Controlling torque in a prosthesis or orthosis based on a deflection of series elastic element

Abstract
In some embodiments of a prosthetic or orthotic ankle/foot, a prediction is made of what the walking speed will be during an upcoming step. When the predicted walking speed is slow, the characteristics of the apparatus are then modified so that less net-work that is performed during that step (as compared to when the predicted walking speed is fast). This may be implemented using one sensor from which the walking speed can be predicted, and a second sensor from which ankle torque can be determined. A controller receives inputs from those sensors, and controls a motor's torque so that the torque for slow walking speeds is lower than the torque for fast walking speeds. This reduces the work performed by the actuator over a gait cycle and the peak actuator power delivered during the gait cycle. In some embodiments, a series elastic element is connected in series with a motor that can drive the ankle, and at least one sensor is provided with an output from which a deflection of the series elastic element can be determined. A controller determines a desired torque based on the output, and controls the motor's torque based on the determined desired torque.
Description
BACKGROUND

US published patent applications 2010/0174384 (“the '384 application”) and 2006/0249315, each of which is incorporated herein by reference, describe that the gait cycle for walking can be divided into five phases: controlled plantarflexion, controlled dorsiflexion (CD), powered plantarflexion (PP), early swing, and late swing, as depicted in FIG. 1.


The '384 application also discloses a number of embodiments of lower-extremity prosthetic and orthotic systems in which the reflex torque generation during PP is achieved via non-linear, positive feedback between the series elastic element (SEE) motor torque and ankle torque. More specifically, the reflex action involves behaving like a non-linear spring during CD and like a torque source during PP. This reflex action can be implemented by driving the motor using the following equation:

Motor Torque=pff×(normalized_Torque)n  Eq. 1

Where, pff is the power control gain tuned for high walking speed; normalized_Torque is the ankle torque, ΓA, normalized by a torque, Γ0, (strongly related to users' weight); n is the power exponent, typically in the range of between 3 and 5 for level-ground walking. Note that pff has units of N-m, and the value of pff controls the magnitude of the level of the torque reflex during fast walking. Once the desired motor torque is determined, the drive current can be computed based on the equation Motor Current=Motor Torque/kt, where kt is the motor torque constant. While using Equation 1 does provide good results, the results provided by the control approach described below are significantly better.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One aspect of the invention is directed to an ankle-foot prosthesis or orthosis apparatus. The apparatus includes a shank member and a foot member that is operatively configured with respect to the shank member so as to supporting walking and permit the foot member to plantarflex and dorsiflex with respect to the shank member. A motor is configured to plantarflex the foot member with respect to the shank member, and a series elastic element is connected between at least one of (a) the motor and the shank member and (b) the motor and the foot member. There is at least one first sensor having an output from which a walking speed of an upcoming step can be predicted, and at least one second sensor having an output from which ankle torque can be determined. The apparatus also includes a controller configured to control the motor's torque, based on the output of the at least one first sensor and the at least one second sensor, so that the motor's torque for slow walking speeds is lower than the motor's torque for fast walking speeds.


Another aspect of the invention is directed to a method of modifying characteristics of an ankle-foot prosthesis or orthosis apparatus. The method includes the steps of predicting what a walking speed will be during an upcoming step and modifying a characteristic of the apparatus during the upcoming step in situations when the predicted walking speed is slow. The modification of the characteristic results in a reduction in net non-conservative work that is performed during the upcoming step as compared to the net non-conservative work that is performed when the predicted walking speed is fast.


Another aspect of the invention is directed to an apparatus that includes a proximal member and a distal member that is operatively connected with respect to the proximal member by a joint so that an angle between the distal member and the proximal member can vary. A motor is configured to vary the angle between the distal member and the proximal member, and a series elastic element is connected between at least one of (a) the motor and the proximal member and (b) the motor and the distal member. There is a least one first sensor having an output from which a walking speed of an upcoming step can be predicted, and at least one second sensor having an output from which a joint torque can be determined. The apparatus also includes a controller configured to control the motor's torque, based on the output of the at least one first sensor and the at least one second sensor, so that the motor's torque for slow walking speeds is lower than the motor's torque for fast walking speeds.


Another aspect of the invention is directed to an ankle-foot prosthesis or orthosis apparatus that includes a shank member and a foot member that is operatively configured with respect to the shank member so as to supporting walking and permit the foot member to plantarflex and dorsiflex with respect to the shank member. A motor is configured to plantarflex the foot member with respect to the shank member, and a series elastic element is connected between at least one of (a) the motor and the shank member and (b) the motor and the foot member. The apparatus also includes at least one sensor having an output from which a deflection of the series elastic element can be determined, and a controller configured to determine a desired torque based on the output, and to control the motor's torque based on the determined desired torque.


Another aspect of the invention is directed to a method of controlling an ankle-foot prosthesis or orthosis having a foot member and shank member, with a motor configured to plantarflex the foot member with respect to the shank member and a series elastic element in series with the motor. The method includes the steps of sensing a position of the motor, determining a deflection of the series elastic element while the motor is at the position sensed in the sensing step, and controlling the motor's torque based on the motor position sensed in the sensing step and the deflection determined in the determining step.


Another aspect of the invention is directed to an apparatus that includes a proximal member, a distal member that is operatively configured with respect to the proximal member so that an angle between the distal member and the proximal member can vary, and a motor configured to vary the angle between the distal member and the proximal member. A series elastic element is connected between at least one of (a) the motor and the proximal member and (b) the motor and the distal member, and at least one sensor having an output from which a deflection of the series elastic element can be determined. The apparatus also includes a controller configured to determine a desired torque based on the output, and to control the motor's torque based on the determined desired torque.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of the phases of a user's gait cycle when walking on level ground.



FIG. 2A depicts the statistic range of net non-conservative work vs. walking speed for healthy human ankles.



FIG. 2B depicts the statistic range of peak-power vs. walking speed for healthy human ankles.



FIG. 2C shows the net non-conservative work vs. walking speed when two different equations are used to control a motor.



FIG. 2D shows peak-power vs. walking speed when two different equations are used to control a motor.



FIG. 3A depicts the relationship between walking speed of the upcoming step and the shank angular rate.



FIG. 3B depicts what shank angular rate is used in FIG. 3A.



FIG. 4A depicts one suitable gain function for use in controlling the motor.



FIG. 4B depicts another suitable gain function.



FIG. 5A is a block diagram of an embodiment that relies on torque sensing.



FIG. 5B depicts a mechanical configuration for the FIG. 5A embodiment.



FIG. 6A is a block diagram of an embodiment that relies on deflections and torque vs. deflection characteristics.



FIG. 6B depicts mechanical configuration for the FIG. 6A embodiment.



FIG. 6C depicts a section view of the FIG. 6B configuration.



FIG. 7 depicts a test fixture for measuring torque vs. deflection characteristics.



FIG. 8A is a graph from which a spring rate can be determined.



FIG. 8B is a graph depicting changes in a torque component over time.



FIG. 9 depicts the torque vs. deflection characteristics for a series elastic element.



FIG. 10 is a Γ-Θ plot for the stance-phase torque-angle response of an intact ankle.





DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

In healthy humans, the ankle-foot normally creates the positive net-work and peak-power on each stride that the body needs to achieve ordinary walk with metabolic efficiency. The net-work and peak-power in the ankle during the stance of gait is highly related to walking speed. FIGS. 2A and 2B depict this relationship. More specifically, FIG. 2A shows the statistic range (+1 sigma bounds) of net non-conservative work vs. walking speed, which lies between the lines 11, 12. FIG. 2B shows the estimated statistic ranges (+1 sigma bounds) of the peak-power vs. walking speed as lines 16, 17. FIG. 2B also shows the mean value of peak-power vs. walking speed (as measured in a study) as line 18, which lies between lines 16 and 17.


The data points depicted by stars in FIG. 2C shows the net non-conservative work vs. walking speed when Equation 1 above is used to control the motor current. Note that net non-conservative work can be determined by calculating the loop area, over one cycle of ankle-torque vs. ankle angle (e.g., as seen in FIG. 10, starting at point 1, passing through points, 2, 3, and 4 in sequence, and returning to point 1. It can be seen that the net non-conservative work is higher than the statistic range bounded by lines 11,12 for intact ankles, and the deviation from that range is larger at slower walking speeds than it is at faster walking speeds. Similarly, the data points depicted by stars in FIG. 2D show the peak power vs. walking speed when Equation 1 above is used to control the motor current. It can be seen that the peak power is higher than the mean value line 18 for intact ankles. The net work is also higher, and is wasted, causing extra heat and reduction in battery life.


To more closely mimic the human ankle-foot biomechanics for ordinary walk across a wide range of walking speeds, the embodiments disclosed in the '384 application may be modified by using the power control approach described herein so as to deliver net-work and peak-power on each stride that more closely matches the statistic ranges bounded by the lines 11, 12 in FIG. 2A, and the mean line 18 in FIG. 2B. In this approach, a prediction of the walking speed for the upcoming step is made, and that predicted walking speed is used to set the ankle control parameters (including setting of the power control gain) for the upcoming step.


One way to predict the walking speed of the upcoming step is based on the shank (pitch) angular rate ωx based on the relationship depicted in FIG. 3A. These two velocities are highly linearly correlated such that the peak angular rate in stance phase serves as an excellent prediction of the walk speed of the up coming step. The correlation between walking speed and the shank angular rate is present at various times during the stance and swing phase, but it is preferable to minimize the latency between the walking speed estimate and when it will be applied. One way to accomplish this is to sample the shank angular rate at the very start of controlled dorsiflexion (i.e., at foot-flat), immediately before the reflex begins. This reduced latency ensures that a reflex is not applied in certain situations, such as when the user is stopping. If, on the other hand, a stale walking-speed prediction were used, (e.g., by estimated walking speed from the shank angular rate at the prior toe-off), the estimate might be invalid (e.g., in situations where the user decides to stop suddenly).


The shank angular rate may be measured by any suitable means, such as an inertial measurement unit (IMU) or an angular rate sensor (ARS). The IMU or ARS may be placed onto the top part of the prosthesis or orthosis that is rigidly connected to a socket such that shank angular rate, as depicted in FIG. 3B, can be measured. In alternative embodiments, it could be mounted on the foot structure. An example of a suitable angular rate sensor is the Invensense IDG-300. In one preferred embodiment, the IMU can be made from three orthogonally-aligned angular rate sensors such as the Analog Devices ADXRS610, and three orthogonally-aligned accelerometers such as the Freescale MMA7360L.


An advantage of using the angular rate sensing technique is that it provides an instantaneous measure of angular rate just prior to invoking the reflex control. More specifically, the maximum angular rate in the stance phase can be calculated and employed to adjust the reflex torque response during the controlled dorsiflexion and powered plantar flexion phases of a step. This reflex is largely responsible for generating the net-work and peak-power that meet human ankle-foot needs for ordinary walking.


The reflex torque generation is achieved via non-linear, positive feedback between the series elastic element (SEE) motor torque and ankle torque by controlling the motor using the following equation:

Motor Torque=Kvxpff×(normalized_Torque)n  Eq. 2

where Kv(ωx) is a power control gain function related to the maximum angular rate, an example of which is depicted in FIG. 4A; pff is the power control gain tuned for high walking speed; normalized_Torque is the ankle torque, ΓA, normalized by a torque, Γ0, (strongly related to users' weight); and n is the power exponent, typically in the range of between 3 and 5 for level-ground walking. This is similar to Equation 1 above, except that the right side of the equation is multiplied by a gain function Kv(ωx) that is selected to reduce the motor torque for lower angular velocities, which correspond to slower walking speeds. Note that the companion equation for converting a desired motor torque to a drive current for the motor remains the same for all embodiments described herein (i.e., Motor Current=Motor Torque/kt, where kt is the motor torque constant).


One suitable gain function Kv(ωx) is depicted in FIG. 4A, which starts at 0 when the angular rate is zero, and increases linearly to 1 at an angular rate ωTH that corresponds to a fast walking speed. Above that threshold angular rate ωTH, the gain function Kv(ωx) remains at 1. A suitable setting for the threshold ωTH is an angular rate that corresponds to a fast walking speed (e.g., an angular rate that corresponds to a walking speed of between 1.5 and 1.75 meters per second). In some embodiments, the threshold point may be settable by a prosthetist, preferably constrained to some legal range (e.g., to an angular rate that corresponds to a walking speed of between 1.25 and 2 meters per second). In other embodiments, provisions for adjusting the ωTH set point within a legal range may even be made available to the end user.


The result of multiplying the right side of Equation 2 by Kv(ωx) is that the motor will be driven by lower currents for slower walk speeds. That will result in less torque at slower walk speeds (as compared to when Equation 1 is used). When this approach is used to control a prosthetic or orthotic ankle, during the flat-foot portion of the gait the torque will initially be zero. The ankle torque ΓA will start to increase at the end of the controlled dorsiflexion phase. In response to the rising ΓA, the controller will drive the motor based on Equation 2, which will increase the torque further in a positive feedback reflex response. This positive feedback continues until prior to toe-off as the lower leg begins to lift the foot off the ground. At this point the positive feedback is diminishing, so the torque starts to drops off. The positive feedback is quenched at toe-off because at that point there is nothing to push against, which makes the torque fall off rapidly. In addition, the state machine that controls the application of the reflex also transitions to the swing phase where position control is used. Note that operation of the state machine is described in the '384 application, which is incorporated herein by reference.


The speed based power control method of Equation 2 has been implemented and tested on an iWalk™ Powerfoot™ BiOM™ prosthetic ankle/foot. When Equation 2 was used to control the motor, the net non-conservative work vs. walking speed is depicted by the circle data points in FIG. 2C. A comparison between the circle data points and the star data points (discussed above) in FIG. 2C reveals that the net non-conservative work is closer to the statistic range bounded by lines 11, 12 when Equation 2 is used. Similarly, the circle data points in FIG. 2D show the peak power vs. walking speed when Equation 2 above is used to control the motor current. It can be seen that the peak power when Equation 2 is used is much closer to the mean value line 18 than when Equation 1 is used (indicated by the star data points in FIG. 2D). This experiment result was obtained from a patient with weight of 240 lb and shank length of 53 cm. The walk speed was measured using IMU systems, and ranged from 0.8 m/s to 1.5 m/s. The system provided smooth transitions of power when users randomly changed their walking velocities.


In alternative embodiments, gain functions with other shapes may be used instead of the ramp depicted in FIG. 4A. Preferably, all such functions start at 0 when ωx=0, end at 1, and are monotonically increasing. Examples of suitable shapes for the gain function include shapes that resemble (a) the first quadrant of a sine curve; or (b) the third and fourth quadrants of a cosine curve (scaled and offset so as to start at 0 and end at 1). Other transition shapes, including smooth shapes and shapes with abrupt changes, may also be used. For example, the curve depicted in FIG. 4B would operate to keep the power low for low walking speeds (which would be suitable in certain situations like a classroom), and increase it only if the speed goes over a threshold ωTH2. Optionally, the gain function may also be operative for negative velocities to control the reflex response when walking or running backward. For this reason, negative velocities are included in FIG. 4B. If desired, the maximum gain for negative velocities may be lower than 1, so as to provide a smaller power boost when walking backwards In some embodiments, the gain function could also be made to be a function of velocity when side-stepping or hopping sideways.


In some embodiments, a user interface may be provided to give the prosthetist control over the value of n in Equation 2, preferably constrained within some legal range (e.g., between 2 and 7). Set points of between 3 and 5 have been found to be preferable. Since normalized_Torque is ΓA normalized by Γ0, when n is high (e.g., around 5), the current will not rise until ΓA gets closer to Γ0. This delays (in time) the onset of the positive feedback. Conversely, when n is lower (e.g., around 3), the current will start to increase before ΓA gets too close to Γ0. This advances (in time) the onset of the positive feedback. When the system is configured to give the prosthetist control over n, n can be adjusted (e.g., based on verbal feedback from the end user) to maximize the user's comfort. In other embodiments, a user interface may be provided to give the end user control over n (within a legal range).


In alternative embodiments, the reflex torque generation equation may be modified to be as follows:

Motor Torque=Kvxpff×(normalized_Torque)nf(ωx)  Eq. 3

Equation 3 is very similar to Equation 2, except that in Equation 3, the exponent n of the normalized_Torque is multiplied by a function of the angular rate ωx. The function f(ωx) is preferably selected so that the resulting exponent is larger at higher angular velocities than it is at lower angular velocities. This would operate to advance the onset of reflex (in time) when the user is walking faster, with respect to the timing when the user is walking slower.


Note that in the embodiments described above, the system does not explicitly make a prediction of the walking speed for the upcoming step. Instead, the system relies on the angular rate ωx of the shank (which, as described above, is correlated to the predicted walking speed). In this case, the angular rate ωx of the shank serves as a surrogate for the walking speed. In alternative embodiments, instead of relying on the angular rate ωx of the shank, other parameters may be used to predict the walking speed. The ankle power would then be adjusted accordingly based on the predicted walking speed based on these alternative sensors. For example, the angular rate of the leg section above the knee, or the knee linear moving velocity in stance phase may be used to predict the walking speed of the upcoming step. The Cartesian trajectory of the ankle or knee, tracked using an IMU, could also be used to predict the walking speed of the upcoming step.


In other embodiments, the equations may implemented so as to explicitly compute the estimated walking speed as an intermediate result, and then adjust the various parameters based on that intermediate result to control the power and net non-conservative work (e.g., by replacing Kv(ωx) with Kv(speed) in Equation 2).


Preferably, the system includes special-event handing to modify the power level when it determines that a special walking environment exists. For example, the power may be increased for upstairs/up-ramp walking, even though the walk speed is low. Or the power may be decreased for down stairs or down ramp walking even though the walk speed is high. Note that the ankle trajectory or knee trajectory (determined, for example, using an IMU) may be used as a discriminator to determine if a special walking environment exists, so that the characteristics of the ankle (including the reflex) can be adjusted for the special walking environment.


The system described above provides users improved net-work and peak-power to achieve normal biomechanics for ordinary walking across a range of walking speeds. The system also uses reduced motor current at low walking speeds, which is the case for the majority of walking in most people's routines. This may help keep the motor temperature low, save energy, and reduce the frequency of recharging batteries and the need to carry spare batteries. Lower currents also reduce the stress and fatigue on the drive transmission, including the series-spring, and can increase the design life of various components in the device.


The embodiments described above rely on the ankle torque ΓA as an input to the equations that ultimately control the motor current during controlled dorsiflexion and powered plantar flexion. This ankly torque ΓA may be determined by a number of approaches. One such approach, which is described in the '384 application, is to actively measure the ankle torque ΓA using, for example, strain gauges arranged in a Wheatstone bridge configuration to measure the torque applied by the socket attachment at the top of the ankle prosthesis.



FIG. 5A is a system block diagram for this embodiment. The prosthetic or orthotic ankle/foot includes a shank member 52 and a foot member 54 operatively connected to permit plantarflexion and dorsiflexion, e.g., by a joint 53. A motor 56 is affixed to the shank member 52, and a series elastic element 58 sits between the shank member 52 and the foot member 54, so that it will be in series with the motor, as explained in U.S. Pat. No. 5,650,704, which is incorporated herein by reference. Driving the motor in one direction or the other will plantarflex or dorsiflex the foot member 54 with respect to shank member 52. In alternative embodiments (not shown) the positions of the motor 56 and the series elastic element 58 could be swapped, in which case the motor would be mounted to the foot member 54.


A torque sensor 66 measures the ankle torque ΓA and send an output that represents that torque to the controller 68. The controller 68 is programmed to control the motor 56 by implementing Equation 2. In alternative embodiments, analog circuitry configured to implement Equation 2 may be used in place of the controller 68. The power driver 60 contains the drive circuitry needed to convert the low level signals from the controller 68 into the high power signals needed to drive the motor 56.



FIG. 5B depicts a practical mechanical configuration for implementing the architecture shown in the FIG. 5A embodiment. In FIG. 5B, the torque sensor 1732 (which corresponds to ref. #66 in FIG. 5A) is positioned at the very top of the shank member 1716 (which corresponds to ref. #52 in FIG. 5A).


Another approach for determining the ankle torque ΓA is to break that torque up into its constituent components, and analyze the torque of each of those components separately. For example, in the design depicted in FIG. 6A-C, there are two components that contribute to the total torque: the torque applied by the series elastic element (ΓS) and the torque applied by the bumper (ΓB). The bumper is positioned between the shank portion of the ankle and the foot portion, and can also be considered a hardstop when the stiffness is high. In alternative embodiments, a spring may be used instead of a bumper. Note that the ΓB component only comes into play during bumper engagement (i.e., during dorsiflexion, when the shank member presses against a bumper that is affixed to the foot member, or, in alternative embodiments, when the foot member engages a bumper that is affixed to the shank member).


If each of the contributing components is known, the total ankle torque can be determined by vector-adding ΓS and ΓB (i.e., ΓASB). In the design depicted in FIG. 6B, both ΓS and ΓB can be determined as a function of displacement as measured by position sensors that are distributed throughout the design, like a motor encoder that detects the position of the motor and an ankle angle encoder that detects the angle of the ankle pivot.


We begin with ΓS. In FIG. 6C, the motor 1B-102 drives a ballscrew 1B-106, and a digital encoder 1B-104 mounted on the motor measures the ballscrew extension p. If the foot were to be operated unloaded (e.g., when it is up in the air), for every given value of ballscrew extension p, the ankle joint 1B-108 would move to an angle β(p). The β(p) function can be determined empirically by lifting the device in the air so that it is unloaded, then driving the motor through its entire operating range, and measuring the resulting angle of the ankle joint 1B-108 at each value of p. Alternatively, β(p) could be calculated based on the known geometry of the device. The β(p) function is stored in a memory that is accessible by the controller 78 (shown in FIG. 6A) in any suitable format (e.g., as an equation or a lookup table).


During normal operation, the device will be loaded, and the actual angle θ of the ankle joint 1B-108 can be determined (e.g., by a high-resolution encoder, not shown, mounted on the ankle joint). In addition, the actual ballscrew extension p can be determined based on the output of the digital encoder 1B-104. The controller inputs p from the motor encoder and retrieves the unloaded angular position β(p) from memory. It then inputs the actual angle θ from the ankle joint angle encoder and subtracts β(p) from θ (i.e., the controller computes θ−β(p)). That difference is the angular deflection of the SEE 1B-110. In some embodiments, a “single-turn” motor controller can be used. At power on, its absolute position within one motor turn and the absolute joint position can be used together to determine the absolute displacement of the ballscrew in relation to the end-of-travel in the plantarflexion direction.


After the deflection has been determined, the torque ΓS can be found because torque is a function of the deflection. In a simple model, the torque vs. deflection characteristics can be modeled as a linear function (Hooke's Law), so that ΓS=kS×deflection, where kS is the spring rate for the SEE. FIG. 9 depicts the torque vs. deflection characteristics for the series elastic element 1B-110 (shown in FIG. 6B). From these characteristics, a measured deflection can be used to determine ΓS. Note that relying on an equation involving a spring constant kS is just one of many possible ways to determine the torque from a deflection, and alternative models and approaches for determining the torque vs. deflection characteristics may also be used (e.g., a lookup table, polynomial curve fitting, or non-linear estimation).


We turn next to the ΓB component. During dorsiflexion, the shank member 1B-111 pushes towards the foot member 1B-114, and a bumper 1B-112 that sits between those two members (and could be affixed to either member) is compressed. During testing of the previous generation designs, which used a relatively soft plastic for the bumper 1B-112, the inventors recognized that there is observable compliance in the bumper during engagement, in the range of 0.25° of deflection per 85 Nm peak reference load for a 250 lb amputee. When harder plastics are used (e.g., EPDM, with a 95 A durometer), there is much less deflection (e.g., 0.1° of deflection per 85 Nm peak reference load for a 250 lb amputee), and the force-deflection characteristic of this compliance became more stable and more easily modeled. Note that the metal shells that house the ankle mechanism will also flex measurably, and so can the foot structure and the member that contacts the bumper. When the flexural displacements are measured empirically for a particular design or sample of a design (e.g., using a test fixture), all of those flexures would be automatically accounted for.


The variation of ΓB with the compression of the bumper can be determined empirically for a given design or a particular instantiation of a design. One way to do this is to bolt a sample ankle/foot 250 into a test fixture 200, like the one shown in FIG. 7. The test fixture 200 preferably uses a six degree-of-freedom force-torque sensor 210 that simultaneously measures force and torque along and about three orthogonal axes (e.g., made by JR3, Inc.), with a backdrive ballscrew actuator 220 installed between the foot portion 252 of the ankle/foot 250 and the JR3 210. In this test fixture 200, the ankle/foot 250 is driven until the foot portion 252 makes initial contact with the bumper (shown in FIG. 6B) on the shank portion 254 of the ankle/foot 250. The angle of initial contact is defined as θ1. Then, using the backdrive ballscrew actuator 220, the foot portion 252 is further driven to an angle θC. The angle θC can be measured by the ankle encoder 1B-108 on the ankle/foot prosthesis (shown in FIG. 6C). As θC increases, the compression of the bumper increases, and the forces as determined by the JR3 210 are stored for every possible angle θC.


The Z (vertical) and Y (Horizontal) forces measured by the JR3 210 are summed using vector mathematics to determine the force along the backdrive screw axis. The ankle torque is then calculated by multiplying the axial force by the perpendicular moment arm, after subtracting any torque contribution from the SEE. The ankle torque versus ankle angle is plotted for a number of cycles (e.g., 10 cycles) for every possible angle θC and a least squares best fit line is calculated, assuming a linear relationship ΓB=KS×(θC−θI), where KS is the rotational spring rate for the bumper 1B-112. The slope of the resulting best-fit line is the spring rate KS of the bumper in Nm/rad as shown in FIG. 8A. In alternative embodiments, instead of using this linear relationship to model the bumper, alternative models and approaches for determining the torque vs. deflection characteristics in the design may also be used (e.g., a lookup table, polynomial curve fitting, or non-linear estimation).


Note that when increasing the torque (i.e., when the foot portion is being driven into the bumper and is compressing the bumper), the relationship of the ankle torque to ankle angle deflection is very linear. However when returning back to zero (decreasing torque), the curve is different. This discrepancy is due to the effect of the energy absorbing properties of the bumper. It is preferable to use the slope of the least squares best fit line for the increasing torque portion to determine the spring rate KS of the bumper.



FIG. 8B depicts the ΓB component of torque that is determined using this approach over time in a situation where the bumper is increasingly compressed for about half a second (until the torque reaches −90), and then released. The quantized nature of the ΓB torque is a function of the encoder resolution. This quantization can be minimized by utilizing higher resolution encoders. In one preferred embodiment, a 13 bit encoder (8196 counts/360 degrees) manufactured by Renishaw Inc (P/N RMB13BC1) is used. The Renishaw encoder employs a custom Hall-effect IC that measures the field angle arising from a single-pole, cylindrical magnet mounted on the foot structure in relation to the orientation of the IC affixed to a printed circuit assembly embedded in the ankle shell. Filtering of the angle measurement, using a FIR Low-Pass filter executing in a dedicated DSP, has been shown to extend the effective resolution to between 15-16 bits.


Once the torque vs. deflection characteristics of a bumper/ankle shell has been modeled (e.g., as explained above), the ΓB contribution at any given instant during operation of the prosthesis can be determined by measuring θC and plugging the result into the equation ΓB=KS×(θC−θI), or into an alternative model that models ΓB as a function of θC. Thus, from a measured angular deflection θC, the second torque component ΓB can be determined. In alternative embodiments, other ankle angle encoding means could be employed to determine how far the bumper has been compressed, including optical, magneto-restrictive and inductive sensors.


At this point, both the ΓS and ΓB components are known. ΓS can now be added to ΓB to arrive at ΓA, and the resulting ΓA is used as an input to Equation 2 to control the motor.



FIG. 6A is a system block diagram for implementing this approach by determining ΓS and ΓB separately and then adding those components to arrive at ΓA. Elements 52-60 are the same as the correspondingly numbered elements in FIG. 5A. Angular position sensors 76 measure the motor displacement p and the ankle joint displacement θ, and send outputs representing those displacements to the controller 78. The controller 78 is programmed to convert those displacements to torque ΓS as explained above. In addition, the controller 78 is programmed to convert the ankle joint displacement θ to torque ΓB as explained above. The controller 78 then vector-adds ΓS to ΓB to determine ΓA. The controller 78 then controls the motor 56 (with the assistance of the power driver 60, as in the FIG. 5A embodiment) by implementing Equation 2.


As mentioned above, n in Equation 2 can be tuned to make the device more comfortable for the user. Other parameters may also be similarly tuned, such as pff and the threshold angular rate ωTH, which affects the Kv(ωx) function in Equation 2.


Referring now to FIG. 10, which is a Γ-Θ plot for the stance-phase, body-mass-normalized torque-angle, response of an intact ankle, additional parameters can be found that may be tuned in a prosthesis or orthosis to try to better mimic the intact ankle and thereby improve comfort and performance. Examples include, modulating impedance as the ankle-foot transitions from controlled plantar flexion (the slope of K1-2), through controlled dorsiflexion (the slope of K2-3), to powered plantarflexion (the slope of K3-4). The initial values of these three impedances, and the initial value of θ at toe-off (θ*TOE-OFF) can be derived from the mean Γ-Θ response of intact ankles, and those initial values can then be tuned to suit the activity level, limb length, body-mass distribution and preferences of an individual user.


In the above-described embodiments, a single motor is used to implement both plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. But in alternative embodiments, that motor could be replaced by one motor for implementing plantarflexion, and another component for implementing dorsiflexion. In other alternative embodiments, a plurality of motors may be arranged in parallel to perform both plantarflexion and dorsiflexion. In still other embodiments, the electric motors described above can be replaced with other types of motors (e.g., hydraulic motors), in which case the controller and the power driver will have to be adjusted accordingly.


Note that while the concepts described above are explained in the context of prostheses, they can also be applied in the context of orthoses. In addition, while the embodiments described above all relate to ankles, the above-described concepts can be applied in other prosthetic and orthotic applications, such as hips, torso, and arms, in which case suitable modification should be made that will be appreciated by persons skilled in the relevant arts. For example, in the context of a knee, where the reflex occurs right during toe-off, the walking speed prediction would use “fresh” shank speed measurement just prior to toe-off. In those other contexts, the shank member can be generalized as a proximal member, the foot member can be generalized as a distal member, and dorsiflexion/plantarflexion can be generalized as varying the angle between the distal member and the proximal member. The above-described concepts can also be applied in the context of humanoid robots.


While the present invention has been disclosed with reference to certain embodiments, numerous modifications, alterations, and changes to the described embodiments are possible without departing from the sphere and scope of the present invention, as defined in the appended claims. Accordingly, it is intended that the present invention not be limited to the described embodiments, but that it has the full scope defined by the language of the following claims, and equivalents thereof.

Claims
  • 1. An apparatus comprising: a proximal member;a distal member that is operatively configured with respect to the proximal member so that an angle between the distal member and the proximal member can vary;a motor configured to vary the angle between the distal member and the proximal member;a series elastic element connected between at least one of (a) the motor and the proximal member and (b) the motor and the distal member;a bumper coupled to at least one of the proximal member and the distal member;at least one sensor having an output from which a deflection of the series elastic element and a compression of the bumper can be determined, the at least one sensor comprising a sensor that senses a position of the motor and a sensor that senses a sensed angle θ between the distal member and the proximal member; anda controller configured to determine a torque component ΓS based on the position of the motor, the sensed angle θ, and torque vs. deflection characteristics of the series elastic element, to determine a desired torque based on the output, and to control motor torque based on the determined desired torque.
  • 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the torque component ΓS by subtracting the sensed angle θ from a reference angle β, wherein the controller is configured to determine the reference angle β based on the position of the motor.
  • 3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the bumper detected as being compressed when the angle between the distal member and the proximal member distal member exceeds a threshold angle, wherein the controller is configured to determine a torque component ΓB based on the sensed angle andtorque vs. deflection characteristics of the bumper, andwherein the controller is configured to determine the desired torque based on ΓS and ΓB.
  • 4. An ankle-foot prosthesis or orthosis apparatus comprising: a shank member;a foot member that is operatively configured with respect to the shank member so as to support walking and permit the foot member to plantarflex and dorsiflex with respect to the shank member;a motor configured to plantarflex the foot member with respect to the shank member;a series elastic element connected between at least one of(a) the motor and the shank member and (b) the motor and the foot member,a bumper coupled to at least one of the shank member and the foot member;at least one sensor having an output from which a deflection of the series elastic element and a compression of the bumper can be determined, the at least one sensor comprising a sensor that senses a position of the motor and a sensor that senses a sensed angle θ of the foot member with respect to the shank member, anda controller configured to determine a torque component ΓS based on the position of the motor, the sensed angle θ, and torque vs. deflection characteristics of the series elastic element, to determine a desired torque based on the output, and to control motor torque based on the determined desired torque.
  • 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the motor is also configured to dorsiflex the foot member with respect to the shank member.
  • 6. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein controller is configured to determine the torque component ΓS by subtracting the sensed angle θ from a reference angle β, wherein the controller is configured to determine the reference angle β based on the position of the motor.
  • 7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the bumper is detected as compressed when the foot member is sufficiently dorsiflexed with respect to the shank member, wherein the controller is configured to determine a torque component ΓB based on the sensed angle and torque vs. deflection characteristics of the bumper, andwherein the controller is configured to determine the desired torque based on ΓS and ΓB.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/079,571 filed Apr. 4, 2011 which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Applications 61/320,991 filed Apr. 5, 2010, 61/422,873 filed Dec. 14, 2010, and 61/432,083 filed Jan. 12, 2011, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (408)
Number Name Date Kind
45169 Neubert Nov 1864 A
360446 Kreemer Apr 1887 A
595634 King Dec 1897 A
2489291 Henschke et al. Nov 1949 A
2529968 Sartin Nov 1950 A
3098645 Owens Jul 1963 A
3207497 Schoonover Sep 1965 A
3546712 Tarte Dec 1970 A
3844279 Konvalin Oct 1974 A
4442390 Davis Apr 1984 A
4463291 Usry Jul 1984 A
4518307 Bloch May 1985 A
4532462 Washbourn et al. Jul 1985 A
4546295 Wickham et al. Oct 1985 A
4546296 Washbourn et al. Oct 1985 A
4546297 Washbourn et al. Oct 1985 A
4546298 Wickham et al. Oct 1985 A
4569352 Petrofsky et al. Feb 1986 A
4600357 Coules Jul 1986 A
4657470 Clarke et al. Apr 1987 A
4697808 Larson et al. Oct 1987 A
4843921 Kremer Jul 1989 A
4865376 Leaver et al. Sep 1989 A
4872803 Asakawa Oct 1989 A
4909535 Clark et al. Mar 1990 A
4921293 Ruoff et al. May 1990 A
4921393 Andeen et al. May 1990 A
4923474 Klasson et al. May 1990 A
4923475 Gosthnian et al. May 1990 A
4936295 Crane Jun 1990 A
4964402 Grim et al. Oct 1990 A
4989161 Oaki Jan 1991 A
5012591 Asakawa May 1991 A
5049797 Phillips Sep 1991 A
5062673 Mimura Nov 1991 A
5088478 Grim Feb 1992 A
5092902 Adams et al. Mar 1992 A
5112296 Beard et al. May 1992 A
5174168 Takagi et al. Dec 1992 A
5181933 Phillips Jan 1993 A
5252102 Singer et al. Oct 1993 A
5282460 Boldt Feb 1994 A
5294873 Seraji Mar 1994 A
5311109 Ozawa May 1994 A
RE34661 Grim Jul 1994 E
5327790 Levin et al. Jul 1994 A
5330417 Petersen et al. Jul 1994 A
5367790 Gamow et al. Nov 1994 A
5383939 James Jan 1995 A
5405409 Knoth Apr 1995 A
5442270 Tetsuaki Aug 1995 A
5443521 Knoth et al. Aug 1995 A
5456341 Garnjost et al. Oct 1995 A
5458143 Herr Oct 1995 A
5476441 Durfee et al. Dec 1995 A
5502363 Tasch et al. Mar 1996 A
5514185 Phillips May 1996 A
5556422 Powell, III et al. Sep 1996 A
5571205 James Nov 1996 A
5643332 Stein Jul 1997 A
5650704 Pratt et al. Jul 1997 A
5662693 Johnson et al. Sep 1997 A
5701686 Herr et al. Dec 1997 A
5718925 Kristinsson et al. Feb 1998 A
5748845 Labun et al. May 1998 A
5776205 Phillips Jul 1998 A
5885809 Effenberger et al. Mar 1999 A
5888212 Petrofsky et al. Mar 1999 A
5888213 Sears et al. Mar 1999 A
5898948 Kelly et al. May 1999 A
5910720 Williamson et al. Jun 1999 A
5932230 DeGrate Aug 1999 A
5944760 Christensen Aug 1999 A
5971729 Kristinsson et al. Oct 1999 A
5972036 Kristinsson et al. Oct 1999 A
5980435 Joutras et al. Nov 1999 A
6029374 Herr et al. Feb 2000 A
6056712 Grim May 2000 A
6067892 Erickson May 2000 A
6071313 Phillips Jun 2000 A
6095991 Krausman et al. Aug 2000 A
6136039 Kristinsson et al. Oct 2000 A
6144385 Girard Nov 2000 A
6202806 Sandrin et al. Mar 2001 B1
6223648 Erickson May 2001 B1
6240797 Morishima et al. Jun 2001 B1
6267742 Krivosha et al. Jul 2001 B1
6416703 Kristinsson et al. Jul 2002 B1
6443993 Koniuk Sep 2002 B1
6456884 Kenney Sep 2002 B1
6478826 Phillips et al. Nov 2002 B1
6485776 Janusson et al. Nov 2002 B2
6500138 Irby et al. Dec 2002 B1
6507757 Swain et al. Jan 2003 B1
6511512 Phillips et al. Jan 2003 B2
6517503 Naft et al. Feb 2003 B1
6532400 Jacobs Mar 2003 B1
6585774 Dean, Jr. et al. Jul 2003 B2
6589289 Ingimarsson Jul 2003 B2
6592539 Einarsson et al. Jul 2003 B1
6610101 Herr et al. Aug 2003 B2
6626952 Janusson et al. Sep 2003 B2
6645252 Asai et al. Nov 2003 B2
6660042 Curcie et al. Dec 2003 B1
6666796 MacCready, Jr. Dec 2003 B1
6706364 Janusson et al. Mar 2004 B2
6752774 Townsend et al. Jun 2004 B2
6764520 Deffenbaugh et al. Jul 2004 B2
6811571 Phillips Nov 2004 B1
6821233 Colombo et al. Nov 2004 B1
D503480 Ingimundarson et al. Mar 2005 S
D503802 Bjarnason Apr 2005 S
6887279 Phillips et al. May 2005 B2
6923834 Karason Aug 2005 B2
6936073 Karason Aug 2005 B2
6942629 Hepburn et al. Sep 2005 B2
6945947 Ingimundarson et al. Sep 2005 B2
6966882 Horst Nov 2005 B2
6969408 Lecomte et al. Nov 2005 B2
6992455 Kato et al. Jan 2006 B2
7001563 Janusson et al. Feb 2006 B2
7025793 Egilsson Apr 2006 B2
7029500 Martin Apr 2006 B2
7037283 Karason et al. May 2006 B2
D523149 Bjarnason Jun 2006 S
7063727 Phillips et al. Jun 2006 B2
7077818 Ingimundarson et al. Jul 2006 B2
7094058 Einarsson Aug 2006 B2
7094212 Karason et al. Aug 2006 B2
D527825 Ingimundarson et al. Sep 2006 S
D529180 Ingimundarson et al. Sep 2006 S
7101487 Hsu et al. Sep 2006 B2
7105122 Karason Sep 2006 B2
7107180 Karason Sep 2006 B2
7118601 Yasui et al. Oct 2006 B2
7118602 Bjarnason Oct 2006 B2
7136722 Nakamura et al. Nov 2006 B2
D533280 Wyatt et al. Dec 2006 S
7144429 Carstens Dec 2006 B2
7145305 Takenaka et al. Dec 2006 B2
7154017 Sigurjonsson et al. Dec 2006 B2
7161056 Gudnason et al. Jan 2007 B2
7169188 Carstens Jan 2007 B2
7169189 Bjarnason et al. Jan 2007 B2
7169190 Phillips et al. Jan 2007 B2
7190141 Ashrafiuon et al. Mar 2007 B1
7198071 Bisbee, III et al. Apr 2007 B2
7198610 Ingimundarson et al. Apr 2007 B2
7217060 Ingimarsson May 2007 B2
7220889 Sigurjonsson et al. May 2007 B2
7223899 Sigurjonsson May 2007 B2
7227050 Sigurjonsson et al. Jun 2007 B2
7230154 Sigurjonsson Jun 2007 B2
7235108 Carstens Jun 2007 B2
7240876 Doubleday et al. Jul 2007 B2
7266910 Ingimundarson Sep 2007 B2
7270644 Ingimundarson Sep 2007 B2
7278954 Kawai et al. Oct 2007 B2
7279009 Herr et al. Oct 2007 B2
7288076 Grim et al. Oct 2007 B2
7295892 Herr et al. Nov 2007 B2
RE39961 Petrofsky et al. Dec 2007 E
7303538 Grim et al. Dec 2007 B2
7304202 Sigurjonsson et al. Dec 2007 B2
7311686 Iglesias et al. Dec 2007 B1
7313463 Herr et al. Dec 2007 B2
D558884 Ingimundarson et al. Jan 2008 S
7335233 Hsu et al. Feb 2008 B2
7347877 Clausen et al. Mar 2008 B2
D567072 Ingimundarson et al. Apr 2008 S
7371262 Lecomte et al. May 2008 B2
7377944 Janusson et al. May 2008 B2
RE40363 Grim et al. Jun 2008 E
7381860 Gudnason et al. Jun 2008 B2
7390309 Dariush Jun 2008 B2
7393364 Martin Jul 2008 B2
7396975 Sigurjonsson et al. Jul 2008 B2
7402721 Sigurjonsson et al. Jul 2008 B2
7411109 Sigurjonsson et al. Aug 2008 B2
D576781 Chang et al. Sep 2008 S
D577828 Ingimundarson et al. Sep 2008 S
7423193 Sigurjonsson et al. Sep 2008 B2
7427297 Patterson et al. Sep 2008 B2
7429253 Shimada et al. Sep 2008 B2
7431708 Sreeramagiri Oct 2008 B2
7431737 Ragnarsdottir et al. Oct 2008 B2
7438843 Asgeirsson Oct 2008 B2
7449005 Pickering et al. Nov 2008 B2
7455696 Bisbee, III et al. Nov 2008 B2
D583956 Chang et al. Dec 2008 S
7459598 Sigurjonsson et al. Dec 2008 B2
7465281 Grim et al. Dec 2008 B2
7465283 Grim et al. Dec 2008 B2
7468471 Sigurjonsson et al. Dec 2008 B2
7470830 Sigurjonsson et al. Dec 2008 B2
7488349 Einarsson Feb 2009 B2
7488864 Sigurjonsson et al. Feb 2009 B2
D588753 Ingimundarson et al. Mar 2009 S
7503937 Asgeirsson et al. Mar 2009 B2
7513880 Ingimundarson et al. Apr 2009 B2
7513881 Grim et al. Apr 2009 B1
D592755 Chang et al. May 2009 S
D592756 Chang et al. May 2009 S
7527253 Sugar et al. May 2009 B2
7531006 Clausen et al. May 2009 B2
7531711 Sigurjonsson et al. May 2009 B2
7534220 Cormier et al. May 2009 B2
7544214 Gramnas Jun 2009 B2
7549970 Tweardy Jun 2009 B2
D596301 Campos et al. Jul 2009 S
7578799 Thorsteinsson et al. Aug 2009 B2
7581454 Clausen et al. Sep 2009 B2
7597672 Kruijsen et al. Oct 2009 B2
7597674 Hu et al. Oct 2009 B2
7597675 Ingimundarson et al. Oct 2009 B2
7618463 Oddsson et al. Nov 2009 B2
7628766 Kazerooni et al. Dec 2009 B1
7632315 Egilsson Dec 2009 B2
7637957 Ragnarsdottir et al. Dec 2009 B2
7637959 Clausen et al. Dec 2009 B2
7641700 Yasui Jan 2010 B2
7650204 Dariush Jan 2010 B2
7662191 Asgeirsson Feb 2010 B2
D611322 Robertson Mar 2010 S
7674212 Kruijsen et al. Mar 2010 B2
7691154 Asgeirsson et al. Apr 2010 B2
7696400 Sigurjonsson et al. Apr 2010 B2
7704218 Einarsson et al. Apr 2010 B2
D616555 Thorgilsdottir et al. May 2010 S
D616556 Hu May 2010 S
7713225 Ingimundarson et al. May 2010 B2
D616996 Thorgilsdottir et al. Jun 2010 S
D616997 Thorgilsdottir et al. Jun 2010 S
D618359 Einarsson Jun 2010 S
7727174 Chang et al. Jun 2010 B2
7736394 Bedard et al. Jun 2010 B2
7745682 Sigurjonsson et al. Jun 2010 B2
D620124 Einarsson Jul 2010 S
7749183 Ingimundarson et al. Jul 2010 B2
7749281 Egilsson Jul 2010 B2
7762973 Einarsson et al. Jul 2010 B2
7770842 Benson Aug 2010 B2
7771488 Asgeirsson et al. Aug 2010 B2
7780741 Janusson et al. Aug 2010 B2
7794418 Ingimundarson et al. Sep 2010 B2
7794505 Clausen et al. Sep 2010 B2
7811333 Jonsson et al. Oct 2010 B2
7811334 Ragnarsdottir et al. Oct 2010 B2
D627079 Robertson Nov 2010 S
7833181 Cormier et al. Nov 2010 B2
7842848 Janusson et al. Nov 2010 B2
D628696 Robertson Dec 2010 S
D629115 Robertson Dec 2010 S
7846213 Lecomte et al. Dec 2010 B2
7862620 Clausen et al. Jan 2011 B2
7863797 Calley Jan 2011 B2
7867182 Iglesias et al. Jan 2011 B2
7867284 Bedard Jan 2011 B2
7867285 Clausen et al. Jan 2011 B2
7867286 Einarsson Jan 2011 B2
7868511 Calley Jan 2011 B2
7874223 Sugar et al. Jan 2011 B2
7879110 Phillips Feb 2011 B2
7891258 Clausen et al. Feb 2011 B2
7892195 Grim et al. Feb 2011 B2
D634438 Hu Mar 2011 S
D634852 Hu Mar 2011 S
7896826 Hu et al. Mar 2011 B2
7896827 Ingimundarson et al. Mar 2011 B2
7896927 Clausen et al. Mar 2011 B2
7909884 Egilsson et al. Mar 2011 B2
7910793 Sigurjonsson et al. Mar 2011 B2
7914475 Wyatt et al. Mar 2011 B2
7918765 Kruijsen et al. Apr 2011 B2
D637942 Lee et al. May 2011 S
7935068 Einarsson May 2011 B2
D640380 Tweardy et al. Jun 2011 S
D640381 Tweardy et al. Jun 2011 S
7955398 Bedard et al. Jun 2011 B2
7959589 Sreeramagiri et al. Jun 2011 B2
D641482 Robertson et al. Jul 2011 S
D641483 Robertson et al. Jul 2011 S
7981068 Thorgilsdottir et al. Jul 2011 B2
7985193 Thorsteinsson et al. Jul 2011 B2
7985265 Moser et al. Jul 2011 B2
D643537 Lee Aug 2011 S
7992849 Sugar et al. Aug 2011 B2
7998221 Lecomte et al. Aug 2011 B2
8002724 Hu et al. Aug 2011 B2
8007544 Jonsson et al. Aug 2011 B2
8016781 Ingimundarson et al. Sep 2011 B2
8021317 Arnold et al. Sep 2011 B2
8025632 Einarsson Sep 2011 B2
8025699 Lecomte et al. Sep 2011 B2
8026406 Janusson et al. Sep 2011 B2
D646394 Tweardy et al. Oct 2011 S
D647622 Lee et al. Oct 2011 S
D647623 Thorgilsdottir et al. Oct 2011 S
D647624 Thorgilsdottir et al. Oct 2011 S
8034120 Egilsson et al. Oct 2011 B2
8038636 Thorgilsdottir et al. Oct 2011 B2
8043244 Einarsson et al. Oct 2011 B2
8043245 Campos et al. Oct 2011 B2
8048007 Roy Nov 2011 B2
8048013 Ingimundarson et al. Nov 2011 B2
8048172 Jonsson et al. Nov 2011 B2
8052760 Egilsson et al. Nov 2011 B2
8057550 Clausen et al. Nov 2011 B2
8075633 Herr et al. Dec 2011 B2
8142370 Weinberg et al. Mar 2012 B2
8181520 Kadota et al. May 2012 B2
8202325 Albrecht-Laatsch et al. Jun 2012 B2
8287477 Herr et al. Oct 2012 B1
8419804 Herr et al. Apr 2013 B2
8551184 Herr Oct 2013 B1
20010029400 Deffenbaugh et al. Oct 2001 A1
20020052663 Herr et al. May 2002 A1
20020092724 Koleda Jul 2002 A1
20020138153 Koniuk Sep 2002 A1
20030093021 Goffer May 2003 A1
20030125814 Paasivaara et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030139783 Kilgore et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030163206 Yasui et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030195439 Caselnova Oct 2003 A1
20040039454 Herr et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040049290 Bedard Mar 2004 A1
20040054423 Martin Mar 2004 A1
20040064195 Herr Apr 2004 A1
20040083528 Stewart et al. May 2004 A1
20040088025 Gesotti May 2004 A1
20040172097 Brodard et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040181118 Kochamba Sep 2004 A1
20040181289 Bedard et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040255711 Takenaka et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040261561 Takenaka et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050007834 Hidaka Jan 2005 A1
20050043614 Huizenga et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050049652 Tong Mar 2005 A1
20050059908 Bogert Mar 2005 A1
20050070834 Herr et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050085948 Herr et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050155444 Otaki et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050179417 Takenaka et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050197717 Ragnarsdottir et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050209707 Phillips et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050228515 Musallam et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050251079 Carvey et al. Nov 2005 A1
20060004299 Endo et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060004307 Horst Jan 2006 A1
20060055358 Ogawa et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060064047 Shimada et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060069448 Yasui Mar 2006 A1
20060094989 Scott et al. May 2006 A1
20060135883 Jonsson et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060173552 Roy Aug 2006 A1
20060184280 Oddsson et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060211956 Sankai Sep 2006 A1
20060213305 Sugar et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060214621 Ogawa et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060224246 Clausen et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060249315 Herr et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060258967 Fujil et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060264790 Kruijsen et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060276728 Ashihara et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070016329 Herr et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070043449 Herr et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070050044 Haynes et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070123997 Herr et al. May 2007 A1
20070129653 Sugar et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070145930 Zaier Jun 2007 A1
20070156252 Jonsson et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070162152 Herr et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070233279 Kazerooni et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070267791 Hollander et al. Nov 2007 A1
20080039756 Thorsteinsson et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080114272 Herr et al. May 2008 A1
20080155444 Pannese et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080161937 Sankai Jul 2008 A1
20080234608 Sankai Sep 2008 A1
20090030530 Martin Jan 2009 A1
20090171469 Thorsteinsson et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090192619 Martin et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090222105 Clausen Sep 2009 A1
20100004860 Chernoguz et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100025409 Hunter Feb 2010 A1
20100094188 Goffer et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100113980 Herr et al. May 2010 A1
20100114329 Casler et al. May 2010 A1
20100174384 Herr et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100174385 Casler et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100179668 Herr et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100312363 Herr et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110082566 Herr et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110105966 Kazerooni et al. May 2011 A1
20110224804 Clausen et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110245931 Clausen et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110260380 Hollander et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110264230 Herr et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110278857 Sugar et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110295384 Herr et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110295385 Herr et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120209405 Herr et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120259429 Han et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120259430 Han et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120259431 Han et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120271433 Galea et al. Oct 2012 A1
20120283845 Herr et al. Nov 2012 A1
20130312483 Herr et al. Nov 2013 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (17)
Number Date Country
1 393 866 Mar 2004 EP
1 408 892 Apr 2004 EP
1 534 117 Jun 2005 EP
2005-000500 Jan 2005 JP
WO 199409727 May 1994 WO
WO 2003003953 Jan 2003 WO
WO 03068453 Aug 2003 WO
WO 2004017872 Mar 2004 WO
WO 2004019832 Mar 2004 WO
WO 2006110895 Oct 2006 WO
WO 2007025116 Mar 2007 WO
WO 2009011682 Jan 2009 WO
WO 2009082249 Jul 2009 WO
WO 2010025403 Mar 2010 WO
WO 2010025409 Mar 2010 WO
WO 2010027968 Mar 2010 WO
WO 2011005482 Jan 2011 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (273)
Entry
Abbas J. and Chizeck H., Neural Network Control of Functional Neuromuscular Stimulation Systems: Computer Simulation Studies, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 42, No. 1, Nov. 1995, pp. 1117-1127.
Abul-haj, C. and Hogan, N., Functional assessment of control systems for cybernetic elbow prostheses. Part I, Part II, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 37, No. 11, Nov. 1990, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1037-1047.
Akazawa, K., et. al, Biomimetic EMG prosthesis-hand, Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 2, Oct. 1996, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 535-536.
Aminian, Estimation of Speed and Incline of Walking Using Neural Network, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 44, No. 3, Jun. 1995, pp. 743-746.
Anderson, F. and Pandy M., Dynamic optimization of human walking, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 123, Oct. 2001, pp. 381-390.
Andrews, et al., Hybrid FES Orthosis incorporating closed loop control and sensory feedback, J. Biomed Eng., vol. 10, Apr. 1988, pp. 189-195.
Arakawa, T. and Fukuda, T., Natural motion generation of biped locomotion robot using hierarchical trajectory generation method consisting of GA, EP layers, Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 1997, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 211-216.
Au, S. and Herr H., Initial experimental study on dynamic interaction between an amputee and a powered ankle-foot prosthesis, Workshop on Dynamic Walking: Mechanics and Control of Human and Robot Locomotion, May 2006, Ann Arbor, MI, p. 1.
Au, S., An EMG-position controlled system for an active ankle-foot prosthesis: an initial experimental study, Proc. of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Jul. 2005, Chicago, IL, pp. 375-379.
Au, S., et al. An ankle-foot emulation system for the study of human walking biomechanics, Proc. of the 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, May 2006, Orlando, FL, pp. 2939-2945.
Au, S., et. al., Biomechanical design of a powered ankle-foot prosthesis, Proc. of the 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, Jun. 2007, Noordwijk, Netherlands, pp. 298-303.
Au, S., et. al., Powered Ankle-foot Prosthesis Improves Walking Metabolic Economy, IEEE Trans. on Robotics, vol. 25, No. 1, Feb. 2009, pp. 51-66.
Au, S., et. al., Powered ankle-foot prosthesis to assist level-ground and stair-descent gaits, Neural Networks, vol. 21, No. 4, Mar. 2008, pp. 654-666.
Au., et. al., Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis for the Improvement of Amputee Ambulation, Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, Aug. 2007, Lyon, France, pp. 3020-3026.
Barth, D.., et. al., Gait analysis and energy cost of below-knee amputees wearing six different prosthetic feet, Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 4, No. 2, Winter, 1992, pp. 63-75.
Baten, et al., Inertial Sensing in Ambulatory back load Estimation, 18 Annual International Conferences of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Amsterdam 1996, pp. 497-498.
Bateni, H. and Olney S., Kinematic and kinetic variations of below-knee amputee gait, Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 14, No. 1, Mar. 2002, pp. 2-13.
Blaya et al., Adaptive control of a variable-impedance ankle-foot orthosis to assist drop-foot gait, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 12, No. 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 24-31.
Blaya, et al., Active Ankle Foot Orthoses (AAFO). http://www.ai.mit.edu. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2001. 3 pages.
Blaya, J.A., Force-Controllable Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) to Assist Drop Foot Gait, submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Feb. 2003). 88 pages.
Blickhan, R., The spring-mass model for running and hopping, J of Biomech. Feb. 22, 1989, Great Britain, pp. 1217-1227.
Bortz, A New Mathematical Formulation for Strapdown Inertial Navigation, IEEE Transactions of Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. AES-7, No. 1, Jan. 1971, p. 61-66.
Bouten et al., Assessment of energy expenditure for physical activity using a triaxial accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Dec. 1994;26(12):1516-23.
Bouten, A Triaxial Accelerometer and Portable Data Processing Unit for the Assessment of Daily Physical Activity, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 44, No. 3, Mar. 1997, pp. 136-147.
Brockway, J., Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expenditure in man, Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition, vol. 41, Nov. 1987, pp. 463-471.
Brown, R., On the nature of the fundamental activity of the nervous centres: together with an analysis of the conditioning of rhythmic activity in progression, and a theory of the evolution of function in the nervous system, J Physiol, vol. 48,No. 1, Mar. 1914, pp. 18-46.
Chang, et al., Ischemic Colitis and Complications of Constipation Associated with the use of Alosetron Under a Risk Management Plan: Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Incidences The Americal Journal of Gastronenterology, vol. 105, No. 4, Apr. 2010, pp. 866-875.
Chu, A., Kazerooni, H. and Zoss, A., On the Biomimetic Design of the Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX), Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2005, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 4356-4363.
Colborne, G. R., S. Naumann, P. E. Longmuir, and D. Berbrayer, Analysis of mechanical and metabolic factors in the gait of congenital below knee amputees, Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 92, pp. 272-278, Oct. 1992.
Colgate, The control of dynamically interacting systems. MIT. Aug. 1988. 1-19.
Collins, et al., Controlled Energy Storage and Return Prosthesis Reduces Metabolic cost of Walking, ASB 29.sup.th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, Jul. 31-Aug. 5, 2005, 1 page.
Collins, et al., Supporting Online Material for Efficient bipedal robots based on passive-dynamic walkers, Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Feb. 2005, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1-8.
Crago P., et. al., New Control Strategies for neuroprosthetic systems, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 33, No. 2, Apr. 1996, pp. 158-172.
Daley, M. A., Felix, G., Biewener, A. A., 2007. Running stability is enhanced by a proximo-distal gradient in joint neuromechanical control. J Exp Biol 210 (Pt 3), Nov. 2006, pp. 383-394.
Dapena, J. and McDonald, C., Three-dimensional analysis of angular momentum in the hammer throw, Med. Sci. in Sports Exerc., vol. 21, No. 2, Apr. 1989, pp. 206-220.
Davids et al., Disorders of Bone and Mineral Metabolism. Book reviews. J Ped Orthopaedics. 1992;12(6):815.
Dietz, V., Proprioception and locomotor disorders, Nat Rev Neurosci, vol. 3, Oct. 2002, pp. 781-790.
Dietz, V., Spinal Cord Pattern Generators for Locomotion, download Feb. 6, 2012, http://www.Clinph-journal.com/article/PIIS1388245703001202/fullt- ext, 12 pages.
Doerschuk, et. al., Upper extremity limb function discrimination using EMG signal analysis, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. vol. 30., No. 1., Jan. 1983, pp. 18-28.
Doke, J., et. al., Mechanics and energetics of swinging the human leg, The Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 208, Feb. 2005, pp. 439-445.
Dollar, et al., Lower Extremity Exoskeletions and Active Orthoses: Challenges and State-of-the-Art, IEEE Transcations on Robotics, vol. 24, No. 1, Feb. 2008, 15 pages.
Donelan, J., et. al. Simultaneous positive and negative external mechanical work in human walking, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 35, Jan. 2002, pp. 117-124.
Donelan, J., et. al., Force regulation of ankle extensor muscle activity in freely walking cats, J Neurophysiol, vol. 101, No. 1, Nov. 2008, pp. 360-371.
Donelan, J., et. al., Mechanical work for step-to-step transitions is a major determinant of the metabolic cost of human walking, J. Exp. Biol., vol. 205, Dec. 2002, pp. 3717-3727.
Drake, C., Ankle & Foot Splints or Orthoses (AFOs), HemiHelp, Last updated Jun. 2009, 8 pages.
Drake, C., Ankle & Foot Splints or Orthoses, HemiHelp, Information Sheet 13 Last updated Jun. 2009, 5 pages.
Drake, Foot & Ankle Splints or Orthoses. HemiHelp Information Sheet, London, United Kingdom. Jun. 2009;1-5.
Eilenberg, M., A Neuromuscular-Model Based Control Strategy for Powered Ankle-Foot Prostheses, Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 2009.
Ekeberg, O. and Grillner, S., Simulations of neuromuscular control in lamprey swimming, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, vol. 354, May 1999, pp. 895-902.
Ekeberg, O. and Pearson, K., Computer simulation of stepping in the hind legs of the cat: an examination of mechanisms regulating the stance-to-swing transition, J Neurophysiol, vol. 94, No. 6, Jul. 2005, pp. 4256-4268.
Endo, K., et. al., A quasi-passive model of human leg function in level-ground walking, Proc. of 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 2006, Beijing, China, pp. 4935-4939.
Eppinger, S. Seering W., Three dynamic problems in robot force control, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 8, No. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 751-758.
Esquenazi, A. and DiGiacomo, R., Rehabilitation After Amputation, Journ Am Podiatr Med Assoc, vol. 91, No. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 13-22.
Farley, C. and McMahon, T., Energetics of walking and running: insights from simulated reduced-gravity experiments, The American Physiological Society, Dec. 1992, pp. 2709-2712.
Farry, K. A., et al., Myoelectric teleoperation of a complex robotic hand, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. vol. 12, No. 5, Oct. 1996, pp. 775-788.
Featherstone, R., 1987, Robot Dynamic Algorithms, Boston, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 155-172.
Fisekovic et al., New controller for functional electrical stimulation systems, Medical Engineering & Physics vol. 23, 2001, pp. 391-399.
Fite, K., et. al., Design and Control of an Electrically Powered Knee Prosthesis, Proc. of 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Jun. 2007, pp. 902-905.
Flowers, W. A Man-Interactive Simulator System for Above-Knee Prosthetic Studies, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts of Institute Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering. Jul. 10, 1973.
Fod, A., et. al., Automated Derivation of Primitives for Movements Classification, Autonomous Robots, vol. 12, No. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 39-54.
Foerster et al., Detection of posture and motion by accelerometry a validation study in ambulatory monitoring, Computer in Human Behavior, 1999, pp. 571-583.
Foxlin et al., Miniature 6-DOF inertial system for tracking HMDs, In SPIE vol. 3362, Helmet and Head-Mounted Displays III, AeroSense 98, Orlando, FL, Apr. 13-14, 1998, 15 pages.
Frigon, A. and Rossignol, S., Experiments and models of sensorimotor interactions during locomotion, Biol Cybern, vol. 95, No. 6, Nov. 2006, pp. 607-627.
Fujita K, et. al., Joint angle control with command filter for human ankle movement using functional electrical stimulation, Proc. of IEEE Ninth Annual Conference for the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Nov. 1987, Boston, MA, pp. 1719-1720.
Fukuda, O. et al., A human-assisting manipulator teleoperated by EMG signals and arm motions, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. vol. 19, No. 2, Apr. 2003, pp. 210-222.
Gates, D., Characterizing ankle function during stair ascent, descent, and level walking for ankle prosthesis and orthosis design, Masters thesis, Boston University, 2004, pp. 1-82.
Geiritsen, K., et. al., Direct dynamics simulation of the impact phase in heel-toe running, J. Biomech., vol. 28, No. 6, Jun. 1995, Great Britain, pp. 661-668.
Geyer, H. and Herr H., A muscle-reflex model that encodes principles of legged mechanics predicts human walking dynamics and muscle activities, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitations Engineering, vol. 18, No. 3, Jun. 2010, pp. 263-273.
Geyer, H., et. al., Compliant leg behaviour explains the basic dynamics of walking and running, Proc. R. Soc. Cond. B 273, Aug. 2006, pp. 2861-2867.
Geyer, H., et. al., Positive force feedback in bouncing gaits?, Proceedings of Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, vol. 270, No. 1529, Aug. 2003, pp. 2173-2183, 2003.
Ghigliazza, R., et. al., A simply stabilized running model, SIAM J. Applied. Dynamical Systems, vol. 2, No. 2, May 2004, pp. 187-218.
Giszter et al., Convergent force fields organized in the frog's spinal cord. J Neurosci. Feb. 1993;13(2):467-91.
Godha, el al., Integrated GPS/INS System for Pedestrian Navigation in a Signal Degraded Environment, ION GNSS, Sep. 2006, Fort Worth, TX, pp. 1-14.
Goswami, A. and Kallem, V., Rate of change of angular momentum and balance maintenance of biped robots, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, La., pp. 3785-3790.
Goswami, A., Postural stability of biped robots and the foot-rotation indicator (FRI) point, International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 18, No. 6, Jun. 1999, pp. 523-533.
Graupe, D., et al., A microprocessor system for multifunctional control of upper-limb prostheses via myoelectric signal identification, IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control. vol. AC-23, vol. 4, Aug. 1978, pp. 538-544.
Gregoire, L., and et al, Role of mono- and bi-articular muscles in explosive movements, International Journal of Sports Medicine 5, 614-630. Dec. 1984. 301-305.
Grillner, S. and Zangger, P., On the central generation of locomotion in the low spinal cat, Exp Brain Res, vol. 34, No. 2, Jan. 1979, pp. 241-261.
Grimes, D. L., An active multi-mode above-knee prosthesis controller, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jul. 20, 1979.
Gu, W., The Regulation of Angular Momentum During Human Walking, Undergraduate Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Physics Department, Jun. 2003, pp. 2-48.
Gunther, M. and Ruder, H., Synthesis of two-dimensional human walking: a test of the A-model, Biol. Cybern., vol. 89, May 2003, pp. 89-106.
Gunther, M., et. al., Human leg design: optimal axial alignment under constraints, J. Math. Biol., vol. 48, Mar. 2004, pp. 623-646.
Hanafusa et al., A Robot Hand with Elastic Fingers and Its Application to Assembly Process, pp. 337-359, Robot Motion, Brady et al., MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
Hansen, A. H., Childress, D. S., Miff, S. C., Gard, S. A., Mesplay, K. P., The human ankle during walking: implication for the design of biomimetic ankle prosthesis, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 37, No. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 1467-1474.
Hashimoto et al., An instrumented compliant wrist using a parallel mechanism, Japan/USA Symposim on Flexible Automation, vol. 1, pp. 741-744, ASME, 1992.
Hayes et al., Leg Motion Analysis During Gait by Multiaxial Accelerometry: Theoretical Foundations and Preliminary Validations, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 105, Aug. 1983, pp. 283-289.
Heglund, A Simple Design for a Force-Plat to Measure Ground Reaction Forces, J. exp. Biol., vol. 93, pp. 333-338, 1981.
Herr, H. and McMahon, T.,A trotting horse model, Int. J. Robotics Res., vol. 19, No. 6, Jun. 2000, pp. 566-581.
Herr, H. and Popovic, M., Angular momentum regulation in human walking, J. Exp. Biol., vol. 211, Feb. 2008, pp. 467-481.
Herr, H. and Wilkenfeld A., User-adaptive control of a magnetorheologicalprosthetic knee, Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 30, No. 1, 2003, pp. 42-55.
Herr, H., et. al, A model of scale effects in mammalian quadrupedal running, J Exp Biol 205 (Pt 7), Apr. 2002, pp. 959-967.
Herr, New Horizons for Orthotic and Prosthetic Technology: Artificial Muscle for Ambulation. MIT Media Laboratory. 2004:1-9.
Heyn et al., The Kinematice of the Swing Phase Obtained from Accelerometer and Gyroscope Measurements, 18.sup.th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Nov. 1996, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 463-464.
Hill, V., The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle, Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, vol. 126, No. 843, Oct. 1938, pp. 136-195.
Hirai, K., et al., The development of Honda humanoid robot, Proceedings on IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, May 1998, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 1321-1326.
Hitt, J., R. Bellman, M. Holgate, T. Sugar, and K. Hollander, The sparky (spring ankle with regenerative kinetics) projects: Design and analysis of a robotic transtibial prosthesis with regenerative kinetics, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.Orlando, Fla., pp. 1587-1596, Sep. 2007.
Hof. A., et. al., Calf muscle moment, work and efficiency in level walking; role of series elasticity, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 16, No. 7, Sep. 1983, pp. 523-537.
Hofbaur, M. and Williams, B., Hybrid Diagnosis with Unknown Behavioral Modes, Proceedings of the 13.sup.th International Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis (DX02), May 2002, pp. 1-10.
Hofbaur, M. and Williams, B., Mode Estimation of Probabilistic Hybrid Systems, HSSC 2002, LNCS 2289, Mar. 25, 2002, pp. 253-266.
Hofmann, A., et. al., A Sliding Controller for Bipedal Balancing Using Integrated Movement of Contact and Non-Contact Limbs, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sep. 2004, Sendai, Japan, pp. 1952-1959.
Hofmann, A., et. al., Robust Execution of Bipedal Walking Tasks from Biomechanical Principles, Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jan. 2006, 407 pages.
Hogan, N. and Buerger S., Impedance and Interaction Control, Robotics and Automation Handbook, CRC Press, Jun. 2004, pp. 19.1-19.24.
Hogan, N. (1976) A review of the methods of processing EMG for use as a proportional control signal. Biomedical Engineering. pp. 81-86.
Hogan, N., Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering and Labortory of Manufacturing and Productivity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, pp. 304-313, (Jun. 1984).
Hogan, N., Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part I—Theory, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement , and Control, vol. 107, Mar. 1985, pp. 1-7.
Hogan, N., Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part II—Implementation, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement , and Control, 107:8-16, (1985).
Hogan, N., Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part III—Application, Journal of Dynamics Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107:17-24, (1985).
Hollander, K. W., T. G. Sugar, and D. E. Herring, Adjustable robotic tendon using a ‘Jack Springs’.TM., Proceedings on IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, pp. 113-118, Jun. 28, 2005.
Howard, Joint and Actuator Design for Enhanced Stability in Robotic Force Control, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sep. 19, 1990.
Huang, H. and Chen. C., Development of a myoelectric discrimination system for a multi-degree prosthetic hand, Proceeding of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1999, Detroit, MI, pp. 2392-2397.
Huang, Q., Planning walking patterns for a biped robot, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, No. 3, Jun. 2001, pp. 280-289.
Hultborn, H., Spinal reflexes, mechanisms and concepts: from Eccles to Lundberg and beyond, Prog Neurobiol, vol. 78, Feb. 2006, pp. 215-232.
Ijspeert, A. J., 2008, Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: a review, Neural Netw, vol. 21, No. 4, May 2008, pp. 642-653.
Ijspeert, A., et. al., From swimming to walking with a salamander robot driven by a spinal cord model, Science, vol. 315, No. 5817, Mar. 2007, pp. 1416-1420.
Isakower, Design Charts for Torsional Properties of Non-circular Shafts, Technical Report ARMID-TR-78001, ARRADCOM, MISD, DRDAR-MSA, Dover,NJ, Nov. 1978 . . . .
Ivashko, D., et. al, Modeling the spinal cord neural circuitry controlling cat hindlimb movement during locomotion, Neurocomputing, vol. 52-54, Mar. 2003, pp. 621-629.
Johansson, J., et al., A clinical comparison of variable damping and mechanically passive prosthetic knee devices, American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, vol. 84, No. 8, Aug. 2005, pp. 563-575.
Johnson, C. and Lorenz R., Experimental identification of friction and its compensation in precise, position controlled mechanisms, IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, vol. 28, No. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 1392-1398.
Jonic S, et. al., Three machine learning techniques for automatic determination of rules to control locomotion, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 46, No. 3, Mar. 1999, pp. 300-310.
Kadaba, M., et. al., Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking, J. Orthop. Res., vol. 8, May 1990, pp. 383-392.
Kadaba, M., et. al., Repeatability of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic data in normal adult gait, J. Orthop. Res., vol. 7, Nov. 1989, pp. 849-860.
Kajita, K., et. al., Biped walking on a low friction floor, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Oct. 2004, Sendai, Japan., pp. 3546-3551.
Kajita, S., et. al., A Hop towards Running Humanoid Biped, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, La., pp. 629-635.
Kajita, S., et. al., Resolved Momentum Control: Humanoid Motion Planning based on the Linear and Angular Momentum, Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Oct. 2003, Las Vegas, Nev., pp. 1644-1650.
Kaneko, K., et al., Humanoid robot HRP-2, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, La., pp. 1083-1090.
Kapti, A. and Yucenur M., Design and control of an active artificial knee joint, Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 41, Apr. 2006, pp. 1477-1485.
Katic, D. and Vukobratovic, M., Survey of intelligent control techniques for humanoid robots, Journal of Intelligent and Robotics Systems, vol. 37, Jun. 2003, pp. 117-141.
Kerrigan, D, et. al., A refined view of thedeterminants of gait: significance of heel rise, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab., vol. 81, Aug. 2000, pp. 1077-1080.
Kerrigan, D, et. al., Quantification of pelvic rotation as a determinant of gait, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab., vol. 82, Feb. 2001, pp. 217-220.
Khatib, O., et. al., Coordination and decentralized cooperation of multiple mobile manipulators, Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 13, No. 11, Nov. 1996, pp. 755-764.
Khatib, O., et. al., Whole body dynamic behavior and control of human-like robots, International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 1, No. 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 29-43.
Kidder, et al., A System for the Analysis of Foot and Ankle Kinematics During Gait, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 4, No. 1, Mar. 1996, pp. 25-32.
Kim, et al., Realization of Dynamic Walking for the Humaniod Robot Platform KHR-1, Advanced Robotics, vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 749-768, (2004).
Kirkwood C, et. al., Automatic detection of gait events: a case study using inductive learning techniques., J Biomed Eng, vol. 11, Nov. 1989, pp. 511-516.
Kitayama, I., Nakagawa N, Amemori K, A microcomputer controlled intelligent A/K prosthesis, Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics, Chicago. Jun. 28, 1992.
Klute et al., Powering Lower Limb Prosthestics with Muscle-Like Actuators, Abstract in: Proceeding of the 1st Annual Meeting of the VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Enabling Veterans: Meeting the Challenge of Rehabilitation inthe Next Millennium, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1-3, 1998, p. 52.
Klute et al.,Variable Stiffness Prosthesis for Transtibial Amputees. Dept of Veteran Affairs, Seattle, WA USA, 2005. 2 pages.
Klute, et al., Artificial Muscles: Actuators for Biorobotic Systems, The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 21, No. 4, Apr. 2002, pp. 295-309.
Klute, et al., Artificial Tendons: Biomechanical Design Properties for Prosthetic Lower Limbs, Chicago 2000 World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Chicago on Jul. 24-28, 2000, 4 pages.
Klute, et al., Lower Limb Prostheses Powered by Muscle-Like Pneumatic Actuator, Submitted to Oleodinamica e Pneumatica, Publishe Tecniche Nuove, Milamo, Italy, Mar. 15, 2000, 6 pages.
Klute, et al., McKibben Artificial Muscles: Pneumatic Actuators with Biomechanical Intelligence, IEEE/ASME 1999 Inernational Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Atlanta, GA, Sep. 19-22, 1999, pp. 221-226.
Klute, et al., Muscle-Like Pneumatic Actuators for Below-Knee Prostheses, Actuator2000:7th International Conference on New Actuators, Bremen, Germany on Jun. 9-21, 2000, pp. 289-292.
Klute, et al., Artificial Muscles: Actuators for Lower Limb Prostheses, Abstract in: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the VA rehabilitation Research and Development Service, Feb. 20-22, 2000, p. 107.
Klute, et al., Intelligent Transtibial Prostheses with Muscle-Like Actuators,: 2002 American Physiological Society Intersociety Meeting: The Power of Comparative Physiology: Evolution, Integration, and Applied, 1 page.
Klute, G., et. al., Mechanical properties of prosthetic limbs adapting to the patient, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 38, No. 3, May 2001, pp. 299-307.
Koganezawa, K. and Kato, I., Control aspects of artificial leg, IFAC Control Aspects of Biomedical Engineering, 1987, pp. 71-85.
Kondak, K. and Hommel, G., Control and online computation of stable movement for biped robots, Proc. of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 2003, Las Vegas, Nev., pp. 874-879.
Kostov A., et. al., Machine learning in control of functional electrical stimulation (FES) systems for locomotion, IEEE Trans on Biomed Eng, vol. 42, No. 6, Jun. 1995, pp. 541-551.
Kuo, A., A simple model of bipedal walking predicts the preferred speed-step length relationship, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 123, Jun. 2001, pp. 264-269.
Kuo, A., Energetics of actively powered locomotion using the simplest walking model, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 124, Feb. 2002, pp. 113-120.
LaFortune, Three-Dimensional Acceleration of the Tibia During Walking and Running, J. Biomechanics, vol. 24, No. 10, 1991, pp. 877-886.
LeBlanc, M. and Dapena, J., Generation and transfer of angular momentum in the javelin throw, Presented at the 20th annual meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, Oct. 1996, Atlanta, Ga., pp. 17-19.
Lee et al., activity and Location recognition Using Wearable Sensors, Pervasive Computing, Jul.-Sep. 2002, pp. 24-32.
Li et al., (Jun. 25, 2006) Research and development of the intelligently-controlled prosthetic ankle joint. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Mechatronics and Automation. Luoyang, China, pp. 1114-1119.
Light, et. al., Skeletal Transients on Heel Strike in Normal Walking With Different Footwear. J. Biomechanics vol. 13, pp. 477-480.
Liu, X., Low, K. H., Yu, H. Y., (2004) ‘Development of a Lower Extremity Exoskeleton for Human performance Enhancement’, IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan.
Lloyd R. and Cooke C., Kinetic changes associated with load carriage using two rucksack designs, Ergonomics, vol. 43, No. 9, Sep. 2000, pp. 1331-1341.
Luinge, Inertial Sensing of Human Movement, Twente University Press, ISBN 9036518237, 2002, pp. 1-80.
Lundberg, A., Oct. 19, 1968. Reflex control of stepping. In: The Nansen memorial lecture V, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 5-42.
Macfarlane, P., Gait comparisons for below-knee amputees using a flex-foot versus a conventional prosthetic foot, Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 3, No. 4, Summer, 1991, pp. 150-161.
Maganaris, C., Force-length characteristics of in vivo human skeletal muscle, Acta Physiol. Scand., vol. 172, Aug. 2001, pp. 279-285.
Maganaris, C., Force-length characteristics of the in vivo human gastrocnemius muscle, Clin. Anat., vol. 16, May 2003, pp. 215-223.
Martens, W.L.J., Exploring the Information Content and Some Applications of Body Mounted Piezo-Resistive Accelerometers, in: P.H. Veltink and R.C. van Lummel (eds.), Dynamic Analysis using Body Fixed Sensors, ISBN 90-9007328-0, 1994, pp. 8-11.
Maufroy, C., Towards a general neural controller for quadrupedal locomotion, Neural Netw, vol. 21, No. 4, Apr. 2008, pp. 667-681.
Mayagoitia R., et al., Accelerometer and rate gyroscope measurement of kinematics: an inexpensive alternative to optical motion analysis systems, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 35, Apr. 2002, pp. 537-542.
McFadyen et al., An integrated biomechanical analysis of normal stair ascent and descent. J Biomech. 1988;21(9):733-44.
McGeer T., Passive Dynamic Walking, International Journal of Robotics, vol. 9, No. 2, May 1988, pp. 62-82.
McGeer, T., Principles of walking and running, Advances in Comparative and Environmental Physiology, vol. 11, Ch. 4, Apr. 1992, pp. 113-139.
McIntosh, A., et. al., Gait dynamics on an inclined walkway, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 39, Sep. 2005, pp. 2491-2502.
McMahon, T., The mechanics of running: how does stiffness couple with speed?, J. of Biomecb., vol. 23, 1990, pp. 65-78.
McMahon, T., et. al., Groucho Running, Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 62, No. 6, Jun. 1987, pp. 2326-2337.
Minassian, K., et. al., Human lumbar cord circuitries can be activated by extrinsic tonic input to generate locomotor-like activity, Hum. Mov. Sci., vol. 26, Mar. 2007, pp. 275-295.
Mochon, S., et. al., Ballistic walking, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 13, Dec. 1980, pp. 49-57.
Moe-Nilssen, A new method for evaluating motor control in gait under real-life environmental conditions, Part 2: Gait analysis, Clinical biomechanics, vol. 13, 1998, pp. 328-335.
Molen, N., Energy/speed relation of below-knee amputees walking on motor-driven treadmill, Int. Z. Angew. Physio, vol. 31, Mar. 1973, pp. 173.
Morris, Accelerometry—A Technique for the Measurement of Human Body Movements, J. Biomechanics, vol. 6, Nov. 1973, pp. 729-736.
Muraoka, T., et. al, Muscle fiber and tendon length changes in the human vastus lateralis during slow pedaling, J. Appl. Physiol., vol. 91, Nov. 2001, pp. 2035-2040.
Nakagawa A., Intelligent Knee Mechanism and the Possibility to Apply the Principle to the Other Joints, Proceedings of the 20.sup.th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Vo. 20, No. 5, Oct. 1998,pp. 2282-2287.
Neal R. and Hinton G., A view of the EM algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants, In Michael I. Jordan (editor), Learning in Graphical Models, 1999, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-14.
Ng, et al., Fuzzy Model Identification for Classification of Gait Events in Paraplegics, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 5, No. 4, Nov. 1997, pp. 536-544.
Nielsen, D., et. al., Comparison of energy cost and gait efficiency during ambulation in below-knee amputees using different prosthetic feet—a preliminary report, Journal of Prosthetics & Orthotics, vol. 1, No. 1, 1989, pp. 24-29.
Oda et al., In Vivo Length-Force Relationships on Muscle Fiber and Muscle Tendon Complex in the Tibialis Anterior Muscle. Int. J. Sport and Health Sci. 2005;3:245-252.
Ogihara, N. and Yama7aki, N., Generation of human bipedal locomotion by a bio-mimetic neuro-musculo-skeletal model, Biol Cybern, vol. 84, No. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 1-11.
Palmer, M., Sagittal plane characterization of normal human ankle function across a range of walking gait speeds, Master's Thesis, MIT, Feb. 2002, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-71.
Paluska, D. and Herr, H., Series Elasticity and Actuator Power Output, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 2006, Orlando, FL, pp. 1830-1833.
Paluska, D., and Herr, H., The effect of series elasticity on actuator power and work output: implications for robotic and prosthetic joint design, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 54, Jun. 2006, pp. 667-673.
Pang, M., et. al., The initiation of the swing phase in human infant stepping: importance of hip position and leg loading, J Physiol, vol. 528, No. 2, Oct. 2000, pp. 389-404.
Pasch, K. A., and W. P. Seering, On the drive systems for high performance machines, AMSE J.Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design vol. 106, pp. 102-108, Mar. 1984.
Paul, C., et. al., Development of a human neuro-musculo-skeletal model for investigation of spinal cord injury, Biol Cybern, vol. 93, No. 3, Aug. 2005, pp. 153-170.
Pearson, K., Generating the walking gait: role of sensory feedback, Prog Brain Res, vol. 143, 2004, pp. 123-129.
Pearson, K., et. al., Assessing sensory function in locomotor systems using neuro-mechanical simulations, Trends Neurosci, vol. 29, No. 11, Nov. 2006, pp. 625-631.
Perry, Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function, New Jersey: SLACK Inc.; 1992, Book Review, 1 page.
Perry, J. and S. Shanfield, Efficiency of dynamic elastic response prosthetic feet, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 30, No. 1, 1993 pp. 137-143.
Petrofsky et al., Feedback Control System for Walking in Man, Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 14, No. 2, Mar. 1984, pp. 135-149.
Pfeffer et al., Experiments with a Dual-Armed, Cooperative, Flexible-Drivetrain Robot System, Proc. 1993 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics & Automation, vol. 3, pp. 601-608, May 5, 1993 . . . .
Popovic D., et al., Control Aspects of Active Above-Knee Prosthesis, Int. Journal Man-Machine Studies, (1991) 35, pp. 751-767.
Popovic, D., Control of Movement for the Physically Disabled, Springer-Verlag London Limited, May 2000, pp. 270-302.
Popovic, et al., Gait Identification and Recognition Sensor, Proceedings of 6th Vienna International Workshop on Functional Electrostimulation, Sep. 1998, pp. 1-4.
Popovic, M. and Herr, H., Global Motion Control and Support Base Planning, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Aug. 2005, Alberta, Canada, pp. 1-8.
Popovic, M., Angular Momentum Primitives for Human Walking: Biomechanics and Control, Proc. of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sep. 2004, Sendai, Japan., pp. 1685-1691.
Popovic, M., et. al., Angular Momentum Regulation during human walking: Biomechanics and Control, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA, pp. 2405-2411.
Popovic, M., et. al., Ground Reference Points in Legged Locomotion: Definitions, Biological Trajectories and Control Implications, International Journal of Robotics Research, Dec. 2006, pp. 79-104.
Popovic, M., et. al., Zero spin angular momentum control: definition and applicability, Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS/RSJ International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Nov. 2004, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1-16.
Popovic, M.B., W. Gu and H. Herr, Conservation of Angular Momentum in Human Movement, MIT AI Laboratory—Research Abstracts, Sep. 2002. pp. 231-232, 2002.
Pratt, G. and Williamson M., Series elastic actuators, Proceedings on IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Jan. 1995, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 399-406.
Pratt, G., Legged Robots: What's New Since Raibert, IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, Research Perspectives, Sep. 2000, pp. 15-19.
Pratt, G., Low Impedance Walking Robots, Integ. and Comp. Biol., vol. 42, Feb. 2002, pp. 174-181.
Pratt, J., et. al., The RoboKnee: An Exoskeleton for Enhancing Strength and Endurance During Walking, IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA, pp. 2430-2435.
Prochazka, A. and Yakovenko, S., The neuromechanical tuning hypothesis, Prog Brain Res, vol. 165, Oct. 2007, pp. 255-265.
Prochazka, A., et. al., Positive force feedback control of muscles, J. of Neuro-phys., vol. 77, Jun. 1997, pp. 3226-3236.
Prochazka, A., et. al., Sensory control of locomotion: reflexes versus higher-level control, Adv Exp Med Biol, vol. 508, 2002, pp. 357-367.
Raibert, M., Legged Robots that Balance, The MIT Press, Nov. 1986, Cambridge, MA, p. 89.
Rassier, D., et. al., Length dependence of active force production in skeletal muscle, Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 86, Issue 5, May 1999, pp. 1455-1457.
Reitman, et. al., Gait analysis in prosthetics: opinions, ideas and conclusions, Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2002, 26, 50-57.
Riener, R., et. al., Stair ascent and descent at different inclinations, Gait Posture, vol. 15, Feb. 2002, pp. 32-44.
Robinson, D., Design and an analysis of series elasticity in closed-loop actuator force control, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, Jun. 2000, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-123.
Robinson, D., Series elastic actuator development for a biomimetic walking robot, Proceedings of IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Sep. 1999, pp. 561-568.
Rosen, J., et al., A myosignal-based powered exoskeleton system, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 31, No. 3, May 2001, pp. 210-222.
Ruina, A., et. al., A collisional model of the energetic cost of support work qualitatively explains leg sequencing in walking and galloping, pseudo-elastic leg behavior in running and the walk-to-run transition, Journal of Theoretical Biology,vol. 237, Issue 2, Jun. 2005, pp. 170-192.
Rybak et al., Modelling spinal circuitry involved in locomotor pattern generation: insights from the effects of afferent stimulation. J Physiol. Dec. 1, 2006;577(Pt 2):641-58. Epub Sep. 28, 2006.
Rybak, I., et. al., Modelling spinal circuitry involved in locomotor pattern generation: insights from deletions during fictive locomotion, J Physiol, vol. 577 (Pt 2), Dec. 2001, 617-639.
Sanderson, D., et. al., Lower extremity kinematic and kinetic adaptations in unilateral below-knee amputees during walking, Gait and Posture, vol. 6, No. 2, Oct. 1997, pp. 126-136.
Sanger, T., Human arm movements described by a low-dimensional superposition of principal component, Journal of NeuroScience, vol. 20, No. 3, Feb. 2000, pp. 1066-1072.
Saranli, U., RHex: A simple and highly mobile hexapod robot, Int. Jour. Rob. Res., vol. 20, No. 7, Jul. 2001, pp. 616-631.
Sarrigeorgidis K. and Kyriakopoulos K., Motion control of the N.T.U.A. robotic snamek on a planar surface, Proc. of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1998, pp. 2977-2982.
Schaal, S. and Atkeson, C., Constructive incremental learning from only local information, Neural Computation, vol. 10, No. 8, Nov. 1998, pp. 2047-2084.
Schaal, S., Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 3, Jun. 1999, pp. 233-242.
Scott, S. and Winter, D., Biomechanical model of the human foot: kinematics and kinetics during the stance phase of walking, J. Biomech., vol. 26, No. 9, Sep. 1993, 1091-1104.
Sekine et al., Classification of waist-acceleration signals in a continuous walking record, Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 22, 2000, pp. 285-291.
Sentis, L. and O. Khatib, Task-Oriented Control of Humanoid Robots Through Prioritization, IEEE-RAS/RSJ International Conference on Humanoid Robots, Nov. 2004, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1-16.
Seyfarth, A., Swing-leg retraction: a simple control model for stable running, J. Exp. Biol., vol. 206, Aug. 2003, pp. 2547-2555.
Seyfarth, A., et. al., A movement criterion for running, J. of Biomech., vol. 35, May 2002, pp. 649-655.
Seyfarth, A., et. al., Stable operation of an elastic three-segmented leg, Biol.Cybern., vol. 84, 2001, pp. 365-382.
Sin et al., Significance of non-level walking on transtibial prosthesis fitting with particular reference to the effects of anterior-posterior alignment, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 38, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 2001, p. 1-6.
Sinkjaer, T., et. al., Major role for sensory feedback in soleus EMG activity in the stance phase of walking in man, J Physiol, vol. 523, No. 3, Mar. 2000, 817-827.
Skinner, H. and Effeney D., Gait analysis in amputees, Am J Phys Med, vol. 64, Apr. 1985, pp. 82-89.
Smidt et al., An Automated Accelerometry System for Gait Analysis, J. Biomechanics, vol. 10, 1977, pp. 367-375.
Srinivasan, M., Energetics of legged locomotion: Why is total metabolic cost proportional to the cost of stance work, Proc. on ISB XXth Congress and the American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting, Jul. 2003, Cleveland, OH, pp. 829.
Stepien, J., et al., Activity Levels Among Lower-Limb Amputees: Self-Report Versus Step Activity Monitor, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 88, No. 7, Jul. 2007, pp. 896-900.
Sugano et al., Force Control of the Robot Finger Joint equipped with Mechanical Compliance Adjuster, Proc. of the 1992 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intell. Robots & Sys., Jul. 1992, pp. 2005-2013.
Sugihara, T., et. al., Realtime Humanoid Motion Generation through ZMP Manipulation based on Inverted Pendulum Control, Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 2002, Washington, DC, pp. 1404-1409.
Sup, F., Design and Control of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis, The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 27, No. 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 263-273.
Taga, G., A model of the neuro-musculo-skeletal system for human locomotion, Biol. Cybern., vol. 73, No. 2, Jul. 1995, pp. 97-111.
Takayuki Biped Locomotion using Multiple Link Virtual Inverted Pendulum Model, Publication of Electronics Information and Systems Society, vol. 120, No. 2, Feb. 2000, 8 pages.
Thoroughman, K. and R. Shadmehr, Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives, Nature, vol. 407, Oct. 2000, pp. 742-747.
Tomovic R. et al., A Finite State Approach to the Synthesis of Bioengineering Control Systems, IEEE Transations on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. 7, No. 2, Jun. 1966, pp. 65-69.
Tong et al., Virtual artificial sensor technique for functional electricial stimulation, Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 20, 1998, pp. 458-468.
Tong, et al., A Practical Gait Analysis System Using Gyroscopes, Medical Engineering & Physics, vol. 21, Mar. 1999, pp. 87-94.
Turker, K., Electromyography: some methodological problems and issues, Physical Therapy, vol. 73, No. 10, Oct. 1993, pp. 698-710.
van den Bogert, A., Exotendons for assistance of human locomotion, Biomedical Engineering Online, Oct. 2003, pp. 1-8.
van den Bogert, et al. A Method for Inverse Dynamic Analysis Using Accelerometry, Journal Biomechanics, vol. 29, No. 7, 1996, pp. 949-954.
van der Kooij et al., A multisensory integration model of human stance control, Biological Cybernetics, 1999, pp. 299-308.
Veltink P., et al., The Feasibility of Posture and Movement Detection by Accelerometry, D-7803-1377-I/93, IEEE, Oct. 1993, pp. 1230-1231.
Veltink, Dection of Static and Dynamic Activities Using Uniaxial Accelerometers, IEEE. Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 4. No. 4, Dec. 1996, pp. 375-385.
Vukobratovic M. and Juricic, D., Contributions to the synthesis of biped gait, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. BME-16, No. 1, Jan. 1969, pp. 1-6.
Vukobratovic M. and Stepanenko J., Mathematical models of general anthropomorphic systems, Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 17, Aug. 1973, pp. 191-242.
Walsh, C., Biomimetic Design of an Under-Actuated Leg Exoskeleton for Load-Carrying Augmentation, Master's Thesis, MIT, Feb. 2006, pp. 1-94.
Waters, RL., Energy cost of walking amputees: the influence of level of amputation, J Bone Joint Surg., vol. 58, No. 1, Jan. 1976, pp. 42-46.
Wilkenfeld, A. J., Biologically inspired auto adaptive control of a knee prosthesis, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Oct. 23, 2000.
Wilkenfeld, A., An Auto-Adaptive External Knee Prosthesis, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Sep. 2000, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-3.
Willemsen A., et al., Automatic Stance—Swing Phase Detection from Accelerometer Data for Peroneal Nerve Stimulation, IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. 37, No. 12, Dec. 1990, pp. 1201-1208.
Willemsen A., et al., Real-Time Gait Assessment Utilizing a New Way of Accelerometry, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 23, No. 8, 1990, pp. 859-863.
Williams, B., Mode Estimation of Model-based Programs: Monitoring Systems with Complex Behavior, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Aug. 2001, Seattle, WA, pp. 1-7.
Williamson, M., Series Elastic Actuators, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Jan. 1995, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-74.
Winter, D, and Robertson D., Joint torque and energy patterns in normal gait, Biol. Cybem., vol. 29, May 1978, pp. 137-142.
Winter, D. A, Energy generation and absorption at the ankle and knee during fast, natural, and slow cadences, Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, vol. 175, May 1983, pp. 147-154.
Winter, D. and Sienko S., Biomechanics of below-knee amputee gait, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 21, No. 5, Aug. 1988, pp. 361-367.
Wisse, M., Essentails of Dynamic Walking, Analysis and Design of two-legged robots, Phd Thesis, Technical University of Delft, 2004, pp. 1-195.
Woodward et al., Skeletal Accelerations measured during different Exercises, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, vol. 207, Jun. 1993, pp. 79-85.
Wu, The Study of Kinematic Transients in Locomotion Using the Integrated Kinematic Sensor, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 4, No. 3, Sep. 1996, p. 193-200.
Yakovenko, S., et. al., Contribution of stretch reflexes to locomotor control: a modeling study, Biol Cybern, vol. 90, No. 2, Jan. 2004, pp. 146-155.
Yun X., Dynamic state feedback control of constrained robot manipulators, Proc. of the 27th conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 1988, pp. 622-626.
Zlatnik, D., et. al., Finite-state control of a trans-femoral prosthesis, IEEE Trans. on Control System Technology, vol. 10, No. 3, May 2002, pp. 408-420.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20140121782 A1 May 2014 US
Provisional Applications (3)
Number Date Country
61432083 Jan 2011 US
61422873 Dec 2010 US
61320991 Apr 2010 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 13079571 Apr 2011 US
Child 14150840 US