Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract— In this paper we consider a class of exoskeletons compliance properties which depend on muscle activation
designed to amplify the strength of humans through feedback of [5]. The methodology of interaction controller design [6] has
sensed human-robot interactions and actuator forces. We define had success modeling humans as active systems which are
an amplification error signal based on a reference amplification
rate, and design a linear feedback compensator to attenuate passive except for non-state-dependent biases. Robust robot
this error. Since the human operator is an integral part of impedance [7] and haptic interface [8], [9] controller design
the system, we design the compensator to be robust to both a strategies have supported and used this model to great effect,
realistic variation in human impedance and a large variation in while acknowledging its conservatism. The task of amplifi-
load impedance. We demonstrate our strategy on a one-degree cation exoskeletons, however, is to emulate a reduction in
of freedom amplification exoskeleton connected to a human
arm, following a three dimensional matrix of experimentation: mass. This can be achieved stably if the human model is
slow or fast human motion; light or extreme exoskeleton load; more precisely known [10] than just a passive assumption
and soft or clenched human arm impedances. We demonstrate but is acknowledged to be a challenging problem.
that a slightly aggressive controller results in a borderline stable One of the earliest known amplification-oriented exoskele-
system—but only for soft human musculoeskeletal behavior and ton1 is the hulking machine HARDIMAN I [11], which intro-
a heavy load. This class of exoskeleton systems is interesting
because it can both amplify a human’s interaction forces duced the world to the control challenges of exoskeletons,
—so long as the human contacts the environment through as it was never safe enough to power on both upper and
the exoskeleton— and attenuate the operator’s perception of lower body with an operator. Ref. [4], much later, conceived
the exoskeleton’s reflected dynamics at frequencies within the of extenders for industrial use with operators controlling
bandwidth of the control. much larger machines through force-sensitive interfaces—
I. I NTRODUCTION acknowledging a tradeoff between stability and performance
both in linear and robust-nonlinear models [4]. Ref. [12]
Long the purview of science fiction, exoskeletons are defined a performance criterion for such extenders using
quickly becoming a modern reality—augmenting the strength a matrix of amplification-levels; a critical frequency, since
of healthy operators as they walk and interact with the such amplification cannot be maintained at all frequencies;
world. A vast literature catalogs the breadth and history and introduced a stability filter that allowed the device
of the exoskeleton concept, with survey papers offering to ensure robustness to varied operator behavior. However,
disambiguation between such exoskeletons and the orthotic the later BLEEX exoskeleton from the same lab was not
systems designed for medical purposes [1], and between designed in this framework due to practical issues with force
“parallel-limb exoskeletons for load transfer” such as our sensors [13] and the discovery of an alternative strategy
type of system, and several other types that aim to help the using high sensitivity cancellation of the natural exoskeleton
human in a different sense [2] (by reducing the metabolic dynamics—which accomplished an apparent-mass reduction
cost of walking, for example [3]). Amplification exoskele- without the force sensors, at the cost of no longer amplifying
tons, like the concept of a “Human Extender” [4], interact human-world interaction forces (and extreme sensitivity to
with the world and the human operator at the same time, the dynamic model) [14].
with the world perceiving a strengthened operator, while
The strategy of measuring a network of force sensors on
the operator in feeling a weakened world and a lighter
the human alone, using them to determine human intent,
exoskeleton, all through the feedback action of the device
and then using a simulated ideal reaction to this intent as
in response to force-sensors embedded at the human–robot
input to a position controller is known as admittance control,
interface.
and it represents a slight departure from the human extender
With the human maintaining full control over the motion ideal: accurate reflection of the environmental forces to the
of the amplification exoskeleton, their primary challenge human takes a backseat, since there are no force sensors
is not so much autonomy as stable feedback control in for the environment. This is a very successful paradigm—
the presence of the difficult-to-model human and the un- at least in the absence of environmental contact—it works
certain environment. Humans possess naturally adjustable for giant gantry robots [15], complex upper body robots
This work was supported by the U.S. Government and NASA Space [16], the slow-yet-amplifying (full-) body extender [17],
Technology Research Fellowship NNX15AQ33H. Authors are with The
Departments of Mechanical Engineering (B.H., G.C.T.) and Aerospace Engi- 1 Which was in truth designed as a hydraulic teleoperation machine: the
neering (L.S.), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX and with Apptronik exoskeleton and the human were positionally decoupled—unlike amplifi-
Systems Inc (N.P.), Austin, TX. Send correspondence to 1 binghan at cation exoskeletons which have a shared position between machine and
utexas dot edu. operator.
TABLE I: List of symbols.
Kh , Bh , Mh : human stiffness, damping and inertia (rotary) τc , f c : contact torque (rotary) and force (linear)
kh , bh , mh , Zh : human stiffness, damping, inertia and impedance (linear) ωh , ζh : natural frequency and damping ratio of Zh
M̄e , M̃e , Me : inertias of exoskeleton, load and combined (rotary) α, fα : amplification factor and amplification force error (linear)
m̄e , m̃e , me : inertias of exoskeleton, load and combined (linear) Z̄e , Z̃e , Ze : impedances of exoskeleton, load and combined (linear)
Zh-e : combined impedance of human and loaded exoskeleton (linear) ωh-e , ζh-e : natural frequency and damping ratio of Zh-e
Zαh-e : combined impedance of amplified human and loaded exoskeleton (linear) ωαh-e , ζαh-e : natural frequency and damping ratio of Zαh-e
θ e , xe : exoskeleton joint angle (rotary) and position (linear) τe , f e : environment torque (rotary) and force (linear)
ks , Zs : spring stiffness and impedance (linear) τs , fs : actuator spring torque (rotary) and force (linear)
kss , bss , Zss : virtual spring stiffness, damping and impedance (linear) fr : reference spring force (linear)
ba , ma , Za : motor damping, inertia and impedance (linear) fa , fδ : motor and disturbance force (linear)
xa , xd : motor position and position command (linear) τd , f d : desired spring torque (rotary) and force (linear)
Zss-a : combined impedance of virtual spring and motor (linear) ωss-a , ζss-a : natural frequency and damping ratio of Zss-a
Ps , Pα : transfer functions: from fd to fs , from fd to fα Q, Cs , Cα : DoB filter, spring force and amplification force controller
uh , fext : biasing force from human and environment (linear) C, K : extender’s position and amplification controller
Fig. 2: Block diagram of spring force feedback, DoB and amplification force feedback. Dynamics of human, exoskeleton
and SEA are represented as a bond graph with effort sources fa , τc and τe .
space. Linear versions of rotary position variables are defined where Zss = Zs · [1 + Cs (s)] = bss + kss s−1 is the virtual
based on the joint-angle-dependent inverse kinematics: linear impedance of spring. By tuning the PD gains of Cs (s), the
actuator position xa , and linear exoskeleton position xe . We virtual spring stiffness of kss and the virtual spring damping
use the joint-angle-dependent transmission ratio r(θe ) : 1 to bss can be modified.
define linear versions of the rotational space parameters: If Zh-e is infinitely large, (9) simplifies to,
mh = Mh /r(θe )2 , bh = Bh /r(θe )2 , kh = Kh /r(θe )2 , m̄e = fs Zss
M̄e /r(θe )2 , m̃e = M̃e /r(θe )2 , me = m̄e + m̃e , fc = τc /r(θe ) = , (10)
fr Zss-a
and fe = τe /r(θe ). See list of symbols in Tab. I. where Zss-a = Zss + Za is the combined impedance of the
A. Human-Exoskeleton-Actuator Interaction virtual spring and the actuator.
We model the impedance of the human as in [10], Under the disturbance observer (DoB) of [24],
Zss-a
Zh = fc /ẋe = mh s + bh + kh s−1 , (1) fr = fd − [Q · · fs − Q · fr ], (11)
Zss
and the impedance of the unloaded exoskeleton, the load and where fd is the DoB spring force command and Q is a low-
the loaded exoskeleton, pass filter of sufficient order to ensure the observer is causal
Z̄e = ( fs − fc − fe )/ẋe = m̄e s, Z̃e = fe /ẋe = m̃e s, (2nd order in our analytical model, but 4th order in the low
(2) level firmware).
Ze = ( fs − fc )/ẋe = Z̄e + Z̃e = me s,
Combining (9) and (11), we obtain a transfer function
Together in series,
Ps (s) from fd to fs ,
Zh-e = Zh + Ze = fs /ẋe , (3) fs Zh-e · Zss
Ps (s) = = . (12)
represents a system in parallel with the elastic actuator. fd Zh-e · Zss + [Zh-e + (1 − Q) · Zs ] · Za
Considering the impedance of the spring, By tuning the cut-off frequency of Q, (10) is (approximately)
Zs = fs /(ẋa − ẋe ) = ks s−1 , (4) enforced without an infinitely large Zh-e —as explained in
and the impedance of the motor, [24], this approximation depends on a load inertia lower-
bound (in our case, the exoskeleton inertia).
Za = ( fa − fs )/ẋa = ma s + ba , (5)
III. L OOP S HAPING
motion of the whole system relates to the required input
force, Fig. 3 shows the amplification exoskeleton concept in
fa (Zh-e + Zs ) · Za comparison with the extender concept of [12]. We define the
= Zh-e + . (6)
ẋe Zs goal of an amplification exoskeleton to be reduction of both
This provides a human-dependent force-control plant, environmental and exoskeleton-dynamic load experienced by
fs Zh-e · Zs the user. This differs from an extender, which only seeks
= . (7) to reduce environmental forces—leaving the exoskeleton to
fa Zh-e · Zs + (Zh-e + Zs ) · Za
be handled by position control. In the extender, drive-train
B. Spring Force Control disturbance forces (from stick-slip friction and potentially
Under the spring force control shown in Fig. 2’s block nonbackdrivable gearing) fδ are attenuated by position con-
diagram bond graph, trol, while in our system they are attenuated by the DoB.
fa = fr +Cs (s) · ( fr − fs ), (8) Another important difference is our use of the fs signal in
place of fe ; the two are related through
where fr is the reference spring force and Cs (s) is a PD
1
controller. Combining (7) and (8), xe = ( fs − fe − fc ), (13)
fs Zh-e · Zss Z̄e s
= , (9) fe + Z̄e s · xe = fs − fc , (14)
fr Zh-e · Zss + (Zh-e + Zs ) · Za
(a) (c)
Human Human
− fc − fc
uh uh
+ +
Zh s α(s) Zh s α −1
P.C. Robot xd − fd − fα −
xe K(s) xe F.C. Robot Cα (s)
(Extender) − −
Z̃e s Z̃e s
+ + fs
fext fext
− fe − fe
Load Load
Fig. 3: Relation between extender concept (a) of [12], which used a position controlled robot (b) as the “extender” plant,
and our concept of the amplification exoskeleton (c) based on a series elastic actuated, force controlled robot (d).
Experiment Kh ( Nm Nms 2
rad ) Bh ( rad ) Mh + Me (kgm ) ζh-e |τd |(Nm)
The experiments in this section use the elbow-joint ex-
oskeleton testbed (Fig. 5(a)) with a SEA and a contact Exp. IV-A.1 7.44 0.56 0.09 + 0.10 0.24 2.0
sensor. The SEA includes a spring of ks = 796958 N/m and Exp. IV-A.2 70.11 1.60 0.09 + 0.10 0.22 5.0
a motor of ma = 250 kg and ba = 4500 Ns/m. The aluminum Exp. IV-A.3 31.91 1.84 0.09 + 0.57 0.20 4.0
exoskeleton arm has M̄e = 0.1 kgm2 and r(θe ) in the range Exp. IV-A.4 50.18 4.21 0.09 + 1.05 0.28 4.0
of [0.005, 0.025] m.
A. Chirp Signal Experiments (a) Magnitude (dB)
The human model identification (Fig. 5(b)) includes four
20
chirp signal experiments (Exp. IV-A.1-4) with a 27-year old
male subject. The subject wears the cuff of the contact sensor 0
and straps his upper arm to a fixed mount. A 300 second,
exponential chirp signal is provided as a torque command to −20
the low level force controller. The subject tries to hold the ex- 100 101 ω (rad/s) 102
oskeleton still—with various levels of attempted stiffness— (b) Phase (deg) Pα (s) Cα (s) Pα (s) ·Cα (s)
as the exoskeleton vibrates. The exoskeleton does not hit its 0
joint safety hard-stops in these experiments, and operator has
access to the system emergency stop at all times. −90
The time domain data (spring torque τs = fs · r(θe ) and
angle θe ) from the experiments are used to form a frequency −180
response function representing the human plus the exoskele- 100 101 ω (rad/s) 102
ton (Figs. 6 and 7). The value of Mh is identified by the
Fig. 8: Uncertain model of Pα (s) is made by 20 interpo-
asymptotic behavior at high frequency and the value of Bh
lations of Kh in the range of [7.44, 70.11] Nm/rad and 5
and Kh are identified by regressions with identified inertia.
interpolations of r(θe ) in the range of [0.005, 0.025] m. Me
B. Human Joint Stiffness and Damping is 1.05 kg · m2 . Time delay is 6 ms.
The joint stiffness is decided by contractions in the group
of muscles around the joint. By activating a higher level
(a) (b)
of contractions in flexor and extensor of elbow, the elbow Open Hand Closed Hand
stiffness can be increased [27]. Exp. IV-A.1 and Exp. IV-
A.2 identify the range of subject’s elbow Kh (Fig. 6). The
Tr
Tr
ig
ig
ge
ge
r
r
his hand into a fist to help him achieve a high stiffness and
leaves it open for soft behavior. This is also a convenient way Fig. 9: Step response with an aggressive controller was
to visually distinguish these two types of human behavior in triggered by releasing an external spring at the end of the
the rest of this paper. exoskeleton arm. The subject opens (a) (Exp. V-A.1) and
Although the stiffness of a human elbow can possibly closes (b) (Exp. V-A.2) his hand to illustrate different levels
go up to 400 Nm/rad, such stiffness is only possible with of muscle co-contraction (and therefore stiffness).
a perturbation of 40 Nm [28]. The chirp amplitude |τd | is
only 2 Nm in Exp. IV-A.1 and 5 Nm in Exp. IV-A.2 to
provide just enough perturbation of torque while the subject (a) 10 lb Load - Open Fist θe τc τ̂c
can still keep the exoskeleton within the safety joint limits. τ(Nm) θe (rad)
The results from Exp. 1-2 suggest that Kh varies within the 0 2.2
[7.44, 70.11] Nm/rad range. −5 2.0
Without additional inertia added to the exoskeleton and −10 1.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 t (s)
load, the human is able to maintain an invariant damping (b) 10 lb Load - Closed Fist
ratio of the arm [29]. However, the human is also able to τ(Nm) θe (rad)
adapt damping and stiffness to compensate the environment 0 2.2
dynamics [30]. We added a 5 lb and a 10 lb loads at 18 inches −5 2.0
from the joint on the exoskeleton in Exp. IV-A.3 and Exp. IV- −10 1.8
A.4 (Fig. 7). The results from the four experiments suggest 0 1 2 3 4 5 t (s)
that the human tends to maintain an invariant damping Fig. 10: Step response results: Exp. V-A.1 (a) and Exp. V-
ratio ζh-e of Zh-e when wearing the exoskeleton (Tab. II). A.2 (b). Because motion settles down early in (b), only the
Therefore, we model the human as a 1-parameter system. green highlighted region is used for estimating B̂h and K̂h .
With changing values of Kh and Me , we predict Bh
p
Bh = 2ζh-e Kh (Mh + Me ). (19)
The identified values of Kh , Bh and Mh (Tab. II) suggest the TABLE III: Aggressive controller tests.
value of ζh-e of the subject is around 0.23.
Experiment Load (lb) Hand K̂h ( Nm Nms
rad ) B̂h ( rad ) ζˆh-e
V. VALIDATION Exp. V-A.1 10 open 27.12 2.34 0.22
Considering the range of Kh , me and r(θe ), a model of Exp. V-A.2 10 closed 59.34 3.99 0.25
Pα (s) with uncertainty can be obtained and used for PI
(a) Magnitude (dB)
controller design for α = 10. In this section, an aggressive
controller and a robust controller are implemented to vali- 20
date the uncertain model and control strategy. Cs (s) is set
with kss = 2ks and bss = 0.039ks to achieve a high natural 0
frequency and damping ratio of Zss-a . The cut-off frequency
−20
of Q is set to be 40 Hz.
100 101 ω (rad/s) 102
A. Aggressive Controller (b) Phase (deg) Pα (s) Cα (s) Pα (s) ·Cα (s)
0
A controller with k p = 0.1 and z = 30 is implemented
with a load of 10 lb on the exoskeleton, the uncertain model
−90
suggests it makes the exoskeleton slightly unstable with a
low value of Kh but fully stable with a high value of Kh
−180
(Fig. 8).
To validate this prediction, the subject wearing the ex- 100 101 ω (rad/s) 102
oskeleton with the controller either opens his hand—for low Fig. 11: Uncertain model of Pα (s) is made by 20 inter-
values of Kh —or tightly closes his hand—for high stiffness polations of Kh in the range of [7.44, 70.11] Nm/rad, 20
Kh —in two separate experiments: Exp. V-A.1 and Exp. V- interpolations of Me in the range of [0.1, 1.05] kg · m2 , and 5
A.2 respectively. A spring with one end connected on the interpolations of r(θe ) in the range of [0.005, 0.025] m. Time
ground and the other end hanging on the end of the exoskele- delay is 6 ms.
ton is released at the beginning of each experiment—a step
input in external force. TABLE IV: Observed amplification in Exp. V-B-series.
The experiment results (Fig. 10) show that the exoskeleton
joint oscillates with a slowly increasing amplitude with open Load (lb) Hand | − ττcs | (static) | − ττcs | (1Hz) ∠ − ττcs (1Hz)
hand and oscillates but settles down in 2 seconds with
0 open 8.15 1.48 −53.55◦
closed hand. By using the data of τc , θe and θ̇e , a linear
0 closed 8.05 1.49 −53.68◦
regression is built to identify a simplified human model with
10 open 8.13 1.58 −53.39◦
only damping B̂h and stiffness K̂h (Tab. III). The value of
10 closed 8.18 1.46 −50.75◦
K̂h verifies that human maintains a much higher stiffness
with closed hand than open hand. The estimated contact
torques τ̂c = B̂h θ̇e + K̂h θe are well matched to the measured
τc (Fig. 10)—which confirms that the system is oscillating The results show little influence on amplification tracking
despite a passive, spring-damper-like,phuman behavior. The from the variation of Zh and Me , as expected.
estimated damping ratio ζˆh-e = B̂h /(2 K̂h Me ) for open hand
is slightly lower than 0.23 and makes the system more VI. D ISCUSSION
unstable than the prediction.
Amplification exoskeletons, seeking to amplify the
B. Robust Controller strength of the human as it interacts both with the en-
vironment and the inertia of the robot itself, represent a
We also implemented a controller with k p = 0.1 and
new control problem first addressed in this paper. This
z = 10 for improved robustness to parameter variation in
control problem bears greater similarity to aggressive force
the exoskeleton load, and human stiffness (and damping).
control than it does to traditional means of exoskeleton
The uncertain model suggests it maintains a phase margin
control, and our results corroborate [10] in demonstrating
no less than 10◦ for permissible values of Kh , Me , and r(θe )
that the variability in human stiffness must be accounted
(Fig. 11).
for in designing the controller. Our control strategy leaves
To validate the expectation, the experiments include two
exoskeleton designers with a trade-off between high ampli-
different Me (with 0 and 10 lb load) and two different Kh
fication factors, high bandwidth of the amplification error
(open and closed hands). The subject generates motion with
attenuation function, and accurate knowledge of the human
0.1 Hz trapezoid-like wave for steady state tests and 1 Hz
stiffness limits.
sinusoid-like wave for dynamic tests. We refer to these eight
experiments as the Exp. V-B-series.
R EFERENCES
The integrator in the controller is implemented as a pole
p = 0.01 to numerically integrate fα . Because the amplifica- [1] A. M. Dollar and H. Herr, “Lower extremity exoskeletons and ac-
tion tracking relies mostly on Cα (s), a static gain of 8.18 and tive orthoses: challenges and state-of-the-art,” IEEE Transactions on
Robotics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 144–158, 2008.
a 1 Hz dynamic gain of 1.42 with phase shift of −56.94◦ [2] H. Herr, “Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges
are expected for − ffcs (or − ττcs in joint space ). and future directions,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilita-
The experiment results (Fig. 12) verify that the exoskele- tion, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 21, 2009.
ton is stable with all eight settings. The values of gain and
phase shift are also close to the expected values (Tab. IV).
(a) 0 Load - Open Fist θe −τc τs (e) 0 Load - Open Fist
τ(Nm) θe (rad) τ(Nm) θe (rad)
2 2.5 2 2.5
0 2.0 0 2.0
−2 1.5 −2 1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s)
(b) 0 Load - Closed Fist (f) 0 Load - Closed Fist
τ(Nm) θe (rad) τ(Nm) θe (rad)
2 2.5 2 2.5
0 2.0 0 2.0
−2 1.5 −2 1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s)
(c) 10 lb Load - Open Fist (g) 10 lb Load - Open Fist
τ(Nm) θe (rad) τ(Nm) θe (rad)
20 2.5 20 2.5
10 10
0 2.0 0 2.0
−10 1.5 −10 1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s)
(d) 10 lb Load - Closed Fist (h) 10 lb Load - Closed Fist
τ(Nm) θe (rad) τ(Nm) θe (rad)
20 2.5 20 2.5
10 10
0 2.0 0 2.0
−10 1.5 −10 1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 t (s)
Fig. 12: Results from the eight Exp. V-B-series tests. Steady state tests (a)-(d) and dynamic tests (e)-(f) are processed from
the subject. Only data in the green highlighted regions are used for calculating the static gain.
[3] S. Lee, J. Kim, L. Baker, A. Long, N. Karavas, N. Menard, [17] M. Fontana, R. Vertechy, S. Marcheschi, F. Salsedo, and M. Bergam-
I. Galiana, and C. J. Walsh, “Autonomous multi-joint soft exosuit with asco, “The body extender: A full-body exoskeleton for the transport
augmentation-power-based control parameter tuning reduces energy and handling of heavy loads,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine,
cost of loaded walking,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabili- vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 34–44, 2014.
tation, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 66, 2018. [18] S. C. Jacobsen and M. X. Olivier, “Contact displacement actuator
[4] H. Kazerooni, “Human-robot interaction via the transfer of power system,” Sep. 30 2014, uS Patent 8,849,457.
and information signals,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and [19] H.-D. Lee, B.-K. Lee, W.-S. Kim, J.-S. Han, K.-S. Shin, and C.-
Cybernetics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 450–463, 1990. S. Han, “Human–robot cooperation control based on a dynamic
[5] N. Hogan, “Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation model of an upper limb exoskeleton for human power amplification,”
of antagonist muscles,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 168–176, 2014.
vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 681–690, 1984. [20] A. Q. Keemink, H. van der Kooij, and A. H. Stienen, “Admittance con-
[6] J. E. Colgate and N. Hogan, “Robust control of dynamically interacting trol for physical human–robot interaction,” The International Journal
systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 65–88, of Robotics Research, p. 0278364918768950, 2017.
1988. [21] K. Kong and M. Tomizuka, “Control of exoskeletons inspired by
[7] N. Hogan, “Controlling impedance at the man/machine interface,” in fictitious gain in human model,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mecha-
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1989 IEEE International Conference tronics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 689–698, 2009.
on. IEEE, 1989, pp. 1626–1631. [22] T. Boaventura and J. Buchli, “Acceleration-based transparency con-
[8] J. E. Colgate and J. M. Brown, “Factors affecting the z-width of trol framework for wearable robots,” in Biomedical Robotics and
a haptic display,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1994 IEEE Biomechatronics (BioRob), 2016 IEEE International Conference on.
International Conference on. IEEE, 1994, pp. 3205–3210. ETH Zürich, 2016.
[9] R. J. Adams and B. Hannaford, “Stable haptic interaction with vir- [23] D. Zanotto, Y. Akiyama, P. Stegall, and S. K. Agrawal, “Knee joint
tual environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, misalignment in exoskeletons for the lower extremities: Effects on
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 465–474, 1999. user’s gait,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 978–
[10] S. P. Buerger and N. Hogan, “Complementary stability and loop 987, 2015.
shaping for improved human–robot interaction,” IEEE Transactions [24] N. Paine, S. Oh, and L. Sentis, “Design and control considerations for
on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 232–244, 2007. high-performance series elastic actuators,” IEEE/ASME Transactions
[11] J. B. Makinson, D. P. Bodine, and B. R. Fick, “Machine augmentation on Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1080–1091, 2014.
of human strength and endurance Hardiman I prototype project,” [25] K. Kong, J. Bae, and M. Tomizuka, “Control of rotary series elastic
Specialty Materials Handling Products Operation, General Electric actuator for ideal force-mode actuation in human–robot interaction
Company, Tech. Rep., 1969. applications,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 14,
[12] H. Kazerooni and J. Guo, “Human extenders,” Journal of Dynamic no. 1, pp. 105–118, 2009.
Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 115, no. 2B, pp. 281–290, [26] H. Kazerooni and T. J. Snyder, “Case study on haptic devices: Human-
1993. induced instability in powered hand controllers,” Journal of Guidance,
[13] H. Kazerooni, J.-L. Racine, L. Huang, and R. Steger, “On the control Control, and Dynamics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 108–113, 1995.
of the berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton (bleex),” in Robotics and [27] S. C. Cannon and G. I. Zahalak, “The mechanical behavior of active
Automation (ICRA), 2005 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, human skeletal muscle in small oscillations,” Journal of Biomechanics,
2005, pp. 4353–4360. vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 111–121, 1982.
[28] J. M. Lanman, “Movement and the mechanical properties of the intact
[14] H. Kazerooni, “Exoskeletons for human power augmentation,” in
human elbow joint.” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2005 IEEE/RSJ International
Technology, 1980.
Conference on. IEEE, 2005, pp. 3459–3464.
[29] E. J. Perreault, R. F. Kirsch, and P. E. Crago, “Multijoint dynamics and
[15] A. Lecours, B. M. St-Onge, and C. Gosselin, “Variable admittance
postural stability of the human arm,” Experimental Brain Research,
control of a four-degree-of-freedom intelligent assist device.” in
vol. 157, no. 4, pp. 507–517, 2004.
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference
[30] T. E. Milner and C. Cloutier, “Compensation for mechanically unstable
on, 2012, pp. 3903–3908.
loading in voluntary wrist movement,” Experimental Brain Research,
[16] W. Yu and J. Rosen, “Neural pid control of robot manipulators with vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 522–532, 1993.
application to an upper limb exoskeleton,” IEEE Transactions on
Cybernetics, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 673–684, 2013.