Proceedings  of  the  ASME  2018  International  Design  Engineering  Technical  Conferences  and  Computers  and  

Information  in  Engineering  Conference  

IDETC2018  
August  26-­29,  2018,  Quebec  City,  Quebec,  Canada  

DETC2018-­85234  

ELECTROMECHANICAL  DESIGN  OF  ROBOTIC  TRANSFEMORAL  PROSTHESES  

Brock  Laschowski   Jan  Andrysek  

Institute  of  Biomaterials  and  Biomedical  Engineering   Bloorview  Research  Institute  
University  of  Toronto   Holland  Bloorview  Kids  Rehabilitation  Hospital  
Toronto,  Ontario,  Canada   Toronto,  Ontario  Canada  
Email:  brock.laschowski@mail.utoronto.ca     Email:  jandrysek@hollandbloorview.ca  
ASME  Student  Member   ASME  Member  
 

ABSTRACT   execute the aforementioned movements which necessitate

Alongside promising advances in biomechatronics, the
following research presents the first documented investigation
reviewing the electromechanical system designs of
energetically-powered (i.e., robotic) prostheses for patients
with transfemoral amputations. The technical review begins
with examining the material and mechanical designs, and
electrical batteries incorporated into robotic transfemoral
prostheses. The actuation systems have encompassed
electromagnetic actuators (i.e., occasionally featuring series
elastic elements), pneumatic actuators (i.e., pneumatic
cylinders and pneumatic artificial muscles), and hydraulic
actuators. Various wearable sensors have been utilized to
provide closed-loop feedback control, including
electromechanical sensors, surface electromyography, and
bioinspired machine vision systems. The Össur Power Knee
(i.e., the only commercially-available powered transfemoral
prosthesis) is additionally discussed. The technical review
concludes with suggesting prospective future directions for
innovation, specifically lower-limb prostheses capability of
electrical energy regeneration.
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  AND  BACKGROUND   engineering databases, specifically: IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE,
Commercially-available transfemoral prostheses have
traditionally been energetically-passive (i.e., using mechanical
friction, and hydraulic and pneumatic-based dampers). While
the biological knee primarily dissipates mechanical energy
during level-ground walking, many passive transfemoral
prostheses have afforded walking biomechanics resembling
that of able-bodied persons [1]. Nevertheless, the incapacity of
passive devices to generate positive mechanical power
significantly impedes patients’ abilities to effectively execute
stair/slope ascent and standing from a seated position [1-7].
Energetically-powered prostheses, otherwise termed active or
robotic prostheses, enable transfemoral amputee patients to
significant amounts of positive mechanical work about the
knee joint. The first documented robotic transfemoral
prosthesis originated from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (USA) during the 1970s [8-10]. Robotic lower-
limb prostheses inherently encompass biomimetic design
principles, whereby i) the actuators and mechanical structure
simulate the human musculoskeletal system, ii) the sensors
and microprocessor simulate the peripheral and central
nervous systems, respectively, and iii) the electrical batteries
simulate the metabolic energy sources [1]. Robotic
transfemoral prostheses comprise energetically-powered knee
joints, together with either powered or passive ankle joints.
Research engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology in Zurich (Switzerland) have recently published a
scientific review discussing the different intelligent control
systems embedded into robotic lower-limb prostheses and
exoskeletons [11]. Extending upon their investigation, the
objective of the following technical review was to examine the
electromechanical system designs (i.e., actuation, power, and
sensor systems) of robotic transfemoral prostheses. Literature
searches were conducted in prominent scientific and
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Passive transfemoral
prostheses, both mechanical and microprocessor controlled,
were excluded from the following technical review.
2.  MECHATRONIC  SYSTEMS  DESIGN    
2.1  JOINT  MECHANISMS    
The biological human knee theoretically has six kinematic
degrees-of-freedom, permitting tri-axial displacements and
rotations. Many engineers have designed prosthetic knee
mechanisms using single degree-of-freedom revolute joints,
which contain fixed instantaneous centers of rotation [12-16].

1 Copyright © 2018 by ASME

Few robotic transfemoral prostheses have included mechanical be achievable with alternative power sources like hydrocarbon
linkages like four-bar mechanisms. Similar to the biological fuel-based electrical generators [25].
knee, four-bar mechanisms contain instantaneous centers of
rotation that change with the joint angular displacements [12]. 3.  ACTUATION  SYSTEMS    
These mechanisms more accurately model the mechanical The actuation systems of robotic transfemoral prostheses
structure of the biological knee whereby two of the linkages have included electromagnetic actuators (i.e., occasionally
simulate the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments. featuring series elastic elements), pneumatic actuators (i.e.,
Nonetheless, Pfeifer et al [12] demonstrated that robotic pneumatic cylinders and pneumatic artificial muscles), and
transfemoral prostheses comprising single revolute joints, hydraulic actuators. An important design challenge for
compared to four-bar mechanisms, more accurately simulated engineers involves computing the optimal actuator mechanical
able-bodied knee joint moments during various ambulatory power. Underestimating the needed actuator power could
movements. impede patients’ abilities to effectively execute ambulatory
movements like staircase ascent. Nevertheless, overestimating
2.2  DEVICE  MASS  AND  MATERIALS     the needed actuator power could bring about heavyweight
Taking into account the limitations in existing lower-limb devices, similarly impeding patients’ abilities to ambulate.
prosthesis-residuum interfacing, system design optimizations
of robotic transfemoral prostheses often include minimizing
device weight [17]. The average mass of robotic transfemoral
prostheses has been 4.0 ± 1.1 kg [1-4, 6-7, 12-13, 18-41]. The
lightest documented robotic transfemoral prosthesis, from Dr.
Tommaso Lenzi at the University of Utah (USA), weighed
approximately 1.7 kg [19-20]. In comparison, the combined
mass of the biological shank and foot body segments of 50th
percentile American males (i.e., weighting 78-kg) are
approximately 4.8 kg. Few robotic transfemoral prostheses
have considered simulating the center of mass positions and/or
moments of inertia of the amputated biological limbs. Using
inverse dynamics biomechanical gait modelling, Beckerle et al
[13] demonstrated that moderately changing the lower-limb
moments of inertia significantly affected the required actuator
mechanical power from the simulated transfemoral prostheses.
The weights of robotic lower-limb prostheses are contingent
upon the material composition. Most mechanical structures
have comprised aluminum alloy [6, 42-43], specifically 7075
aluminums [16, 27, 33-37, 44] or 6061 aluminums [4, 40-41].

2.3  ELECTRICAL  BATTERIES      

An important caveat of robotic lower-limb prostheses,
compared to energetically-passive devices, includes their
limited operational autonomy. Most nontethered, robotic
transfemoral prostheses have utilized onboard rechargeable
lithium-polymer batteries [1, 4, 6-7, 13, 16, 23-24, 26, 30, 36-
38, 42-43, 45-51]; other designs have employed rechargeable
lithium-ion batteries [20, 27, 29]. The energy densities of such
power systems have ranged from 108 W×h/kg [25] to 190
W×h/kg [44] (i.e., average of 163 ± 33 W×h/kg) [6, 25, 38, 44].
The maximum electrical power consumptions of robotic
transfemoral prostheses during level-ground walking have
varied between 8 W [6] and 85 W [27] (i.e., average of 43 ±
30 W) [6, 16, 27, 36-38], depending upon the elected system.
Such devices could theoretically sustain continuous operation
between 1.5 hours [27] and 8.7 hours [30] (i.e., average of 3.1
± 2.2 hours) [16, 27, 30, 36-37, 50-51] and walking distances
between 4.4 km [44] and 40 km [30] (i.e., average of 11 ± 10
km) [16, 27, 30, 36-38, 44]. Longer walking distances might
Figure 1. Robotic transfemoral prosthesis with brushless DC
machine actuators. Photograph courtesy of Dr. Robert Riener,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (Switzerland).
3.1  ELECTROMAGNETIC  ACTUATION      
Most robotic transfemoral prostheses have incorporated
electromagnetic actuators, specifically direct current (DC)
electric machines [1, 3-7, 12-16, 18-21, 23-27, 29-32, 36-39,
42-65]. Engineers have utilized both brushed DC machines [3-
4, 6-7, 16, 23-24, 42-43, 52] and brushless DC machines [1,
18, 20, 26-27, 29-30, 32, 36-37, 39, 45-49, 54-57, 59-60, 65]
(see Figure 1). Many of these DC electric machines were
commercially manufactured from Maxon Motor (Switzerland)
and have encompassed the following models: Maxon EC30 [6,

2 Copyright © 2018 by ASME

21-22, 36-37], Maxon RE40 [3-4, 6, 16, 20, 23-24, 52, 63],
Maxon EC 4-Pole [19, 27, 30, 48-49, 55], and Maxon EC30 4-
Pole [12, 18, 29, 59]. Electric machines inherently generate
low torques and high angular velocities. Mechanical power
transmissions have been employed to increase the torque
outputs to that required for effective human locomotion. Most
mechanical transmissions of robotic transfemoral prostheses
have comprised ball-screw mechanisms [3-7, 12, 16, 18-21,
23-25, 30, 36-37, 42-46, 50, 52, 61-64] (see Figure 2). Though
DC machines, together with electrical batteries, are currently
the most prevalent actuation system of robotic transfemoral
prostheses, these systems generally contain low power and
energy densities, thereby yielding heavyweight devices.
Figure 2. Robotic transfemoral prosthesis with ball-screw
mechanism power transmission. Photograph courtesy of Dr.
Helen Huang, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and
North Carolina State University (USA).
3.1.1  SERIES  ELASTIC  ELEMENTS       additional attempts to actuate transfemoral prostheses using
Augmenting electromagnetic actuators with series elastic
elements (e.g., mechanical springs) has become increasingly
more popular amongst robotic transfemoral prostheses [6-7,
18, 30-31, 39, 42-43, 59, 66-71]. These bioinspired actuation
systems more accurately simulate the dynamics of biological
skeletal muscles (i.e., characterized through Hill-based
mathematical muscle models featuring both active contractile
and series elastic elements) [72]. Compared to electromagnetic
actuators, robotic transfemoral prostheses comprising series
elastic actuators have required less actuator mechanical work
during level-ground walking (i.e., 14 to 39 % lower) and
running (i.e., 37 to 75 % lower) [68]. Supplementing
electromagnetic actuators with series elastic elements can
minimize the needed actuator torque (i.e., permitting smaller
DC machines) and electrical power (i.e., permitting smaller
electrical batteries) [67, 72].
Notable advances in transfemoral prosthesis actuation
using series elastic actuators have come from Dr. Hugh Herr
and the Biomechatronics Group at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (USA) [6-7, 30, 42-43, 59, 69-71]. Their
original prototype included two unidirectional antagonistic
series elastic actuators, each comprising a DC machine, ball-
screw mechanism, and series elastic element [6-7, 42-43, 71].
A subsequent generation prototype incorporated continuously
variable transmission [59]. Their latest prototype included an
electromagnetic clutch arranged in parallel with the electric
machine [30, 69]. The clutchable series elastic actuator
consumed approximately 70 % less electrical energy than the
series elastic actuator [69]. Contrasting mechanical springs,
Dr. Heike Vallery at the Delft University of Technology (The
Netherlands) and Dr. Robert Riener at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in Zurich (Switzerland) have recently
designed a robotic transfemoral prosthesis containing rubber
cords [18]. Rubber cords generally have lower masses than
mechanical springs of comparable stiffness, thereby enabling
lighter system designs [18].
3.2  PNEUMATIC  ACTUATION      
3.2.1  PNEUMATIC  CYLINDERS      
The incorporation of pneumatic cylinder actuators into
robotic transfemoral prostheses originated from Dr. Frank Sup
and Dr. Michael Goldfarb at Vanderbilt University (USA) [33-
35]. Their prototype device was tethered to an external
nitrogen-based pressure source, with off-board electronics and
computation [33-35]. The actuation system included double-
acting cylinders, wherein force from the compressed nitrogen
displaced a piston rod during extension and retraction strokes.
Flow to the pneumatic cylinders was controlled using servo
valves. The cylinder diameters and stroke lengths were 3.8 cm
and 7.6 cm, respectively [33-35]. Designing an untethered
system would have required onboard propellant cartridges and
catalyst packs in replacement of the pneumatic tether, which
purportedly would have added approximately 0.9 kg [35].
Based upon the authors’ best knowledge, there have been no
pneumatic cylinders.
3.2.2  PNEUMATIC  ARTICIAL  MUSCLES        
Several engineers have actuated transfemoral prostheses
using pneumatic artificial muscles [2, 40-41, 73]. Pneumatic
artificial muscles, otherwise termed McKibben actuators,
encompass elastic tubes that expand radially when inflated
with compressed gas, thereby shortening lengthwise (i.e.,
contracting) and pulling on an external load [2, 40-41, 73].
3 Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Notable advances in transfemoral prosthesis actuation using Table 1. Wearable electromechanical sensors embedded into
pneumatic artificial muscles have come from Dr. Xiangrong robotic transfemoral prostheses.
Shen at the University of Alabama (USA) [2, 40-41, 73].
Pneumatic artificial muscles have been commercially- Electromechanical Publications
manufactured from Shadow Robot (UK) and Festo Company Sensors
(Germany). Compared to traditional actuation systems (e.g., Potentiometers [50, 61, 63-64, 74-76]
electromagnetic), pneumatic artificial muscles possess higher Magnetic Encoders [20, 27-28, 39, 55, 61, 63-64, 66,
power densities and comparable elastic properties to biological 75-76]
skeletal muscles. For instance, pneumatic artificial muscles Strain Gauge Load [20, 26, 29, 36, 38, 41, 44, 51,
have demonstrated maximum power densities between 1.5 Cells 57, 61, 63, 66, 74-83]
kW/kg and 10 kW/kg, which are significantly more than those Inertial Measurement [20, 26, 28-30, 39, 42-43, 45-46,
of pneumatic cylinders (i.e., 0.4 kW/kg) and DC machines Units 48, 50, 57, 74-76, 80, 82-84]
(i.e., 0.1 kW/kg) [2, 40-41]. Pneumatic artificial muscles are
single-acting actuators, generating only contractile pulling
forces. Two antagonistic actuators are therefore required for 4.2  SURFACE  ELECTROMYOGRAPHY      
bidirectional actuation of joints [2, 40-41, 73]. The electrical potentials of biological skeletal muscles can
be experimentally recorded using surface electromyography
3.3  HYDRAULIC  ACTUATION       and subsequently employed to control robotic transfemoral
Hydraulic actuation systems can generate substantial prostheses [3, 5, 15-16, 21-24, 58, 62-63, 72, 74, 76, 80-82,
forces considering that liquids are effectively incompressible. 84, 86-92] (see Figure 3). Table 2 summarizes the different
These systems generally contain pressurized reservoirs, gear biological skeletal muscles that have been utilized. Combining
pumps, DC machines, valves, and hydraulic cylinders with electromechanical sensors with surface electromyography,
piston rods. The earliest documented electrohydraulically- termed neuromuscular-mechanical data fusion, for controlling
actuated transfemoral prosthesis originated from Dr. Woodie robotic transfemoral prostheses has become increasingly more
Flowers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) popular amongst system designs [22, 63, 74, 80-82, 84, 87, 89,
during the 1970s [8-10]. The prototype device was tethered to 91-92]. Such applications of neuromuscular-mechanical data
an off-board hydraulic pressure source [8-10]. The actuation fusion originated from Dr. Helen Huang at the University of
system encompassed a single-acting hydraulic cylinder, North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State
wherein pressurized fluid was applied to one side of the piston University (USA) [81].
rod while an elastic spring provided the retraction stroke. Flow
from a gear pump to the hydraulic cylinder was controlled Table 2. Electromyographic-recorded skeletal muscles utilized
through an electrohydraulic servo valve. The gear pump was to control robotic transfemoral prostheses.
powered with an electric machine. Though hydraulic cylinders
generally possess the highest power densities amongst Skeletal Muscles Publications
traditional actuation systems, these actuators are particularly Semitendinosus [58, 74, 76, 80-82, 84, 87, 90]
vulnerable to fluid leakages [40-41, 73]. Adductor Magnus [22, 58, 74, 76, 80-82, 84, 87, 90]
Tensor Fasciae Latae [22, 58, 74, 76, 80, 82, 84, 87, 90]
4.  WEARABLE  SENSOR  SYSTEMS       Sartorius [22, 74, 76, 80-81, 84, 87, 90]
Vastus Medialis [22, 58, 74, 76, 80-81, 84, 90]
4.1  ELECTROMECHANICAL  SENSORS       Vastus Lateralis [5, 16, 22, 58, 74, 80-81, 84, 87, 90]
Electromechanical sensors have been employed to provide Biceps Femoris [5, 16, 22, 58, 62, 74, 76, 80-81, 84,
feedback to the onboard microprocessor controller regarding 87, 90]
the device mechanics, thereby simulating how the biological Rectus Femoris [22, 58, 62, 74, 80-82, 84, 87, 90]
proprioceptors and mechanoreceptors provide kinematic and Gluteus Medius [81, 91]
dynamic feedback to the central nervous system, respectively. Gracilis [22, 74, 76, 80-81, 84, 87, 89]
Table 1 presents the different electromechanical sensors that
have been embedded into robotic transfemoral prostheses. 4.3  OPTICAL  SENSORS      
These sensors experimentally determined knee joint angular Several engineers have recently incorporated bioinspired
velocities [22, 28-30, 32, 35, 38, 45-46, 48, 51, 60-61, 63, 74, machine vision systems into robotic transfemoral prostheses,
76, 78, 80, 82-86], knee joint angular displacements [1, 22, including Dr. Levi Hargrove at the Rehabilitation Institute of
26-30, 32, 35, 38-39, 45-46, 48, 51, 55, 57, 60-61, 63, 74, 76- Chicago (USA) and Dr. Helen Huang at the University of
78, 80, 82-87], resultant ground reaction forces [1, 20, 22, 26, North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State
29, 32, 36, 38, 41, 48, 57, 60-61, 63, 66, 74-75, 77-79, 81-84], University (USA) [58, 89, 91-94]. Augmenting neuromuscular-
prosthesis-residuum contact dynamics [35-36, 44, 51, 78, 86, mechanical data with knowledge about the surrounding
88], and lower-limb segment orientations in three-dimensional walking environment could improve the control of robotic
space [1, 39, 45-46, 85]. lower-limb prostheses considering that humans utilize visual

4 Copyright © 2018 by ASME

feedback for motor control during ambulatory movements.
Preliminary research simulating oncoming environments using
Bayesian prior probabilities demonstrated that including such
information significantly improved the intelligent controller
when compared to excluding the prior probabilities [89, 91].
Environment recognition systems have comprised laser-based
optical proximity sensors alongside inertial measurement units
[58, 89, 92]. Such distance measurements were utilized to
approximate the geometry of the oncoming environments,
subsequently providing feedback to predict forthcoming
actuator torque requirements [58, 89, 92]. Other environment
recognition systems have incorporated head-mounted digital
cameras that captured two-dimensional photographs of the
forward topography [93-94].
Figure 3. Robotic transfemoral prosthesis with surface
electromyography-based intelligent control. Photograph
courtesy of Dr. Helen Huang, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University (USA).
5.  ÖSSUR  POWER  KNEE       mechanical impendences). The low-level controllers compute
All the aforementioned information pertains to robotic
transfemoral prostheses in research and development. The
Össur Power Knee (Iceland), released in 2007, represents the
first and only commercially-available powered transfemoral
prosthesis. The Power Knee has direct drive electromagnetic
actuation, aluminum alloy material, weighs approximately 3.2
kg, and includes 50 V rechargeable lithium-polymer batteries
[95]. The Power Knee provides between 5 and 7 hours of
continuous operation autonomy, depending upon the activity
usage [95]. The Power Knee purportedly utilizes high-level
echo control [16]. Echo control involves closed-loop feedback
control whereby the prosthetic knee tracks the angular
kinematics of the contralateral biological knee, the quantities
of which are experimentally measured using wearable sensors.
Several clinical investigations involving the Power Knee
have been conducted with transfemoral amputee patients [95-
99]. When tested against commercially-available semi-active
transfemoral prostheses, patients generally preferred the semi-
active devices over the Össur Power Knee [95-97]. Subjective
feedback indicated that the Power Knee’s substantial weight
and limited battery lifespan were the main deterrents to
continued usage [95-97]. The additional mass was particularly
bothersome when lifting or shifting the prosthesis while seated
[97]. Based upon the authors’ best knowledge, the Power Knee
has not been experimentally tested against non-commercial
robotic transfemoral prostheses.
6.  DISCUSSION  AND  CONCLUSION        
6.1  RESEARCH  SYNOPSIS    
The objective of the present research was to investigate
the electromechanical system designs (i.e., actuation, power,
and sensor systems) of energetically-powered prostheses for
patients with transfemoral amputations. The technical review
begins with examining the material and mechanical designs,
and electrical batteries incorporated into robotic transfemoral
prostheses. The actuation systems have encompassed
electromagnetic actuators (i.e., together with series elastic
elements), pneumatic actuators (i.e., pneumatic cylinders and
pneumatic artificial muscles), and hydraulic actuators. Various
wearable sensors have been employed to provide closed-loop
feedback control, including electromechanical sensors, surface
electromyography, and bioinspired machine vison systems.
Research engineers from the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology in Zurich (Switzerland) have recently published a
scientific review discussing the different intelligent control
systems embedded into robotic lower-limb prostheses and
exoskeletons [11]. To summarize, most robotic lower-limb
prostheses have encompassed hierarchical control systems,
including high, medium, and low-level controllers [11]. The
high-level controllers recognize the patient’s locomotive intent
through analyzing data from wearable sensors. The medium-
level controllers convert the estimated locomotive intent into
desired device mechanics (e.g., knee joint kinematics and
the error between the device’s current and desired mechanics,
and subsequently drive the actuators to minimize the error.
The most prevalent high-level controllers utilized in robotic
lower-limb prostheses have comprised echo control, state
identification control, and proportional myoelectric control.
For further information on these different intelligent control
systems, the authors recommend reading the previous review
from the Switzerland group [11].
5 Copyright © 2018 by ASME
6.2  FUTURE  DIRECTIONS       Summer Bioengineering Conference. DOI: 10.1115/SBC2011-
Taking into account the geometric and mass constraints of
biomimetic lower-limb prostheses, the finite energy densities
of rechargeable batteries and the considerable electricity
requirements of energetically-powered devices generally bring
about two prominent shortcomings: increased weight and
limited operating times. Regenerative braking represents a
promising design solution to the aforementioned deficiencies
[52, 100-105]. Regenerative braking involves converting the
mechanical energy that would have otherwise been dissipated
as thermal energy during human locomotion into electrical
energy for progressively recharging the onboard electrical
batteries, while simultaneously providing negative mechanical
work for effective braking control. Such electromechanical
system designs resemble the energy regeneration methods in
hybrid and electric vehicles. Though several design engineers
have considered implementing energy regeneration into
robotic transfemoral prostheses, specifically Dr. Hugh Herr at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) [6-7, 30] and
Dr. Michael Goldfarb at Vanderbilt University (USA) [27, 36-
37, 48], limited information regarding their electricity
generation capabilities has been disseminated. Future research
should consider optimizing the electromechanical system
designs of robotic transfemoral prostheses to minimize the
device weight and/or extend the prospective operating times
through incorporating regenerative braking technology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS   SACH Foot Design,” Journal of Biomechanics, 20, pp. 19-28.
The present research was funded via the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Postgraduate
Doctoral Scholarship and Discovery Grant) and the Holland
Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital. The authors thank Dr.
John McPhee, Professor of Systems Design Engineering at the
University of Waterloo and Tier I Canada Research Chair in
Biomechatronic System Dynamics, for his assistance. The
authors moreover recognize the following individuals for their
support: Dr. Xiangrong Shen, Dr. Robert Riener, Dr. Tommaso
Lenzi, Dr. Brian Lawson, Dr. Elliott Rouse, Dr. Robert Gregg,
Dr. Michael Goldfarb, Dr. Helen Huang, Dr. Frank Sup, and
Dr. Aaron Ames.
REFERENCES   O., and Rinderknecht, S., 2015, “Analyzing and Considering
[1] Goldfarb, M., 2013, “Consideration of Powered
Prosthetic Components as They Relate to Microprocessor
Knee Systems,” Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. DOI:
10.1097/JPO.0b013e3182a8953e.
[2] Driver, T., Wu, S, K., and Shen, X., 2010, “A
Pneumatic Muscle-Actuated Transfemoral Prosthesis,” ASME
Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. DOI:
10.1115/DSCC2012-MOVIC2012-8771.
[3] Hoover, C, D., and Fite, K, B., 2010, “Preliminary
Evaluation of Myoelectric Control of an Active Transfemoral
Prosthesis during Stair Ascent,” ASME Dynamic Systems and
Control Conference. DOI: 10.1115/DSCC2010-4158.
[4] Hoover, C, D., and Fite, K, B., 2011, “Development of
a Powered-Knee Transfemoral Prosthesis Prototype,” ASME
53305.
[5] Hoover, C, D., and Fite, K, B., 2011, “A Configuration
Dependent Muscle Model for the Myoelectric Control of a
Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975480.
[6] Martinez-Villalpando, E, C., and Herr, H., 2009,
“Agonist-Antagonist Active Knee Prosthesis: A Preliminary
Study in Level-Ground Walking,” Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development, 46, pp. 361-374. DOI:
10.1682/JRRD.2008.09.0131.
[7] Martinez-Villalpando, E, C., Mooney, L., Elliott, G.,
and Herr, H., 2011, “Antagonistic Active Knee Prosthesis. A
Metabolic Cost of Walking Comparison with a Variable-
Damping Prosthetic Knee,” Annual International Conference
of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.
DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6092102.
[8] Flowers, W, C., and Mann, R, W., 1977, “An
Electrohydraulic Knee-Torque Controller for a Prosthesis
Simulator,” ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 99,
pp. 3-8. DOI: 10.1115/1.3426266.
[9] Grimes, D, L., Flowers, W, C., and Donath, M., 1977,
“Feasibility of an Active Control Scheme for Above Knee
Prostheses,” ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering,
99, pp. 215-221. DOI: 10.1115/1.3426293.
[10] Stein, J, L., and Flowers, W, C., 1987, “Stance Phase
Control of Above-Knee Prostheses: Knee Control versus
DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90263-6.
[11] Tucker, M, R., Olivier, J., Pagel, A., Bleuler, H.,
Bouri, M., Lambercy, O., Millán, J, D, R., Riener, R., Vallery,
H., and Gassert, R., 2015, “Control Strategies for Active
Lower Extremity Prosthetics and Orthotics: A Review,”
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. DOI:
10.1186/1743-0003-12-1.
[12] Pfeifer, S., Riener, R., and Vallery, H., 2012, “An
Actuated Transfemoral Prosthesis with Optimized Polycentric
Knee Joint,” IEEE International Conference on Biomedical
Robotics and Biomechatronics. DOI:
10.1109/BioRob.2012.6290745.
[13] Beckerle, P., Wojtusch, J., Seyfarth, A., Von Stryk,
Inertial Effects in Powered Lower Limb Prosthetic Design,”
IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.
DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2015.7281220.
[14] Canino, J, M., and Fite, K, B., 2016, “Haptic
Feedback in Lower-Limb Prosthesis: Combined Haptic
Feedback and EMG Control of a Powered Prosthesis,” IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society International
Student Conference. DOI: 10.1109/EMBSISC.2016.7508600.
[15] Dawley, J, A., Fite, K, B., and Fulk, G, D., 2013,
“EMG Control of a Bionic Knee Prosthesis: Exploiting
Muscle Co-Contractions for Improved Locomotor Function,”
IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.
DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650389.
6 Copyright © 2018 by ASME
 [16] Hoover, C, D., Fulk, G, D., and Fite, K, B., 2012,
“The Design and Initial Experimental Validation of an Active
Myoelectric Transfemoral Prosthesis,” ASME Journal of
Medical Devices. DOI: 10.1115/1.4005784.
[17] Maryniak, A., Laschowski, B., and Andrysek, J.,
2018, “Technical Overview of Osseointegrated Transfemoral
Prostheses: Orthopedic Surgery and Implant Design
Centered,” ASME Journal of Engineering and Science in
Medical Diagnostics and Therapy. DOI: 10.1115/1.4039105.
[18] Pfeifer, S., Pagel, A., Riener, R., and Vallery, H.,
2015, “Actuator with Angle-Dependent Elasticity for
Biomimetic Transfemoral Prostheses,” IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, 20, pp. 1384-1394. DOI:
10.1109/TMECH.2014.2337514.
[19] Lenzi, T., Sensinger, J, W., Lipsey, J., Hargrove, L,
J., and Kuiken, T., 2015, “Design and Preliminary Testing of
the RIC Hybrid Knee Prosthesis,” Annual International
Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318700.
[20] Lenzi, T., Cempini, M., Hargrove, L, J., and Kuiken,
T, A., 2017, “Actively Variable Transmission for Robotic Knee
Prostheses,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation. DOI: 10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989787.
[21] Hargrove, L, J., Simon, A, M., Lipschutz, R, D.,
Finucane, S, B., and Kuiken, T, A., 2013, “Non-Weight-
Bearing Neural Control of a Powered Transfemoral
Prosthesis,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.
DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-62.
[22] Hargrove, L, J., Simon, A, M., Young, A, J.,
Lipschutz, R, D., Finucane, S, B., Smith, D, G., and Kuiken,
T, A., 2013, “Robotic Leg Control with EMG Decoding in an
Amputee with Nerve Transfers,” New England Journal of
Medicine. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300126.
[23] Hoover, C, D., Fite, K, B., Fulk, G, D., and Holmes,
D, W., 2011, “Myoelectric Torque Control of an Active
Transfemoral Prosthesis during Stair Ascent,” ASME Dynamic
Systems and Control Conference. DOI: 10.1115/DSCC2011-
5998.
[24] Hoover, C, D., Fulk, G, D., and Fite, K, B., 2013,
“Stair Ascent with a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis Under
Direct Myoelectric Control,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics. DOI: 10.1109/TMECH.2012.2200498.
[25] Fite, K., Mitchell, J., Sup, F., and Goldfarb, M.,
2007, “Design and Control of an Electrically Powered Knee
Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation
Robotics. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428531.
[26] Lawson, B, E., Varol, H, A., Huff, A., Erdemir, E.,
and Goldfarb, M., 2013, “Control of Stair Ascent and Descent
with a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE Transactions
on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 21, pp.
466-473. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2225640.
[27] Lawson, B, E., Mitchell, J., Truex, D., Shultz, A.,
Ledoux, E., and Goldfarb, M., 2014, “A Robotic Leg
Prosthesis: Design, Control, and Implementation,” IEEE
Robotics and Automation Magazine. DOI:
10.1109/MRA.2014.2360303.
[28] Ledoux, E, D., Lawson, B, E., Shultz, A, H., Bartlett,
H, L., and Goldfarb, M., 2015, “Metabolics of Stair Ascent
with a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis,” Annual
International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319589.
[29] Ledoux, E, D., and Goldfarb, M., 2017, “Control and
Evaluation of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis for Stair
Ascent,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and
Rehabilitation Engineering. DOI:
10.1109/TNSRE.2017.2656467.
[30] Rouse, E, J., Mooney, L, M., and Herr, H, M., 2014,
“Clutchable Series-Elastic Actuator: Implications for
Prosthetic Knee Design,” The International Journal of
Robotics Research. DOI: 10.1177/0278364914545673.
[31] Rouse, E, J., Mooney, L, M., and Hargrove, L, J.,
2016, “The Design of a Lightweight, Low Cost Robotic Knee
Prosthesis with Selectable Series Elasticity,” IEEE
International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and
Biomechatronics. DOI: 10.1109/BIOROB.2016.7523770.
[32] Simon, A, M., Fey, N, P., Finucane, S, B., Lipschutz,
R, D., and Hargrove, L, J., 2013, “Strategies to Reduce the
Configuration Time for a Powered Knee and Ankle Prosthesis
Across Multiple Ambulation Modes,” IEEE International
Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI:
10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650371.
[33] Sup, F, C., and Goldfarb, M., 2006, “Design of a
Pneumatically Actuated Transfemoral Prosthesis,” ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition. DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2006-15707.
[34] Sup, F, C., Bohara, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2007,
“Design and Control of a Powered Knee and Ankle
Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2007.364114.
[35] Sup, F, C., Bohara, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2008,
“Design and Control of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis,”
International Journal of Robotics Research, 27, pp. 263-273.
DOI: 10.1177/0278364907084588.
[36] Sup, F, C., Varol, H, A., Mitchell, J., Withrow, T, J.,
and Goldfarb, M., 2009, “Preliminary Evaluations of a Self-
Contained Anthropomorphic Transfemoral Prosthesis,”
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 14, pp. 667-676.
DOI: 10.1109/TMECH.2009.2032688.
[37] Sup, F, C., Varol, H, A., Mitchell, J., Withrow, T, J.,
and Goldfarb, M., 2009, “Self-Contained Powered Knee and
Ankle Prosthesis: Initial Evaluation on a Transfemoral
Amputee,” IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation
Robots. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2009.5209625.
[38] Sup, F., Varol, H, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2011,
“Upslope Walking with a Powered Knee and Ankle Prosthesis:
Initial Results with an Amputee Subject,” IEEE Transactions
on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 19, pp. 71-
78. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2010.2087360.
[39] Thatte, N., and Geyer, H., 2014, “Towards Local
Reflexive Control of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis for
Robust Amputee Push and Trip Recovery,” IEEE International
7 Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. DOI:
10.1109/IROS.2014.6942839.
[40] Waycaster, G., Wu, S, K., and Shen, X., 2010, “A
Pneumatic Artificial Muscle Actuated Above-Knee
Prosthesis,” ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference.
DOI: 10.1115/DSCC2010-4097.
[41] Waycaster, G., Wu, S, K., and Shen, X., 2011,
“Design and Control of a Pneumatic Artificial Muscle
Actuated Above-Knee Prosthesis,” ASME Journal of Medical
Devices. DOI: 10.1115/1.4004417.
[42] Martinez-Villalpando, E, C., Weber, J., Elliott, G.,
and Herr, H., 2008, “Design of an Agonist-Antagonist Active
Knee Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on
Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. DOI:
10.1109/BIOROB.2008.4762919.
[43] Martinez-Villalpando, E, C., Weber, J., Elliott, G.,
and Herr, H., 2008, “Biomimetic Prosthetic Knee using
Antagonistic Muscle-Like Activation,” ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. DOI:
10.1115/IMECE2008-67705.
[44] Sup, F, C., Varol, H, A., Mitchell, J., Withrow, T, J.,
and Goldfarb, M., 2008, “Design and Control of an Active
Electrical Knee and Ankle Prosthesis,” IEEE International
Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechtronics.
DOI: 10.1109/BIOROB.2008.4762811.
[45] Lawson, B, E., Varol, H, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2011,
“Ground Adaptive Standing Controller for a Powered
Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975475.
[46] Lawson, B, E., Varol, H, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2011,
“Standing Stability Enhancement with an Intelligent Powered
Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2011.2160173.
[47] Lawson, B, E., Huff, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2012, “A
Preliminary Investigation of Powered Prostheses for Improved
Walking Biomechanics in Bilateral Transfemoral Amputees,”
Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society. DOI:
10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346884.
[48] Lawson, B, E., Shultz, A, H., and Goldfarb, M.,
2013, “Evaluation of a Coordinated Control System for a Pair
of Powered Transfemoral Prostheses,” IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation. DOI:
10.1109/ICRA.2013.6631124.
[49] Lawson, B, E., Ledoux, E, D., and Goldfarb, M.,
2017, “A Robotic Lower Limb Prosthesis for Efficient
Bicycling,” IEEE Transaction on Robotics, 33, pp. 432-445.
DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2016.2636844.
[50] Varol, H, A., Sup, F., and Goldfarb, M., 2009,
“Powered Sit-to-Stand and Assistive Stand-to-Sit Framework
for a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE International
Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI:
10.1109/ICORR.2009.5209582.
[51] Varol, H, A., Sup, F., and Goldfarb, M., 2010,
“Multiclass Real-Time Intent Recognition of a Powered Lower
Limb Prosthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2009.2034734.
[52] Tucker, M, R., and Fite, K, B., 2010, “Mechanical
Damping with Electrical Regeneration for a Powered
Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE/ASME International
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. DOI:
10.1109/AIM.2010.5695828.
[53] Fey, N, P., Simon, A, M., Young, A, J., and Hargrove,
L, J., 2014, “Controlling Knee Swing Initiation and Ankle
Plantarflexion with an Active Prosthesis on Level and Inclined
Surfaces at Variable Walking Speeds,” IEEE Journal of
Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine. DOI:
10.1109/JTEHM.2014.2343228.
[54] Gregg, R, D., Lenzi, T., Hargrove, L, J., and
Sensinger, J, W., 2014, “Virtual Constraint Control of a
Powered Prosthetic Leg: From Simulation to Experiments with
Transfemoral Amputees,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 30,
pp. 1455-1471. DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2014.2361937.
[55] Lawson, B, E., Ruhe, B., Shultz, A., and Goldfarb,
M., 2015, “A Powered Prosthetic Intervention for Bilateral
Transfemoral Amputees,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2014.2334616.
[56] Lenzi, T., Hargrove, L, J., and Sensinger, J, W., 2014,
“Minimum Jerk Swing Control Allows Variable Cadence in
Powered Transfemoral Prostheses,” Annual International
Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2014.6944128.
[57] Lenzi, T., Hargrove, L, J., and Sensinger, J, W., 2014,
“Preliminary Evaluation of a New Control Approach to
Achieve Speed Adaptation in Robotic Transfemoral
Prostheses,” IEEE International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems. DOI: 10.1109/IROS.2014.6942836.
[58] Liu, M., Wang, D., and Huang, H., 2016,
“Development of an Environment-Aware Locomotion Mode
Recognition System for Powered Lower Limb Prostheses,”
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2420539.
[59] Mooney, L., and Herr, H., 2013, “Continuously-
Variable Series-Elastic Actuator,” IEEE International
Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI:
10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650402.
[60] Simon, A, M., Fey, N, P., Ingraham, K, A., Finucane,
S, B., Halsne, E, G., and Hargrove, L, J., 2016, “Improved
Weight-Bearing Symmetry for Transfemoral Amputees during
Standing Up and Sitting Down with a Powered Knee-Ankle
Prosthesis,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
97, pp. 1100-1106. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.11.006.
[61] Wang, D., Liu, M., Zhang, F., and Huang, H., 2013,
“Design of an Expert System to Automatically Calibrate
Impedance Control for Powered Knee Prostheses,” IEEE
International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI:
10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650442.
[62] Wu, S, K., Waycaster, G., and Shen, X., 2010,
“Active Knee Prosthesis Control with Electromyography,”
ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. DOI:
10.1115/DSCC2010-4068.
8 Copyright © 2018 by ASME
 [63] Zhang, F., Liu, M., and Huang, H., 2015, “Effects of
Locomotion Mode Recognition Errors on Volitional Control of
Powered Above-Knee Prostheses,” IEEE Transactions on
Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 23, pp. 64-72.
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2327230.
[64] Zhang, F., Liu, M., and Huang, H., 2015, “Detection
of Critical Errors of Locomotion Mode Recognition for
Volitional Control of Powered Transfemoral Prostheses,”
Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society. DOI:
10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318564.
[65] Zhao, H., Horn, J., Reher, J., Paredes, V., and Ames,
A, D., 2016, “Multicontact Locomotion on Transfemoral
Prostheses via Hybrid System Models and Optimization-Based
Control,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TASE.2016.2524528.
[66] Azimi, V., Shu, T., Zhao, H., Ambrose, E., Ames, A,
D., and Simon, D., 2017, “Robust Control of a Powered
Transfemoral Prosthesis Device with Experimental
Verification,” American Control Conference. DOI:
10.23919/ACC.2017.7963005.
[67] Grimmer, M., and Seyfarth, A., 2011, “Stiffness
Adjustment of a Series Elastic Actuator in a Knee Prosthesis
for Walking and Running: The Trade-Off Between Energy and
Peak Power Optimization,” IEEE International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. DOI:
10.1109/IROS.2011.6094467.
[68] Grimmer, M., Eslamy, M., and Seyfarth, A., 2014,
“Energetic and Peak Power Advantages of Series Elastic
Actuators in an Actuated Prosthetic Leg for Walking and
Running. Actuators. DOI: 10.3390/act3010001.
[69] Rouse, E, J., Mooney, L, M., Martinez-Villalpando,
E, C., and Herr, H, M., 2013, “Clutchable Series-Elastic
Actuator: Design of a Robotic Knee Prosthesis for Minimum
Energy Consumption,” IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650383.
[70] Williams, M, R., D’Andrea, S., and Herr, H, M.,
2016, “Impact on Gait Biomechanics of Using an Active
Variable Impedance Prosthetic Knee,” Journal of
NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-
016-0159-0.
[71] Williams, M, R., Herr, H, M., and D’Andrea, S.,
2016, “Metabolic Effects of Using a Variable Impedance
Prosthetic Knee,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2015.04.0072.
[72] Windrich, M., Grimmer, M., Christ, O.,
Rinderknecht, O., and Beckerle, P., 2016, “Active Lower
Limb Prosthetics: A Systematic Review of Design Issues and
Solutions,” BioMedical Engineering OnLine. DOI:
10.1186/s12938-016-0284-9.
[73] Wu, M., Driver, T., Wu, S, K., and Shen, X., 2014,
“Design and Preliminary Testing of a Pneumatic Muscle-
Actuated Transfemoral Prosthesis,” ASME Journal of Medical
Devices. DOI: 10.1115/1.4026830.
[74] Young, A, J., Kuiken, T, A., and Hargrove, L, J.,
2014, “Analysis of Using EMG and Mechanical Sensors to
Enhance Intent Recognition in Powered Lower Limb
Prostheses,” Journal of Neural Engineering. DOI:
10.1088/1741-2560/11/5/056021.
[75] Young, A, J., and Hargrove, L, J., 2016, “A
Classification Method for User-Independent Intent
Recognition for Transfemoral Amputees Using Powered
Lower Limb Prostheses,” IEEE Transactions on Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 24, pp. 217-225.
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2412461.
[76] Young, A, J., Simon, A, M., Fey, N, P., and Hargrove,
L, J., 2013, “Classifying the Intent of Novel Users During
Human Locomotion Using Powered Lower Limb Prostheses,”
IEEE International Conference on Neural Engineering. DOI:
10.1109/NER.2013.6695934.
[77] Simon, A, M., Ingraham, K, A., Spanias, J, A.,
Young, A, J., and Hargrove, L, J., 2016, “Development and
Preliminary Testing of a Flexible Control System for Powered
Knee-Ankle Prostheses,” IEEE International Conference on
Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. DOI:
10.1109/BIOROB.2016.7523709.
[78] Varol, H, A., Sup, F., and Goldfarb, M., 2008, “Real-
Time Gait Mode Intent Recognition of a Powered Knee and
Ankle prosthesis for Standing and Walking,” IEEE
International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and
Biomechatronics. DOI: 10.1109/BIOROB.2008.4762860.
[79] Gregg, R, D., Lenzi, T., Fey, N, P., Hargrove, L, J.,
and Sensinger, J, W., 2013, “Experimental Effective Shape
Control of a Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE
International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI:
10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650413.
[80] Hargrove, L, J., Young, A, J., Simon, A, M., Fey, N,
P., Lipschutz, R, D., Finucane, S, B., Halsne, E, G., Ingraham,
K, A., and Kuiken, T, A., 2015, “Intuitive Control of a
Powered Prosthetic Leg During Ambulation: A Randomized
Clinical Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association,
313, pp. 2244-2252. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.4527.
[81] Huang, H., Zhang, F., Hargrove, L, J., Dou, Z.,
Rogers, D, R., and Englehart, K, B., 2011, “Continuous
Locomotion-Mode Identification for Prosthetic Legs Based on
Neuromuscular-Mechanical Fusion,” IEEE Transactions on
Biomedical Engineering, 58, pp. 2867-2875. DOI:
10.1109/TBME.2011.2161671.
[82] Spanias, J, A., Simon, A, M., Ingraham, K, A., and
Hargrove, L, J., 2015, “Effect of Additional Mechanical
Sensor Data on an EMG-Based Pattern Recognition System
for a Powered Leg Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference
on Neural Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/NER.2015.7146704.
[83] Young, A, J., Simon, A, M., and Hargrove, L, J.,
2014, “A Training Method for Locomotion Mode Prediction
using Powered Lower Limb Prostheses,” IEEE Transactions
on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 22, pp.
671-677. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2285101.
[84] Spanias, J, A., Perreault, E, J., and Hargrove, L, J.,
2016, “Detection of and Compensation for EMG Disturbances
for Powered Lower Limb Prosthesis Control,” IEEE
9 Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2413393.
[85] Simon, A, M., Ingraham, K, A., Spanias, J., Young,
A, J., Finucane, S, B., Halsne, E, G., and Hargrove, L, J.,
2016, “Delaying Ambulation Mode Transition Decisions
Improves Accuracy of a Flexible Control System for Powered
Knee-Ankle Prosthesis,” IEEE Transactions on Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. DOI:
10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2613020.
[86] Varol, H, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2007,
“Decomposition-Based Control for a Powered Knee and Ankle
Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428514.
[87] Simon, A, M., Fey, N, P., Ingraham, K, A., Young, A,
J., and Hargrove, L, J., 2013, “Powered Prosthesis Control
During Walking, Sitting, Standing, and Non-Weight Bearing
Activities Using Neural and Mechanical Inputs, “IEEE
International Conference on Neural Engineering. DOI:
10.1109/NER.2013.6696148.
[88] Varol, H, A., and Goldfarb, M., 2007, “Real-Time
Intent Recognition for a Powered Knee and Ankle
Transfemoral Prosthesis,” IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428400.
[89] Du, L., Zhang, F., Liu, M., and Huang, H., 2012,
“Toward Design of an Environment-Aware Adaptive
Locomotion-Mode-Recognition System,” IEEE Transactions
on Biomedical Engineering, 59, pp. 2716-2725. DOI:
10.1109/TBME.2012.2208641.
[90] Hargrove, L, J., Simon, A, M., Lipschutz, R, D.,
Finucane, S, B., and Kuiken, T, A., 2011, “Real-Time
Myoelectric Control of Knee and Ankle Motions for
Transfemoral Amputees,” Journal of the American Medical
Association. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.465.
[91] Huang, H., Dou, Z., Zhang, F., and Nunnery, M, J.,
2011, “Improving the Performance of a Neural-Machine
Interface for Artificial Legs Using Prior Knowledge of
Walking Environment,” Annual International Conference of
the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. DOI:
10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091056.
[92] Wang, D., Du, L., and Huang, H., 2013, “Terrain
Recognition Improves the Performance of Neural-Machine
Interface for Locomotion Mode Recognition,” IEEE
International Conference on Computing, Networking and
Communications. DOI: 10.1109/ICCNC.2013.6504059.
[93] Krausz, N, E., and Hargrove, L, J., 2015,
“Recognition of Ascending Stairs from 2D Images for Control
of Powered Lower Limb Prostheses,” IEEE International
Conference on Neural Engineering. DOI:
10.1109/NER.2015.7146698.
[94] Krausz, N, E., Lenzi, T., and Hargrove, L, J., 2015,
“Depth Sensing for Improved Control of Lower Limb
Prostheses,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering,
62, pp. 2576-2587. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2015.2448457.
[95] Hafner, B, J., and Askew, R, L., 2015, “Physical
Performance and Self-Report Outcomes Associated with Use
of Passive, Adaptive, and Active Prosthetic Knees in Persons
with Unilateral, Transfemoral Amputation: Randomized
Crossover Trial,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and
Development. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.09.0210.
[96] Highsmith, M, J., Kahle, J, T., Carey, S, L., Lura, D,
J., Dubey, R, V., and Quillen, W, S., 2010, “Kinetic
Differences Using a Power Knee and C-Leg While Sitting
Down and Standing Up: A Case Report,” Journal of
Prosthetics and Orthotics, 22, pp. 237-243. DOI:
10.1097/JPO.0b013e3181f46b65.
[97] Pasquina, P, F., Carvalho, A, J., Murphy, I., Johnson,
J, L., Swanson, T, M., Hendershot, B, D., Corcoran, M.,
Ritland, B., Miller, M, E., and Isaacson, B, M., 2017, “Case
Series of Wounded Warriors Receiving Initial Fit Power Knee
Prosthesis. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 29, pp. 88-96.
DOI: 10.1097/JPO.0000000000000123.
[98] Wolf, E, J., Everding, V, Q., Linberg, A, L., Schnall,
B, L., Czerniecki, J, M., and Gambel, J, M., 2012,
“Assessment of Transfemoral Amputees Using C-Leg and
Power Knee for Ascending and Descending Inclines and
Steps,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development,
49, pp. 831-842. DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2010.12.0234.
[99] Wolf, E, J., Everding, V, Q., Linberg, A, A.,
Czerniecki, J, M., and Gambel, J, M., 2013, “Comparison of
the Power Knee and C-Leg during Step-Up and Sit-to-Stand
Tasks,” Gait & Posture. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.01.007.
[100] Andrysek, J., and Chau, G., 2007, “An
Electromechanical Swing-Phase-Controlled Prosthetic Knee
Joint for Conversion of Physiological Energy to Electrical
Energy: Feasibility Study,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2007.908309.
[101] Andrysek, J., Liang, T., and Steinnagel, B., 2009,
“Evaluation of a Prosthetic Swing-Phase Controller with
Electrical Power Generation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural
Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 17, pp. 390-396.
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2009.2023292.
[102] Barto, T., and Simon, D., 2017, “Neural Network
Control of an Optimized Regenerative Motor Drive for a
Lower-Limb Prosthesis,” American Control Conference. DOI:
10.23919/ACC.2017.7963783.
[103] Khademi, G., Richter, H., and Simon, D., 2016,
“Multi-Objective Optimization of Tracking/Impedance
Control for a Prosthetic Leg with Energy Regeneration,” IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control. DOI:
10.1109/CDC.2016.7799085.
[104] Khademi, G., Mohammadi, H., Richter, H., and
Simon, D., 2017, “Optimal Mixed Tracking/Impedance
Control with Application to Transfemoral Prostheses with
Energy Regeneration,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2725740.
[105] Rohani, F., Richter, H., and Van Den Bogert, A, J.,
2017, “Optimal Design and Control of an Electromechanical
Transfemoral Prosthesis with Energy Regeneration,” PLoS
ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188266.
10 Copyright © 2018 by ASME