↓ Skip to main content

Exoskeleton assistance symmetry matters: unilateral assistance reduces metabolic cost, but relatively less than bilateral assistance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exoskeleton assistance symmetry matters: unilateral assistance reduces metabolic cost, but relatively less than bilateral assistance
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12984-018-0381-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Malcolm, Samuel Galle, Pieter Van den Berghe, Dirk De Clercq

Abstract

Many gait impairments are characterized by asymmetry and result in reduced mobility. Exoskeletons could be useful for restoring gait symmetry by assisting only one leg. However, we still have limited understanding of the effects of unilateral exoskeleton assistance. Our aim was to compare the effects of unilateral and bilateral assistance using a within-subject study design. Eleven participants walked in different exoskeleton conditions. In the Unilateral conditions, only one leg was assisted. In Bilateral Matched Total Work, half of the assistance from the Unilateral conditions was applied to both legs such that the bilateral sum was equal to that of the Unilateral conditions. In Bilateral Matched Work Per Leg, the same assistance as in the Unilateral conditions was provided to both legs such that the bilateral sum was the double of that of the Unilateral conditions. In the Powered-Off condition, no assistance was provided. We measured metabolic energy consumption, exoskeleton mechanics and kinematics. On average, the Unilateral, Bilateral Matched Total Work and Bilateral Matched Work Per Leg conditions reduced the metabolic rate by 7, 11 and 15%, respectively, compared with the Powered-Off condition. A possible explanation for why the Unilateral conditions effectively reduced the metabolic rate could be that they caused only very little asymmetry in gait biomechanics, except at the ankle and in the horizontal center-of-mass velocity. We found the highest ratio of metabolic rate reduction versus positive work assistance with bilateral assistance and low work per leg (Bilateral Matched Total Work). Statistical analysis indicated that assistance symmetry and assistance per leg are more important than the bilateral summed assistance for reducing the metabolic rate of walking. These data bridge the gap between conclusions from studies with unilateral and bilateral exoskeletons and inform how unilateral assistance can be used to influence gait parameters, such as center-of-mass velocity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 22 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 41 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2019.
All research outputs
#13,624,398
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#658
of 1,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,774
of 331,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#17
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.