72] Doud A J, Lucas J P, Pisansky M T, et al. Continuous three-dimensional control of a virtual helicopter using a motor imagery based brain-computer interface. Plos One, 2011, 6: 1--10. Google Scholar

[73] Muller-Putz G R, Scherer R, Pfurtscheller G, et al. Temporal coding of brain patterns for direct limb control in humans. Front Neurosci, 2009, 4: 1--10. Google Scholar

[74] Allison B Z, Jin J, Zhang Y, et al. A four-choice hybrid P300/SSVEP BCI for improved accuracy. Brain-Comput Interface, 2014, 1: 17--26. Google Scholar

[75] Yin E, Zhou Z, Jiang J, et al. A speedy hybrid BCI spelling approach combining P300 and SSVEP. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2013, 61: 473--483. Google Scholar

[76] Li Y, Pan J, Wang F, et al. A hybrid BCI system combining P300 and SSVEP and its application to wheelchair control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2013, 60: 3156--3166. Google Scholar

[77] Yin E, Zeyl T, Saab R, et al. A hybrid brain-computer interface based on the fusion of P300 and SSVEP scores. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 693--701. Google Scholar

[78] Lew E, Chavarriaga R, Silvoni S, et al. Detection of self-paced reaching movement intention from EEG signals. Front Neuroeng, 2011, 5: 1--17. Google Scholar

[79] Bradberry T J, Gentili R J, Contrerasvidal J L. Fast attainment of computer cursor control with noninvasively acquired brain signals. J Neural Eng, 2011, 8: 292--301. Google Scholar

[80] Presacco A, Goodman R, Forrester L, et al. Neural decoding of treadmill walking from noninvasive electroencephalographic signals. J Neurophysiol, 2011, 106: 1875--1887. Google Scholar

[81] Lv J, Li Y, Gu Z. Decoding hand movement velocity from electroencephalogram signals during a drawing task. Biomed Eng Online, 2010, 9: 1--21. Google Scholar

[82] Kim J H, Biessmann F, Lee S W. Decoding three-dimensional trajectory of executed and imagined arm movements from electroencephalogram signals. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2014, 23: 867--876. Google Scholar

[83] Nakanishi Y, Yanagisawa T, Shin D, et al. Prediction of three-dimensional arm trajectories based on ECoG signals recorded from human sensorimotor cortex. Plos One, 2013, 8: 1--9. Google Scholar

[84] Chen Y X. Design and control of FES and biosignal feedback based rehabilitation robot for lower limbs. Dissertation for Ph.D. Degree. Beijing: The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2014. Google Scholar

[85] Zhang X, Xu G, Xie J, et al. An EEG-driven lower limb rehabilitation training system for active and passive co-stimulation. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Milan, 2015. 4582--4585. Google Scholar

[86] Xiao Z G, Elnady A M, Webb J, et al. Towards a brain computer interface driven exoskeleton for upper extremity rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, S$\tilde{a}$o Paulo, 2014. 432--437. Google Scholar

[87] Sarac M, Koyas E, Erdogan A, et al. Brain computer interface based robotic rehabilitation with online modification of task speed. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Seattle, 2013. 1--7. Google Scholar

[88] Meng W, Liu Q, Zhou Z, et al. Recent development of mechanisms and control strategies for robot-assisted lower limb rehabilitation. Mechatronics, 2015, 31: 132--145. Google Scholar

[89] Armstrong-helouvry B, Dupont P, Wit C C D. A survey of models, analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of machines with friction. Automatica, 1994, 30: 1083--1138. Google Scholar

[90] Wang W Q, Hou Z G, Cheng L, et al. Toward patients motion intention recognition: dynamics modeling and identification of iLeg-an LLRR under motion constraints. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst, 2016, 46: 980--992. Google Scholar

[91] Wang Q S, Li J T. Friction compensation in cable-conduit transmission system of hand rehabilitation robot. Robot, 2014, 36: 1--7. Google Scholar

[92] Wang W Q, Hou Z G, Tong L N, et al. Dynamics modeling and identification of the human-robot interface based on a lower limb rehabilitation robot. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Hong Kong, 2014. 6012--6017. Google Scholar

[93] Seul J, Hsia T C. Robust neural force control scheme under uncertainties in robot dynamics and unknown environment. IEEE Trans Ind Electron, 2000, 47: 403--412. Google Scholar

[94] Seul J, Hyun-Taek C, Hsia T C. Neural network control for position tracking of a two-axis inverted pendulum system: experimental studies. IEEE Trans Neural Netw, 2007, 18: 1042--1048. Google Scholar

[95] Seul J, Hsia T C. Neural network impedance force control of robot manipulator. IEEE Trans Ind Electron, 1998, 45: 451--461. Google Scholar

[96] Cheng L, Hou Z G, Tan M. Adaptive neural network tracking control for manipulators with uncertain kinematics, dynamics and actuator model. Automatic, 2009, 45: 2312--2318. Google Scholar

[97] Singh Y, Vinoth V, Kiran Y R, et al. Inverse dynamic sand control of a 3-DOF planar parallel (U-shaped 3-PPR) manipulator. Robot Comput Integr Manuf, 2015, 34: 164--179. Google Scholar

[98] Aguirre-Ollinger G, Colgate J E, Peshkin M A, et al. Inertia compensation control of a one-degree-of-freedom exoskeleton for lower-limb assistance: initial experiments. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2012, 20: 68--77. Google Scholar

[99] Duschau-Wicke A, Von Zitzewitz J, Caprez A, et al. Path control: a method for patient-cooperative robot-aided gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2010, 18: 38--48. Google Scholar

[100] Riener R, Nef T, Colombo G. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper extremities. Med Biol Eng Comput, 2005, 43: 2--10. Google Scholar

[101] Cai L L, Fong A J, Liang Y, et al. Assist-as-needed training paradigms for robotic rehabilitation of spinal cord injuries. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, 2006. 3504--3511. Google Scholar

[102] Hu J, Hou Z G, Zhang F, et al. Training strategies for a lower limb rehabilitation robot based on impedance control. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, S$\tilde{a}$n Diego, 2012. 6032--6035. Google Scholar

[103] He W, Ge S S, Li Y, et al. Neural network control of a rehabilitation robot by state and output feedback. J Intell Robot Syst, 2015, 80: 15--31. Google Scholar

[104] Napper S A, Seaman R L. Applications of robots in rehabilitation. Robot Auton Syst, 1989, 5: 227--239. Google Scholar

[105] Hogan N. Impedance control: an approach to manipulation. J Dyn Syst Meas Control, 1985, 107: 1--24. Google Scholar

[106] Jezernik S, Colombo G, Morari M. Automatic gait-pattern adaptation algorithms for rehabilitation with a 4-DOF robotic orthosis. IEEE Trans Robot Autom, 2004, 20: 574--582. Google Scholar

[107] Tsoi Y, Xie S. Impedance control of ankle rehabilitation robot. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Guilin, 2008. 840--845. Google Scholar

[108] Wen Z, Qian J W, Shen L Y, et al. Trajectory adaption for impedance control based walking rehabilitation training robot. Robot, 2011, 33: 142--149. Google Scholar

[109] Riener R, Lunenburger L, Jezernik S, et al. Patient-cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: first experimental results. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2005, 13: 380--394. Google Scholar

[110] Ficuciello F, Villani L, Siciliano B. Variable impedance control of redundant manipulators for intuitive human-robot physical interaction. IEEE Trans Robot, 2015, 31: 850--863. Google Scholar

[111] Ficuciello F, Romano A, Villani L, et al. Cartesian impedance control of redundant manipulators for human-robot co-manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Chicago, 2014. 2020--2125. Google Scholar

[112] Kordasz M, Kuczkowski K, Sauer P. Study on possible control algorithms for lower limb rehabilitation system. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Zurich, 2011. 1--6. Google Scholar

[113] Tsoi Y H, Xie S Q. Design and control of a parallel robot for ankle rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice, Auckland, 2008. 515--520. Google Scholar

[114] Yoon J, Ryu J, Lim K B. Reconfigurable ankle rehabilitation robot for various exercises. J Robot Syst, 2006, 22: 15--33. Google Scholar

[115] Mirzaei A, Ozgoli S. A new impedance control structure for leg rehabilitation robot. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Control, Instrumentation and Automation, Shiraz, 2011. 952--956. Google Scholar

[116] Lawson B E, Varol H A, Huff A, et al. Control of stair ascent and descent with a powered transfemoral prosthesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2013, 21: 466--473. Google Scholar

[117] Gregg R D, Lenzi T, Hargrove L J, et al. Virtual constraint control of a powered prosthetic leg: from simulation to experiments with transfemoral amputees. IEEE Trans Robot, 2014, 30: 1455--1471. Google Scholar

[118] Lawson B E, Ruhe B, Shultz A, et al. A powered prosthetic intervention for bilateral transfemoral amputees. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2015, 62: 1042--1050. Google Scholar

[119] Akdougan E, Taçgin E, Adli M A. Knee rehabilitation using an intelligent robotic system. J Intell Manuf, 2009, 20: 195--202. Google Scholar

[120] Mendoza M, Bonilla I, Gonzalez-Galvan E, et al. Impedance control in a wave-based teleoperator for rehabilitation motor therapies assisted by robots. Comput Meth Prog Bio, 2016, 123: 54--67. Google Scholar

[121] Liu M, Zhang F, Datseris P, et al. Improving finite state impedance control of active-transfemoral prosthesis using dempster-shafer based state transition rules. J Intell Robot Syst, 2014, 76: 461--474. Google Scholar

[122] Huang H, Crouch D L, Liu M, et al. A cyber expert system for auto-tuning powered prosthesis impedance control parameters. Ann Biomed Eng, 2015: 1--12. Google Scholar

[123] Wang D, Liu M, Zhang F, et al. Design of an expert system to automatically calibrate impedance control for powered knee prostheses. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Seattle, 2013. 1--5. Google Scholar

[124] Ragnarsson K T. Functional electrical stimulation after spinal cord injury: current use, therapeutic effects and future directions. Spinal Cord, 2008, 46: 255--274. Google Scholar

[125] Martin R, Sadowsky C, Obst K, et al. Functional electrical stimulation in spinal cord injury: from theory to practice. Top Spinal Cord Injury Rehabil, 2011, 18: 28--33. Google Scholar

[126] Glinsky J, Harvey L, Es P V. Efficacy of electrical stimulation to increase muscle strength in people with neurological conditions: a systematic review. Physiother Res Int, 2007, 12: 175--194. Google Scholar

[127] Qiu S, Yi W, Xu J, et al. Event-related beta EEG changes during active, passive movement and functional electrical stimulation of the lower limb. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 24: 283--290. Google Scholar

[128] Jr G D, Dolbow D, Tsui B, et al. Functional electrical stimulation therapies after spinal cord injury. Neurorehabilitation, 2011, 28: 231--248. Google Scholar

[129] Ward N S, Brown M M, Thompson A J, et al. Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study. Brain, 2003, 126: 2476--2496. Google Scholar

[130] Rushton D N. Functional electrical stimulation and rehabilitation-an hypothesis. Med Eng Phys, 2003, 25: 75--78. Google Scholar

[131] Freeman C T, Hughes A M, Burridge J H, et al. Iterative learning control of FES applied to the upper extremity for rehabilitation. Control Eng Pract, 2009, 17: 368--381. Google Scholar

[132] Qi H Z, Xu J P, Qiu S, et al. EEG analysis of changes in brain induced by leg related movement with FES. Nanotechnol Precis Eng, 2015, 5: 339--345. Google Scholar

[133] Hunt K J, Stone B, Negard N O, et al. Control strategies for integration of electric motor assist and functional electrical stimulation in paraplegic cycling: utility for exercise testing and mobile cycling. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2004, 12: 89--101. Google Scholar

[134] Bellman M J, Cheng T H, Downey R J, et al. Stationary cycling induced by switched functional electrical stimulation control. In: Proceedings of the 2014 American Control Conference, Oregon, 2014. 4802--4809. Google Scholar

[135] Metrailler P, Blanchard V, Perrin I, et al. Improvement of rehabilitation possibilities with the MotionMaker TM. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Pisa, 2006. 359--364. Google Scholar

[136] Farhoud A, Erfanian A. Fully automatic control of paraplegic FES pedaling using higher-order sliding mode and fuzzylogic control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2014, 22: 533--542. Google Scholar

[137] Alibeji N, Kirsch N, Farrokhi S, et al. Further fesults on predictor-based control of neuromuscular electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2015, 23: 1095--1105. Google Scholar

[138] Sampson P, Freeman C, Coote S, et al. Using functional electrical stimulation mediated by iterative learning control and robotics to improve arm movement for people with multiple sclerosis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2016, 24: 235--247. Google Scholar

[139] Meadmore K L, Hughes A M, Freeman C T, et al. Functional electrical stimulation mediated by iterative learning control and 3D robotics reduces motor impairment in chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2012, 32: 1--11. Google Scholar

[140] Oboe R, Pilastro D. Stability analysis of a non-linear adaptive impedance controller for rehabilitation purposes. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, Nagoya, 2015. 454--459. Google Scholar

[141] Zhang J J, Chien C C. Passivity and stability of human-robot interaction control for upper-limb rehabilitation robots. IEEE Trans Robot, 2015, 31: 233--245. Google Scholar

[142] Zhang J J, Chien C C, Steven H. Stable human-robot interaction control for upper-limb rehabilitation robotics. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Karlsruhe, 2013. 2201--2206. Google Scholar

[143] Yu H Y, Huang S N, Chen G, et al. Human-robot interaction control of rehabilitation robots with series elastic actuators. IEEE Trans Robot, 2015, 31: 1089--1100. Google Scholar

[144] Chawda V, OMalley M K. Position synchronization inbilateral teleoperation under time-varying communication delays communication delays. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech, 2015, 20: 245--253. Google Scholar

[145] Li J, Tavakoli M, Mendez V, et al. Passivity and absolute stability analyses of trilateral haptic collaborative systems. J Intell Robot Syst, 2015, 78: 3--20. Google Scholar

[146] Oboe R, Pilastro D. Non-linear adaptive impedance controller for rehabilitation purposes. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, Yokohama, 2014. 272--277. Google Scholar

[147] Kashiri N, Lee J, Tsagarakis N G, et al. Proxy-based position control of manipulators with passive compliant actuators: stability analysis and experiments. Robot Auton Syst, 2016, 75: 398--408. Google Scholar

[148] Santis A D, Siciliano B, Luca A D, et al. An atlas of physical human-robot interaction. Mech Mach Theory, 2008, 43: 253--270. Google Scholar

[149] Xu W K, Cai C X, Zou Y. Adaptive motion control of arm rehabilitation robot based on impedance identification. Nonlinear Dynam, 2015, 79: 1099--1114. Google Scholar

[150] Jimenez-Fabian R, Verlinden O. Review of control algorithms for robotic ankle systems in lower-limb orthoses, prostheses, and exoskeletons. Med Eng Phys, 2012, 34: 397--408. Google Scholar

[151] McCool P, Fraser G D, Chan A D C, et al. Identification of contaminant type in surface electromyography (EMG) signals. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 2014, 22: 774--783. Google Scholar

[152] Disselhorst-Klug C, Schmitz-Rode T, Rau G. Surface electromyography and muscle force: limits in sEMG-force relationship and new approaches for applications. Clin Biomech, 2009, 24: 225--235. Google Scholar

[153] Abser N, MacIsaac D, Fraser G, et al. CleanEMG: quantifying power line interference in surface EMG signals. In: Proceedings of the 34th Conference Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society and Festival of International Conferences on Caregiving, Disability, Aging and Technology, Toronto, 2011. 1--4. Google Scholar

[154] Abser N, MacIsaac D, Chan A D C, et al. CleanEMG: comparing interpolation strategies for power line interference quantification in surface EMG signals. In: Proceedings of the 35th Conference Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Society, Halifax, 2012. Google Scholar

[155] Fraser G D, Chan A D C, Green J R, et al. Detection of ADC clipping, quantization noise, and amplifier saturation in surface electromyography. In: proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications, Budapest, 2012. 162--166. Google Scholar

[156] Vodovnik L, Crochetiere W, Reswick J. Control of a skeletal joint by electrical stimulation of antagonists. Med Biol Eng, 1967, 5: 97--109. Google Scholar

[157] Jezernik S, Wassink R G, Keller T. Sliding mode closed-loop control of FES controlling the shank movement. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 2004, 51: 263--272. Google Scholar

[158] Hunt K, Jaime R, Gollee H. Robust control of electrically-stimulated muscle using polynomial H-infinity design. Control Eng Pract, 2001, 9: 313--328. Google Scholar

[159] Kroon J R D, Lee J H V D, IJzerman M J, et al. Therapeutic electrical stimulation to improve motor control and functional abilities of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil, 2002, 16: 350--360. Google Scholar

[160] Burridge J H, Ladouceur M. Clinical and therapeutic applications of neuromuscular stimulation: a review of current use and speculation into future developments. Neuromodulation, 2001, 4: 147--154. Google Scholar

[161] Schmidt R A, Lee T D. Motor Learning in Motor Control and Learning: a Behavioral Emphasis. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1999. 261--285. Google Scholar

Copyright 2019 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备18024590号-1