An Index Finger Exoskeleton With Series Elastic Actuation For Rehabilitation: Design, Control and Performance Characterization

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283788507
An index ﬁnger exoskeleton with series elastic actuation for rehabilitation:

Design, control and performance characterization
Article in The International Journal of Robotics Research · October 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0278364915598388
CITATIONS READS
102 6,151
5 authors, including:
Priyanshu Agarwal Jonas Fox

University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Austin
28 PUBLICATIONS 426 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 150 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Youngmok Yun Marcia Kilchenman O'Malley

University of Texas at Austin Rice University
24 PUBLICATIONS 344 CITATIONS 261 PUBLICATIONS 4,105 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Maestro View project
Human Gait Pattern Prediction View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Priyanshu Agarwal on 03 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
The International Journal of
Robotics Research
An index finger exoskeleton with series 1–26
© The Author(s) 2015
elastic actuation for rehabilitation: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Design, control and performance DOI: 10.1177/0278364915598388

ijr.sagepub.com
characterization
Priyanshu Agarwal1 , Jonas Fox1 , Youngmok Yun1 , Marcia K. O’Malley2
and Ashish D. Deshpande1
Abstract
Rehabilitation of the hands is critical for the restoration of independence in activities of daily living for individuals exhibit-
ing disabilities of the upper extremities. There is initial evidence that robotic devices with force-control-based strategies
can help in effective rehabilitation of human limbs. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the existing hand
exoskeletons allow for accurate force or torque control. In this work, we present a novel index finger exoskeleton with
Bowden-cable-based series elastic actuation allowing for bidirectional torque control of the device with high backdrivabil-
ity and low reflected inertia. We present exoskeleton and finger joint torque controllers along with an optimization-based
offline parameter estimator. Finally, we carry out tests with the developed prototype to characterize its kinematics, dynam-
ics, and controller performance. Results show that the device preserves the characteristics of natural motion of finger and
can be controlled to achieve both exoskeleton and finger joint torque control. Finally, dynamic transparency tests show
that the device can be controlled to offer minimal resistance to finger motion. Beyond the present application of the device
as a hand rehabilitation exoskeleton, it has the potential to be used as a haptic device for teleoperation.
Keywords
Hand exoskeleton, torque control, series elastic actuator, kinematic transparency, dynamic transparency
1. Introduction admittance, assist-as-needed (Cai et al., 2006)) can be more

effective for rehabilitation of both the upper (Blank et al.,
Over 19.9 million people in the US exhibit a disability of
2014; Colombo et al., 2005; Pehlivan et al., 2014) and
physical function of the upper body and have difficulty lift-
lower limbs (Marchal-Crespo and Reinkensmeyer, 2009)
ing or grasping (Brault, 2012). Rehabilitation using robots
than pure position-based control (Harwin et al., 1995).
has the potential to provide effective therapy to individ-
Force-control-based strategies can be designed so that an
uals with disabilities while also allowing for quantitative
active effort is needed from the subject during therapy,
assessment of recovery. Clinical trials have shown that
which is shown to be more effective than passive motor
robot-aided hand therapy results in improved hand motor
training, even for a longer duration (Lotze et al., 2003),
function after chronic stroke, with increased sensorimo-
and is thought to be essential for provoking motor plas-
tor cortex activity for practiced tasks (Hwang et al., 2012;
ticity (Perez et al., 2004). On the other hand, position-
Takahashi et al., 2008). However, several technical chal-
control-based strategies physically guide the movement of
lenges in areas including hand biomechanics, rehabilita-
the impaired limb to strictly follow a predefined trajectory
tion, actuators, sensors, physical human-robot interaction,
without enabling the subject to actively participate in the
and control based on the user intent (Heo et al., 2012)
task (Bernhardt et al., 2005) or allowing for any subject-
need to be overcome in order to design an effective, small,
specific customization of the assistance (Meng et al., 2015).
and lightweight robotic hand exoskeleton. Development
of these exoskeletons requires physical hardware design 1 Mechanical Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Austin,
(mechanism synthesis, human-robot interaction interface, Austin, TX, USA
optimal design parameters) and software-based control 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX,
algorithms (subject-specific kinematics estimation, posi- USA

tion or torque control), to ensure desirable coupled system
Corresponding author:
performance. Ashish Deshpande, Mechanical Engineering Department, The University
Research over the past decade has shown initial evi- of Texas at Austin, 204 East Dean Keeton Street, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
dence that force-control-based strategies (e.g. impedance, Email: ashish@austin.utexas.edu
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015
2 The International Journal of Robotics Research
bidirectional peak torque of at least 0.3 Nm based on the

torques applied by experienced therapists for hand reha-
bilitation as measured through a torque-measuring device
(Ueki et al., 2012), (ii) torque bandwidth of at least 2 Hz
based on the fact that the bandwidth of the human force
compliance control loop is 1–2 Hz (Chan and Childress,
1990; Sheridan and Ferrell, 1974). Also, typically rehabil-
itation exercises for the finger are carried out at angular
velocities of less than 50◦ /s i.e. full range of motion fre-
quencies below 0.5 Hz (Adamovich et al., 2005; Kawasaki
et al., 2006).
Physical assessment studies of hand function have shown
that the loss of finger adduction or abduction motion has
minimal effect on the activities of daily living (Evans,
2008). Furthermore, abduction-adduction motion is not
Fig. 1. Index finger exoskeleton prototype mounted on a subject’s important for achieving the critical hand functions includ-
hand for experimentation. ing tip pinch, key pinch, pulp pinch, power grasp, briefcase
grip, holding glass etc. and therefore is not considered dur-
The guidance hypothesis in motor control research sug- ing the ergonomic evaluation of biomechanical function
gests that such a physically guided movement may decrease of the hand (Lee and Jung, 2014). In addition, the index
motor learning for some tasks due to the reduction in bur- finger has limited range of motion (20 to 30 degrees) at
den (motor output, effort, energy consumption or attention) the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) abduction-adduction joint
on the subject’s motor system to discover the principles nec- (Anderson, 2002; Evans, 2008). Also, incorporation of an
essary to perform the task successfully (Schmidt and Bjork, active abduction-adduction joint significantly increases the
1992). complexity of the design of our finger exoskeleton with-
The introduction of passive compliance in the form of a out much additional benefit. Considering all these factors,
Bowden-cable-based series elastic actuator (SEA) has been we do not include active rehabilitation of the abduction-
identified as a good force or torque source with low iner- adduction joint as the design goal for our index finger
tia for impedance-controlled exoskeletons, especially for exoskeleton. The rationale behind providing passive degree
the lower extremity (Veneman et al., 2006). It has been of freedom (DOF) is that the device should allow for
suggested for lower-extremity exoskeletons that the inter- free movement at this joint while the subject performs
action between a therapist and a patient’s limb can be sim- flexion–extension motion at the other finger joints.
ulated by applying forces corresponding to virtual springs In this paper, we present a novel index finger exoskeleton
and dampers (Vallery et al., 2008). In addition, introduc- (Figure 1) with series elastic actuation capable of achiev-
ing appropriate compliance in actuation can also ensure safe ing bidirectional and independent joint torque control at the
and comfortable interaction with the human hand. However, finger joints and introduce compliance in the mechanism to
the role of compliance and series elastic actuation has not make it safe and comfortable. From the robot design and
yet been explored in hand exoskeletons. Thus, the exist- controls perspective, our paper makes the following contri-
ing hand exoskeletons suffer from two major limitations. butions: (i) presents a mechanism for a finger exoskeleton
Firstly, none of them allow for accurate torque or impedance that inherently induces low joint reaction forces at the finger
control at individual finger joints for effective therapy. Sec- joints during the articulation of the finger, while providing
ondly, none of them decouples the inertia and non-linear large ranges of motion at the finger joints, (ii) implements a
actuator gearing effects from the human finger for kine- miniature Bowden-cable-based SEA, which is small enough
matically and dynamically transparent (Vallery et al., 2009) to fit on a finger exoskeleton and is capable of achieving
interaction with the device to ensure comfort and safety. accurate torque control, (iii) presents a method of using
Our goal is to design a robotic device that can provide the redundant sensor information to estimate the unknown
therapeutic exercises that can lead to quicker recovery of the kinematic model parameters for accurate control, and (iv)
fingers. Toward this goal, we set the following objectives for demonstrates the implementation of torque controllers for
the design of our finger-exoskeleton: (i) the device should accurately applying torques both at the exoskeleton and fin-
allow for accurate and stable bidirectional torque control ger joints. From the rehabilitation perspective, we present a
with high backdrivability and low reflected inertia, (ii) the fully developed prototype, a control system for the device,
design should be kinematically and dynamically compatible and experimental results with human subjects, that demon-
with the human finger and be quickly adjustable for a spe- strate the capabilities of the device that are critical for
cific subject, and (iii) the device should be light in weight delivering physical therapy.
and allow for free motion of the hand with low movement A device that directly interfaces with the human body
resistance. We use the following design goals for the actua- needs testing from three different perspectives–kinematics,
tor for our application of hand rehabilitation: (i) a required dynamics, and controls, and our experiments test all three
Agarwal et al 3
of these aspects. We characterize the performance of the A Bowden-cable-based mechanism allows the subject to
device using the following experiments: (i) torque tracking freely orient and translate his hand within a reasonably large
performance of the SEA at different peak torque magni- range for physical therapy. This is important for rehabilita-
tudes, which showed the accuracy and fidelity of the track- tion as some impairments of the upper limb make it difficult
ing performance and a frequency analysis to verify the to fix the hand in certain positions. In addition, a device that
bandwidth of the SEA, (ii) validation of the kinematics of would allow for free movement of the hand during operation
the device using a kinematic transparency test, active range can be used to perform activities of daily living in a reha-
of motion and a comparison of the finger joint angles esti- bilitation setting both for therapy and assessment. Bowden-
mated using the kinematics model and motion capture data, cable-based transmission has been employed with electric
(iii) validation of the exoskeleton and finger joint torque motors to make the device portable, however, these devices
tracking performance while maintaining low finger joint focus only on the position control of the digits (Cempini
reaction forces at both the MCP and proximal interpha- et al., 2014; Li et al., 2011; Wege and Hommel, 2005) and
langeal (PIP) joint, and (iv) dynamic transparency tests to use force measurements from piezoresistive force sensors
demonstrate the capability of the device to maintain low or strain gauges, either to roughly compensate for the com-
torques while a subject actively interacts with the device. bined resistance due to friction in the Bowden cable and
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. A back- moment of inertia during only finger flexion motion (no
ground of the existing hand exoskeletons and their limita- contact force information was available during extension
tions are presented in Section 2. The proposed kinematic motion) (Wang et al., 2011) or to limit the tension in the
mechanism of the index finger exoskeleton, the SEA imple- Bowden cable for safe operation (Chiri et al., 2012), or
mented for bidirectional torque control, and the details of some altogether ignore the losses in the Bowden cable trans-
the prototype are described in Section 3. The kinematics mission (Sarakoglou et al., 2004). Also, experimentation
and statics model of the SEA and the index finger exoskele- with a hand exoskeleton has shown that the force measure-
ton are presented in Section 4. The exoskeleton joint and ment using force sensing resistors is inaccurate due to the
finger joint torque controllers are explained in Section 5 nature of the sensors, inability to mount the sensors to cover
along with a dynamics simulation of the controller in Sec- the entire contact area between the device and the finger,
tion 6. Section 7 describes the implementation of the two and change in the angle of application of force to the sensor
controllers on the actual prototype and the various exper- (Wege et al., 2006).
iments conducted to validate the kinematic and dynamic A few devices use pneumatic cylinders for actuation and
compatibility of the device with the finger. Finally, the paper estimate the force applied on the fingertips by measuring
is concluded with a discussion and plans for future work. the pressure inside the cylinder (Bouzit et al., 2002; Bur-
dea and Zhuang, 1991). However, these could not be used
to control interaction force or torque at the individual pha-
langes or joints of the finger as their mechanism had only
2. Background one DOF for each finger and is controlled by attaching the
A number of hand exoskeletons have been designed to date, linear pneumatic actuator to only a specific phalanx. Thus,
and these can be categorized into passive (with no actuators) by design, any force that is applied on the distal phalanx
(Brokaw et al., 2011) and active (with actuators) devices. is propagated to all the joints without any means to con-
Within the active category, devices can either provide control it individually. In addition, the mechanism on these
tinuous passive movement (CPM) (e.g. Waveflex CPM,1 devices is on the palmar side, which makes it difficult to
Kinetec Maestra Portable Hand CPM,2 Ren et al. (2009)) or perform grasping tasks using physical objects for rehabilita-
active assistance, where the human hand actively interacts tion. Takagi et al. (2009) developed a system to aid in grasp-
with the device and the device reacts as per the interaction ing, without any explicit position or force control, using air
based on a feedback (e.g. position sensing) (Jones et al., cylinders, which are pressurized or depressurized based on
2014; Schabowsky et al., 2010; Ueki et al., 2012). There are the output from a bending sensor. Toya et al. (2011) devel-
devices that use geared servomotors either directly mounted oped a power-assist glove that provided some assistance
at the exoskeleton joints (Taheri et al., 2014; Ueki et al., using pneumatic actuators by recognizing the type of grasp
2012) or connected through tendons (Jones et al., 2014). based on the angle information from angle sensors. Some
However, this makes the device bulky, restricts the hand of the devices also used EMG to control the motion of the
to a stationary device and makes it difficult to achieve device. These devices had a single actuator for each digit
torque control due to losses in the gearing or routing pul- and controlled only the hand opening and closing using the
leys without using explicit force feedback for controlling EMG signal (DiCicco et al., 2004; Lucas et al., 2004; Mulas
the device. The hand is restricted in such designs as it is et al., 2005; Tong et al., 2010) or had multiple actuators to
attached to a stationary device on a bench top due to the apply some assistive force for grasping based on EMG sig-
fact that the forces from the transmission mechanism need nal (Hasegawa et al., 2008). However, none of them could
to be transferred to the ground through the structure of the accurately control the torque applied on the finger or its
device. position.

Hand exoskeletons have also been developed for virtual degenerative joint disease and suggests that it is among the
reality applications. However, these devices are designed factors responsible for initiating and propagating joint dis-
to apply only unidirectional forces or torques to simulate eases in finger joints. We introduced sliding joints as the
contacts in a virtual environment (Gharaybeh and Burdea, interface between the finger phalanx and the exoskeleton
1994). Rehabilitation exoskeletons, on the other hand, are link to ensure that only normal reaction forces are applied
required to apply bidirectional forces on the hand during on the finger phalanges in all configurations (Figure 2(b)).
therapy. A commercially available device, CyberGrasp, is Any lateral force would result in the translation of the slider
also only capable of exerting unidirectional forces to oppose until only the normal reaction force exists between the
the finger flexion motion with one actuated DOF for each two. The normal reaction force component contributes to
digit (does not allow for control of torque applied at the generating a moment at the joint while the lateral compo-
individual finger joints) at a limited sampling rate of 90 Hz nent simply loads the joint without resulting in any joint
(Lii et al., 2010), which was improved to 2 kHz with an moment.
external ExHand box in Aiple and Schiele (2013). Some studies of the arm have shown that anatomi-
The use of compliant foam ball exercisers and splints for cal breakdown (independent motion of different joints)
hand rehabilitation has been in practice for decades (Bun- is better than complex arm movement for rehabilitation
nell and Boyes, 1970). Passive compliance was provided in (Klein et al., 2012). The complexity of the task is deter-
Chiri et al. (2012) by connecting the terminal end of the mined by the number of anatomical joints involved in per-
Bowden cables to passive compression springs, while using forming the task rather than the neurological effort needed.
a coupled actuation scheme to control all joints using a sin- It has been shown that breaking down a simultaneous
gle actuator. However, remotely locating the elastic element movement of the shoulder in abduction-adduction, flexion–
has the drawback of reflecting the impedance of the non- extension, internal-external rotation and elbow in flexion–
linear Bowden cable drive on the human hand, thus reducing extension along sinusoidal trajectories into parts improves
backdrivability and transparency. motor learning. A possible suggested hypothesis to explain
this is that the motor system has trouble determining where
3. Design the problems lie in making accurate, complex movements,
and therefore breaking the movement into individual joint
In this section, we provide the rationale behind the design of movements may allow for better identification and more
the underlying mechanism of the index finger exoskeleton, focused practice on the key problems.
the details of the SEA configuration and the final prototype For the finger motion, breaking the simultaneous move-
implementation. ment of both the MCP and PIP joints into motion of each
joint individually could improve motor learning. In addi-
tion, a device that would enable independent motion at the
3.1. Mechanism MCP and PIP joint would be more versatile in rehabilitat-
Our goal is to design an index finger exoskeleton mecha- ing targeted joints more effectively and assessing recovery
nism that leads to low reaction forces at the finger joints, progress. Thus, we aim for independent DOF at the fin-
while achieving maximum range of motion at the finger ger MCP and PIP joints. We do not aim to actively actuate
joints. Index finger consists of three joints, namely, metacar- the DIP joint, as the PIP and DIP joints are anatomically
pophalangeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP), and coupled in a human hand (Levangie and Norkin, 2011).
distal interphalangeal (DIP) (Figure 2(a)). The MCP However, connecting the MCP chain with the PIP chain
joint has two DOFs, namely, flexion–extension (up-down using a single link (L1) results in a significantly low range
motion) and abduction-adduction (sideways motion). The of motion (ROM) at the finger PIP joint due to the lim-
PIP and DIP joints have only flexion–extension motion. ited range of the available sliding length. To overcome this
The three finger phalanges are called proximal, middle, and problem, we introduced two links (L1 and L2) connected
distal phalanx, respectively. through a revolute joint to connect the MCP chain with the
Simulation studies and experiments with existing index PIP chain (Figure 2(c)). This resulted in one DOF in the
finger exoskeleton prototypes have shown significant load- MCP chain and a coupling between the PIP and DIP fin-
ing of the finger joints when exotendons (tendons actuating ger joints whose effects can be adjusted based on the link
the exoskeleton) are attached to links directly connected to lengths in the two chains. However, the PIP chain has two
the finger phalanges (Agarwal et al., 2013a,b; In and Cho, DOF and for full actuation requires two actuators. The sys-
2013). To avoid this loading, we first designed a mechanism tem can be controlled with one actuator by introducing a
in which the robotic kinematic chain is in parallel to the fin- stiffness element in the chain (Chiri et al., 2012). However,
ger kinematic chain to ground the actuation reaction forces the problem of underactuation in this design became more
and form closed loops with the finger to avoid joint axes difficult to address as the stiffness requirement in the PIP
misalignment (Figure 2(a)). A study by Moran et al. (1985) chain varies based on the configuration of the MCP chain.
has shown that mechanical stress correlates well with clin- We decided to remove the sliding joint in the PIP chain
ically observed patterns of frequency of degeneration and and fix the link to the PIP phalanx rest (exoskeleton link

Agarwal et al 5
Fig. 2. Kinematic schematic of various chains in the hand exoskeleton system. (a) Kinematic chains in the system, (b) sliding joints
connecting the finger and the exoskeleton kinematic chain, (c) DOF analysis of the three closed loops in the coupled system, and (d)
actuated mechanism schematic. The proximal, middle, and distal chains are referred to as MCP, PIP, and DIP chains, respectively.
connected to the middle phalanx). With this configuration We use a Bowden-cable-based transmission mechanism
the PIP chain can be controlled with one actuator but also to remotely locate the actuators and develop a miniature
results in increased finger joint reaction forces. SEA to meet the constraints on space. However, the fric-
In the final design (Figure 2(d)), the robotic chain was tion characteristics of the Bowden cable are non-linear and
parallel to the finger, which ensured that all the actuation dependent on the cable sheath configuration, cable length,
forces are grounded. There were three phalanx-exoskeleton velocity, pretension, and material combination of cable and
closed-loop kinematic chains to avoid the joint axes mis- sheath (stiffness and coefficient of friction). Characteriza-
alignment problem. The MCP chain consisted of four links tion of the Bowden cable friction as a function of the var-
with three rotational and one translational joint, resulting in ious listed factors is a part of our ongoing work (Chen et
one DOF. The PIP chain consisted of four links with four al., 2014). In order to avoid this non-linearity, we placed
rotational joints (assuming the first chain was fixed), result- the stiffness element closer to the exoskeleton joint rather
ing in one DOF. The DIP chain consisted of four links with than the actuator. This also made the system backdrivable
three rotational and one translational joint leading to one in addition to decoupling the motor inertia from the device.
DOF. Furthermore, based on the measurement of the deflection of
the stiffness element and the known stiffness, an accurate
3.2. Series elastic actuation estimate of the tension in the cable can be obtained, which
To achieve accurate and stable force control, high backdriv- can then be used for accurate bidirectional torque control at
ability, low reflected inertia, and comfortable and safe inter- the exoskeleton joint.
action with the device, we introduced an SEA for the device. Directly measuring the linear displacement of the elastic
An SEA acts as a pure torque actuator and helps in reduc- element using linear potentiometers is difficult due to the
ing the undesirable forces on the finger joints. There have limited space on a hand exoskeleton. Thus, instead of mea-
been a few attempts to introduce series elastic actuation suring the deflection of the elastic element directly, we mea-
in wearable exoskeletons such as for the lower extremity sured the displacement of the actuator and the exoskeleton
(Veneman et al., 2006) and upper limb (Sergi et al., 2013); joint and estimate the deflection using the relative displace-
however, there have been no exoskeletons for the hand that ment of the two assuming stretch in the cable to be negli-
incorporate SEAs. gible. This assumption is later verified using experiments
(Figure 1). This additive manufacturing method allowed us

to print small and intricate components, while keeping them
strong and light in weight. Since size, rather than complex-
ity, determines the cost for SLS (as opposed to complexity
more than size, for conventional machining), SLS was a
particularly effective manufacturing solution for our pro-
totype. SLS was also advantageous in that it allowed us to
design components that serve multiple functions (e.g. hous-
ing for the angle sensor magnets and SEA springs were
integrated with the links). This helped us to reduce both the
Fig. 3. Schematic of the Bowden-cable-based compression spring number and size of components in the design. Also, since
SEA mechanism. See Section 4.1 for definitions of the variables this method allowed for quick manufacturing of the parts,
marked in the schematic. it significantly reduced the development time of the proto-
type, leading to quick iterations of design and testing. Fur-
thermore, the printed components were highly machinable,
carried out to quantify the torque tracking performance of allowing for the post-processing needed for accurate dimen-
the SEA. Also, the magnitude of the torque range gener- sioning of critical parts and also for the required subject
ated at the joint for the same range of actuator displacement specific customization (if any).
can be adjusted based on the magnitude of the stiffness
employed. Thus, choosing the correct stiffness ensures that
only appropriate forces can be applied on finger phalanges, 3.4. Prototype
making the device both safe and comfortable. In addition,
We implemented the proposed mechanism in the form of
the Bowden-cable-based actuation mechanism allows for
an overall design for the index finger exoskeleton (Fig-
remote actuation without constraining the subject’s hand
ure 4(a)). In addition to the various joints mentioned in
to a fixed anchor or adding any resultant forces on the
Section 3.1, a passive DOF for finger adduction-abduction
exoskeleton base. There were two possible configurations
motion in the MCP chain was also implemented in the
of the SEA that could be implemented (Figure 3): tension
design. The sliding and revolute joints were realized using
and compression spring-based.
ultra-miniature linear and rotary ball bearings. For compo-
We introduced a compression spring as the elastic ele-
nents with significant loading, we used off-the-shelf steel
ment of the SEA between the sheath and the exoskeleton
parts (e.g. shafts) to reduce size and avoid excessive defor-
base at the exoskeleton side (Figure 3). One end of the
mation. The entire chain is grounded on the exoskeleton
spring is connected to the cable sheath via clamps and the
base, which is attached on the wearer’s hand with a velcro
other end rested on the exoskeleton joint base. The role of
strap. In addition, high-density rubber foam is attached on
the sheath in this design is to counteract the force applied
the base for comfort to the wearer. Slots are provided on
by the cable and maintain zero resultant force on the device.
the base such that the attachment of the entire chain can be
This makes the SEA a pure torque source. Furthermore,
adjusted both in longitudinal and lateral directions as well
two such compression springs are introduced, one on each
as in angular position to adapt to the index finger size and
side of the pulley, which makes the SEA a bidirectional
natural position of the wearer.
torque source. In this configuration, the compression spring
Each link consists of two segments which can slide with
decreases in length as the device operates, thus avoiding any
respect to each other and can be locked in a specific position
possible interference with other components during opera-
using a screw (Figure 4(b)). This allows for length adjust-
tion. Also, since one end of the compression spring rests on
ment of the links as per the requirement of the wearer’s
the exoskeleton base, there is no translation of the compres-
phalanx lengths. A magneto-resistive angle sensor mod-
sion spring. This configuration reduced the space require-
ule (KMA210, NXP Semiconductors) with a diametrically
ment on the hand exoskeleton. We therefore implemented
magnetized ring magnet is used as a joint angle sensor
this configuration of the SEA in our design. In a Bowden
(Figure 4(c)). The ring magnet casing is built into the corre-
cable, the same tensile force is induced in the cable as the
sponding link, with the sensor attached to the link moving
compressive force generated in the sheath. Thus the estima-
relative to the previous one. The device has five angle sen-
tion of the compressive force using spring deflection gives
sors to collect data from five joint angles, with one redun-
a measure of the tension in the two cables and hence the
dant sensor (Figure 4(a)). This redundant measurement is
torque acting at the joint.
used to estimate the kinematic parameters of the coupled
finger exoskeleton system in situ.
We implemented a Bowden-cable-based compression
3.3. Additive manufacturing spring SEA in the prototype (Figure 4(d)). Each actuated
We chose to manufacture various components of our proto- joint consists of a pulley with a cable attached on the cir-
type using Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)3 with Nylon 12 cumference of the pulley. The Bowden cable consists of an
Agarwal et al 7
significantly affecting the curvature of the Bowden cables.

The cable tension is maintained using a cable tensioning
mechanism. The mechanism consists of a sliding platform
on which the motor is mounted and the position of the
platform can be fixed using a lead screw mechanism that
gradually builds tension in the cable.
The entire kinematic chain is actuated in the center
plane of the mechanism to ensure that no sideways forces
are applied on the finger while the device is actuated.
Remote actuation along with SLS using Nylon 12 signifi-
cantly reduces the overall weight (hand base (30 g) + fin-
ger exoskeleton (50 g) ≈ 80 g) of the device compared to
other exoskeletons (110 g for HANDEXOS (Chiri et al.,
2012), 140 g for CAFE (Jones et al., 2014)). The design
also allows for the possibility of replacement of the stiffness
element (for adjusting the achievable torque range specific
to a subject) without having to remove the cables.
4. System modeling
4.1. Series elastic actuator
The kinematic relationship in the system with the two
springs of same effective stiffness values (k1 = k2 = k)
(assuming the stretch in the cable to be negligible at the
operating loads) is given by (1) (Figure 3).
l1 = −l2 = rj ( θj − θj0 ) −rm θm (1)
where li is the extension in spring with length li . rj and rm

are the joint and motor pulley radii, respectively. θj and θm
are the joint and motor angles, respectively. θj0 is the initial
Fig. 4. CAD model of the designed index finger exoskeleton joint angle. The torque (τj ) acting at the SEA joint due to
prototype. (a) Overall design of the exoskeleton, (b) adjustable the difference in the tensions (T1 and T2 ) in the two cables
link length assembly, (c) angle sensor and ring magnet assembly is given by (2).
for joint angle sensing, and (d) Bowden-cable-based compression
τj =( T2 − T1 ) rj = 2k rm θm − rj ( θj − θj0 ) rj (2)
spring SEA design.
4.2. Index finger exoskeleton

MFA (modified fluoroalkoxy)-coated Nylon sheath (0.125 Control of the developed device requires good estimates
inch outer diameter) with an FEP (fluorinated ethylene of the joint angles of the wearer and the forces acting in
propylene)-coated stainless steel (0.026 inch diameter) wire the system. We therefore developed the kinematic and stat-
rope to reduce the friction between the cable and the sheath. ics model of the mechanism to estimate the finger joint
For each end of the Bowden cable connected to the joint- angles and static torques of the wearer. We assumed small
pulley, there is a compression spring attached to the Bow- abduction-adduction joint angles for the index finger and
den cable sheath. When the motor actuates the joint-pulley, thus analyzed the mechanism for planar motion.
it first compresses the spring. The introduction of the pas-
sive series elastic element in the transmission mechanism
4.2.1. Kinematics. The loop-closure equation for the prox-
provides a means for accurately estimating the cable ten-
imal (MCP) chain of the index finger exoskeleton (Figure 5)
sion using the joint displacement measurements obtained
is given by (3).
using the magnetic angle sensor mounted at the joint and
the motor encoder. We used DC motors (RE-max 29, 22 W, lBC eiθ1 + lCD eiθ2 + x3 ei(θ4 −π) = xA + iyA (3)
Maxon Precision Motors Inc.) with planetary gearheads as
the actuators for the device. The motors are mounted on a where lBC , lCD are the lengths of the links BC and CD,
stationary platform and the Bowden cable acts as the trans- respectively. x3 represents the sliding length in MCP chain
mission mechanism in the current design. Sufficiently long at a given configuration, θ ’s represent the various angles
Bowden cables allow for moving the hand around without (Figure 5). ( xA , yA ) represent the coordinate of the human
viscoelastic torques at the finger joints (Deshpande et al.,

2012). In addition, the velocities for a rehabilitation task
are relatively small. Thus we consider only a statics model
of the coupled finger exoskeleton system for developing
a torque controller. The static forces/torques acting in the
system can be related using the Jacobian as in (6).
⎡ ⎤
f3 ( = 0)
τj,mcp ⎢ τmcp ⎥
= J( r )T ⎢
⎣τ5 ( = 0)⎦
⎥ (6)
τj,pip
τpip
where τj,mcp and τj,pip represent the torques applied at the

actuated exoskeleton MCP and PIP joints, respectively, and
τmcp and τpip represent the torques applied at the finger MCP
and PIP joints, respectively. The force or torque acting at
Fig. 5. Nomenclature for the kinematic model of the designed
the linear or rotary passive joint was assumed to be zero as
index finger exoskeleton. All angles are measured in counterclock-
each joint had a bearing which made the friction at the joint
wise direction. The arrows in red color depict forces or torques
small.
acting on the system. The arrows in black represent kinematic
variables.
5. Controls
MCP joint (point A) in the coordinate frame located at the
exoskeleton joint at B. Similarly, the loop closure equations We developed two types of torque controllers for the
for the middle (PIP) and distal (DIP) chains were expressed. device: exoskeleton and finger joint torque controllers. The
The forward kinematics deals with evaluating the fin- exoskeleton joint torque controller is a basic controller
ger MCP and PIP joint angles (θ4 , θ8 ) and the exoskeleton implemented to test the torque control performance of the
passive joint displacements (x3 , θ5 ) given the exoskeleton two SEAs on the device. The finger joint torque controller,
relative joint angles (θ1r , θ6r ). The relative joint angle is the on the other hand, is a more complex controller which con-
angle between the links connected at the joint as measured trols the torque being applied at the individual finger joints
by the sensors mounted at the joint. Since each chain can be based on a subject-specific kinematics and statics model.
treated as a four-bar mechanism (by fixing the remaining In addition, accurate operation of these controllers required
DOFs), we solved for the kinematics of the system using estimation of the kinematic parameters for a specific sub-
the standard four-bar kinematics solution (Norton, 1999). ject. We implemented an optimization-based technique to
In addition, we evaluated the least-squares solution for the estimate the kinematic parameters of the coupled finger
closed-form kinematics when the system failed to evalu- exoskeleton system for a specific subject.
ate the exact kinematics solution due to an error in the
geometric parameters. Thus the solution can be expressed
as in (4). 5.1. Exoskeleton joint torque control
The goal of this controller was to track the desired torque
X = X( r ) (4)
trajectories at the exoskeleton SEA joints (Figure 6). The
T T output of the system was considered to be the torque gener-
where X = x3 θ4 θ5 θ8 and r = θ1r θ6r .
The velocity level kinematics (5) can then be obtained ated at the exoskeleton joints through SEA as expressed in
(7).
by differentiating the position kinematics equations for the
MCP (3) and the PIP chains. We used symbolic computa-
τj,mcp
tion in MATLAB to evaluate the Jacobian of the system (see ŷ = = 2Krj rm m − rj ( r − r0 ) (7)
Appendix). τj,pip

˙r
Ẋ 4×1 = [J( r ) ]4×2 (5) where
2×1

where Ẋ 4×1 represents the velocity vector, ˙r rep- kj,mcp 0 θm,mcp
2×1 K= , m =
resents the exoskeleton joint relative velocity vector and 0 kj,pip θm,pip
[J( r ) ]4×2 represents the Jacobian of the system.
kj,mcp and kj,pip represent the magnitude of the effective stiff-
4.2.2. Statics. An experimental study has shown that the ness at the exoskeleton MCP and PIP joints, respectively,
human hand dynamics is dominated by the intrinsic passive and θm,mcp and θm,pip are the MCP and PIP motor angles,
Agarwal et al 9
respectively. The PID controller with the corresponding

feed-forward term is then given by (8).
e =yd − ŷ
ė =ẏd − ŷ˙

1 K−1 yd
u= + rj (r − r0 ) + Kp e + Kd ė+ (8)
rm 2rj
Fig. 6. The torque controllers implemented on the index finger
Ki edt exoskeleton. For the exoskeleton joint torque controller, the feed-
forward control and torque observer refers to the exoskeleton
where e is the vector containing exoskeleton joint torque joint torque feed-forward control and SEA-based exoskeleton joint
errors, yd is the vector containing the desired torque at the torque estimation. For the finger joint torque controller, the feed-
two exoskeleton joints and u is the control input vector forward control and torque observer refers to the finger joint feed-
for the two exoskeleton joints. The gain matrices for the forward torque control and finger joint torque estimation using the
controller are given by system statics model.

kp,mcp 0 kd,mcp 0
Kp = , Kd = e is the vector containing exoskeleton torque errors and u is
0 kp,pip 0 kd,pip
the desired motor position vector used as control input for
k 0
Ki = i,mcp the two exoskeleton joints. The derivative of the Jacobian
0 ki,pip
(J̇n ), which is used to evaluate the error derivative (ė), is
computed numerically (Appendix 9).
5.2. Finger joint torque control
The two actuated exoskeleton joints contributed to the 5.3. Parameter estimation
torque applied on the two finger joints due to the mechanical
coupling caused by the exoskeleton mechanism. The goal of Since the relative attachment of the exoskeleton on the
this controller was to track the desired torque trajectories at wearer’s hand changed the geometric parameters of the
the two finger joints (MCP and PIP) by applying appropri- system, estimating the correct geometric parameters was
ate torques through the exoskeleton SEAs (Figure 6). Since, essential for the controller to function. Also, it was diffi-
the contribution of the inertial effects to the dynamics of the cult to measure the exact geometric parameters that were
index finger exoskeleton system is small (Deshpande et al., dependent on the hand of the wearer (Zhou et al., 2010),
2012), we evaluated the output finger joint torques based on since the exact locations of the finger joint axes were diffi-
the applied SEA joint torques as given by (9). cult to determine. In order to deal with these problems, we
used the redundant sensor data (Figure 4(a)) to estimate the
ŷ = Jn −T 2Krj rm m − rj ( r − r0 ) (9) uncertain geometric parameters. We collected the data from
the redundant sensor for certain duration so that the full
where Jn represents the Jacobian relating the exoskeleton joint range of motion was traced at least once (e.g. 2 sec-
joint torque to the finger joint torque and is given by (10). onds for a 0.5 Hz sinusoid torque trajectory) and then used
an optimization-based technique to estimate all the uncer-
J21 J22
Jn = (10) tain parameters in the system offline. We formulated the
J41 J42
following optimization problem to estimate the parameters
where Jij represents the ( i, j)th entry in the Jacobian matrix
J (see (5)).
N
P̂min = arg min ( yk − ym,k )2 (12)
The PID controller is developed considering the corre- P̂
i=1
sponding feed-forward term is then given by (11).
where yk and ym,k are the measured and the model-based
τfe =yd − ŷ redundant joint angle data, respectively. N is the number of
e =Jn T τfe measurements and Pk = [xA yA lBC lCD lAH lFG lGH ]T . The
interior-point algorithm, described in Byrd et al. (1999),
ė =( J̇Tn τfe + Jn T τ̇ fe )
was used for solving the optimization problem.
1 Jn T K−1 yd (11)
u= + rj ( r − r0 )
rm 2rj 6. Simulation

+ Kp e + Kd ė + Ki e dt The proposed controller was first implemented in simula-
tion to verify its effectiveness, before implementation on
where τfe is the vector containing finger torque errors, yd is the prototype. We developed a dynamics model of the cou-
the vector containing desired torque at the two finger joints, pled finger exoskeleton system and controlled it using the
proposed finger joint torque controller. In addition, simula- and the dynamics of the PIP chain is affected by the MCP
tions helped in choosing the correct magnitude of stiffness chain and hence the system becomes more non-linear as one
at the two SEA joints and an appropriate Bowden cable and moves away from the base. The fluctuations at the peaks
sheath combination for the exoskeleton. in the PIP joint torque did not result in large oscillations
of the exoskeleton joint angles (Figure 7(c)) and were a
6.1. Dynamics model result of the large changes in torque with small changes
in angle at the extreme angles for the double exponential
We developed a dynamics model (13) of the coupled finger torque model (14). The required motor angles were well
exoskeleton system. within the safe limits (Figure 7(d)) and so actuator satu-
¨ j + Bj
˙ j + Jn T τf = τj ration was not explicitly modeled in the controller. Also,
Ij (13)
the torque requirement for the MCP joint is higher than
the PIP joint. The simulation also provided estimates of
τmcp τ the appropriate stiffness values for the SEA springs at the
τf = , τj = j,mcp
τpip τj,pip MCP (kj,MCP = 2816 N/m) and the PIP (kj,PIP = 744 N/m)
where Ij is the inertia matrix and Bj is the damping matrix. joint, which were commercially available. The stiffness val-
Since the exoskeleton links were prototyped using SLS, the ues were chosen so that the requirement of the peak torque
link mass and inertia was low and hence we did not con- from the coupled system dynamics (13) and joint torque
sider the configuration-dependent change in the inertial and model (14) could be met while ensuring sufficient torque
Coriolis terms in the dynamics (13). We used the human fin- resolution under noisy joint angle sensing (motor angle
ger phalanges inertia values available in the literature (Wu >20 degrees at peak torque) along with the availability of
et al., 2008) and estimated the exoskeleton link inertia from off-the-shelf compression springs. In addition, motor angle
the CAD model (Figure 4). We also assumed a linear vis- should be in safe limits for bidirectional torque control
cous damping at the exoskeleton joints to take into account (motor angle lies within ±60 degrees at peak torque). Also,
the damping due to the Bowden cable and the damping at a smaller motor angle to achieve the peak torque allows for
the human joints (Barnett and Cobbold, 1968). a higher bandwidth of the SEA. In addition, estimates of
The motion of finger joints causes passive tissues such the tension in the Bowden cable also helped in choosing the
as tendons, ligaments, skin, and inactive muscles to be appropriate Bowden cable and sheath combination.
deformed. This deformation manifests in the form of a pas-
sive resistance or stiffness at the joint. A lumped passive
torque model can be built by combining the contributions 7. Experimentation
from all the constitutive factors. Experimental studies have The experiments with the SEA test rig and the exoskeleton
shown that this passive torque at the finger joints exhibits prototype were aimed at characterizing the following: (i) the
double exponential nature (Dionysian et al., 2005; Esteki torque tracking performance and bandwidth of the SEA; (ii)
and Mansour, 1996; Kuo and Deshpande, 2012). We use the kinematic transparency of the device, i.e. how did the
this biomechanically consistent joint torque model (14) for device affect natural motion of the finger joints; (iii) active
the MCP (τMCP ) and PIP (τPIP ) joints (Agarwal et al., 2013a; range of motion with and without the device; (iv) validation
Kuo and Deshpande, 2012) for simulation. of the kinematic model which was employed for the control
τx ( θx ) = Ax ( e−Bx (θx −Ex ) − 1) −Cx ( eDx (θx −Fx ) − 1) (14) of the device; (v) exoskeleton joints torque tracking perfor-
mance; (vi) finger joints torque tracking performance; and
where τx is the passive torque offered by the joint, θx is the (vii) dynamic transparency of the device, i.e. how did the
joint angle, and Ax , Bx , Cx , Dx , Ex , Fx are the model coeffi- device resist natural motion of the finger joints.
cients. The finger joint torque controller (Section 5.2) was
implemented on the device using the developed dynamics
model of the coupled finger exoskeleton system to verify 7.1. Series elastic actuator testing.
the effectiveness of the controller.
A test rig was developed for testing the stand-alone per-
formance of the proposed SEA (Figure 8). The motor side
6.2. Simulation results and joint side were mounted on two different mechanical
The simulation results showed that the controller developed breadboards, which were separated by a meter-long Bow-
was able to track the desired sinusoidal torque trajectories den cable sheath to simulate the actual scenario of the hand
with a normalized RMS error of 1.6% (0.0032 Nm) and exoskeleton. The joint side was fixed with a six-axis load
9.2% (0.0037 Nm) at the finger MCP and PIP joint, respec- cell to measure the output joint torque and verify how close
tively (Figures 7(a) and 7(b)). Also, better torque tracking the SEA-based estimated torque values were to the mea-
was observed at the MCP joint as compared to the PIP joint sured ones. A compact magneto-resistive angle sensor sim-
as the system became more non-linear down the exoskele- ilar to the one installed on the index finger exoskeleton was
ton chain. This is due to the fact that both the kinematics used to measure the joint angle and provide feedback to the
Agarwal et al 11
Fig. 7. The finger joints torque tracking performance for the feed-forward PID controller with sinusoidal torque input in simulation. (a)
Finger MCP joint torque trajectory, (b) finger PIP joint torque trajectory, (c) exoskeleton relative joint angle trajectories at MCP (θ1r )
and PIP (θ6r ) joints, and (d) motor joint angle trajectories.
to quantify the distortion of the output due to the non-

linearities present in the system for SEAs (Hayward and
Astley, 1996; Morrell and Salisbury, 1998; Veneman et al.,
2006). We use the following measure to quantify fidelity:

var( y − yd )
F = 1− × 100% (15)
var( y)
Fig. 8. The test rig developed to assess the torque tracking where F represents the force fidelity, y and yd are the mea-
performance of the SEA. sured and the desired torque output, respectively, and var( .)
is the variance.
torque controller to take into account the effect of sensor 7.1.2. Performance at different peak torques. An experi-
noise on torque control. ment was carried out to verify if the accuracy and fidelity of
the SEA held at different peak torque values. We evaluated
the performance of the SEA for the sinusoidal trajectories
7.1.1. Accuracy and fidelity. The joint torque control was of peak torque of 0.15 Nm and 0.3 Nm at a frequency of
implemented on the test rig to verify the quality and fidelity 0.5 Hz, which would be typically encountered during our
of the torque tracking performance of the SEA. The goal application of finger rehabilitation.
was to track a sinusoidal joint torque on the SEA test rig
and verify the tracking quality and fidelity of the output
torque using the measurements obtained through the load 7.1.3. Torque bandwidth. Torque bandwidth is the maxi-
cell. Torque output fidelity has been defined in the past mum frequency at which an SEA can deliver torque. A
linear chirp signal expressed in (16) was used as the desired

torque to evaluate the bandwidth of the SEA.
τd = τA sin ( 2π ( f0 + f1 t) t) (16)
The magnitude (|GCL |( jω)) of the frequency response of the

SEAs was evaluated using the measured torque data using
(17) to capture the non-linearities present in the system in
frequency response.
|τjm ( jω) |
|GCL ( jω) | = (17)
|τr ( jω) |
Fig. 9. The experimental setup for the hand exoskeleton system
where |τjm ( jω) | and |τr ( jω) |, represent the single-sided
with the motion capture markers.
amplitude spectrum of the measured and reference torque
data as obtained using fast Fourier transform.
The experiments were performed at three different
7.2. Kinematic transparency. speeds—low (0.4 Hz), medium (0.8 Hz), and high (1.2 Hz).
An audio cue was provided to the subjects to help them
Since the index finger exoskeleton will be the basis for the maintain the required finger frequency using a metronome.
exoskeleton modules for the other fingers, kinematic trans- During all the experiments, the motion capture data was
parency tests were carried out to quantify the similarity of recorded using a motion capture system (PhaseSpace Inc.)
motion with and without the exoskeleton. Two healthy sub- at 480 Hz. For experiments with the exoskeleton, synchro-
jects (both males, ages 20–24 years) voluntarily participated nized data from the angle sensors were also recorded at
in this pilot study, after they provided their informed con- 1000 Hz. All the data acquisition subroutines were coded
sent (The University of Texas at Austin institutional review in C++, with the motion capture data acquisition task and
board study number 2013-05-0126). We used the follow- the sensor data acquisition task running on two parallel
ing protocol to perform the kinematic transparency exper- threads to ensure hard real-time performance. The motion
iments. During experimentation, first the motion capture capture data was post-processed to reconstruct any missing
markers were placed on the various joints of the subject. data (Ljung, 1999), smoothed using a moving average fil-
The markers were placed on the side of the finger both with ter, and resampled at 1/10 frequency (48 Hz) to filter out
and without the exoskeleton to avoid any possible inter- the noise. The angle sensor data was resampled at 1/10 fre-
ference with the device and assess the performance under quency (100 Hz) to filter out the noise. Note that since these
similar conditions (Figure 9). The subjects were asked to experiments were aimed at characterizing only the kine-
perform the following four different motions: (i) MCP joint matics of device, the Bowden-cable-based SEAs were not
articulation through full active range of motion (AROM) in connected during this experimentation.
flexion–extension while maintaining zero flexion angle at
the PIP and DIP joints, (ii) full AROM flexion–extension
at the PIP and DIP joints while maintaining zero flexion 7.3. Active range of motion
angle at the MCP joint, (iii) full AROM flexion–extension The subjects were asked to move their fingers at a specified
at the MCP, PIP, and DIP joints, and (iv) MCP joint full frequency for the kinematic transparency tasks. However,
AROM while maintaining full flexion at the PIP and DIP it was difficult for the subjects to reach their full AROM
joints. The subjects were then asked to wear the device and while performing the task. Thus, to accurately evaluate the
the link lengths were adjusted so that they can comfort- AROM, we separately measured the AROM for each joint
ably reach their full AROM with the device. The motion with and without the device. The subjects were asked to vol-
capture markers were again placed on the various joints untarily move their fingers to the extreme positions for each
and the subjects were asked to perform the four differ- joint. An image was captured with an overhead camera to
ent motions with the device. The subjects were allowed ensure that the finger plane was parallel to the image plane
to practice each motion for a certain duration (∼ 2 min), of the camera for accurate measurement of the angles.
after which the actual experiment was conducted. In addi-
tion, the subjects were asked to keep the motion limited
to the flexion–extension plane with no abduction-adduction
7.4. Kinematic model validation
motion. We do not carry out motions for explicit testing of Since the data from the motion capture system and the
the MCP abduction-adduction motion, since in our design magnetic angle sensor were collected synchronously, the
the joint is not actuated and its role is to allow for free finger former was used to validate the estimates obtained using
motion sideways while performing the flexion–extension the kinematic model with the latter. The estimates of the
motion at the other finger joints. various kinematic parameters for the kinematic model were
Agarwal et al 13
obtained using the measurements obtained from an image the desired trajectories were determined experimentally for
of the coupled hand exoskeleton system. The sensor data a subject by gradually increasing the desired torque ampli-
from the MCP joint was first used to solve for the kinemat- tudes at the two exoskeleton joints within the user’s comfort
ics of the MCP chain. The obtained solutions along with the level. All the experiments with the actuated device were car-
sensor data from the PIP chain were then used to solve for ried out with one healthy human subject who had no history
the kinematics of the PIP chain. Finally, using the PIP chain of any neuromuscular disorder.
solutions and the DIP chain sensor data, the kinematics of
the DIP chain was solved.
7.6. Finger joint torque tracking
The goal of the finger joint torque tracking test was to ver-
7.5. Exoskeleton joint torque tracking
ify if the SEAs at the two exoskeleton joints can coordinate
The index finger exoskeleton control framework was imple- to generate desired torques at the two finger joints using
mented using C++ under RealTime Application Interface4 the estimated system parameters (Section 5.3). We exper-
(RTAI) 4.0 Linux user-space to ensure hard real-time per- imentally determined the parameters of the desired torque
formance. The sensor data from the magneto-resistive angle trajectories (18) for a subject by gradually increasing the
sensors installed on the index finger exoskeleton was sent desired torque amplitudes at the two finger joints within
to the analog to digital converter (ADC) in the single- the user’s comfort level. In addition, we evaluated the fin-
board RIO-9636 (National Instruments Inc.) data acquisi- ger joint reaction forces both at the MCP and PIP joints
tion (DAQ) board equipped with a real-time 400 MHz pro- by analyzing the joint reaction forces in the two four-bar
cessor and a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The chains (Norton, 1999) to ensure that the human joints were
data was then filtered using a moving average filter (Smith, not loaded significantly.
2003) using the on-board FPGA. Also, the motor position
was measured using the optical encoder on each motor and
sent to the DAQ. The velocity estimation was then car-
7.7. Dynamic transparency
ried out both for the joint angle sensor data and the motor Finally, experiments were carried out to test dynamic trans-
position data using the on-board FPGA. Next, the posi- parency of the device while a subject interacts with the
tion and velocity data was communicated to the interface device. The goal was to test if the device can be controlled
PC over Ethernet. The interface PC had a kinematics esti- to offer least resistance to the finger joints. A subject wore
mator, which estimated the various joint angles (for both the device and generated fast random motions. The device
the mechanism and the finger) in the system and commu- was controlled to render zero torque at the exoskeleton
nicated this information to the exoskeleton controller and joints, which in turn should lead to zero applied torque at
a GUI (coded in Qt C++ using OpenGL) using a first-in- the finger joints.
first-out (FIFO) queue for real-time visualization. The joint
torques acting at the SEA joints were also estimated and
communicated to the exoskeleton controller along with the
8. Results
desired torque trajectory information. The exoskeleton con- 8.1. SEA testing
troller then calculated the required motor positions for both
the MCP and the PIP motor. A motor angle watchdog then 8.1.1. Accuracy and fidelity. The results from the SEA test
checked if the commanded motor positions were within rig show that the PID control is able to track the desired
the safe limits and communicated this information to the torque trajectory with a fidelity of 99.36 % (Figures 10(a)
DAQ again over the Ethernet. The commanded positions and 10(b)). The measured, best fit, desired, and estimated
were then converted to the corresponding analog signals torques refer to the torque measured using the load cell,
and sent to the motor controllers (EPOS2 50/5, Maxon Pre- torque obtained by fitting the best curve to the measured
cision Motors Inc.). Finally, the motor controllers executed torque, desired torque trajectory as available to the real-
the commanded positions using PID control. The overall time controller, and the torque trajectory as estimated by
higher level controller ran at 500 Hz. the real-time controller using SEA-based torque evalua-
The exoskeleton joint torque control was implemented tion. The measured, best fit, and estimated trajectories show
on the actual prototype to test the exoskeleton joint level root-mean-square errors of 0.0125 Nm (6.29%), 0.0116 Nm
torque tracking performance. We used the phase and mean (5.82%) and 0.0119 Nm (5.96%), respectively, with respect
shifted sinusoidal trajectories as the desired torque input to to the desired torque trajectory. The measured curve shows
the system (18). some deviation from the estimated values, especially near
the peak of the sinusoid. This is due to the error in torque
τjd = τjA sin ( 2π ft + φj ) + τjμ (18) estimation introduced due to the load- and configuration-
dependent effective backlash (Kaneko et al., 1991) in the
where τjd is the desired joint torque and τjA , f , φj , and τjμ Bowden cable when the motor changes direction. Also, the
are the amplitude, frequency, phase and mean of the sinu- controller was able to perform under the sensor noise as
soidal torque trajectory. The values of various parameters in observed in the joint angle measurements (Figure 10(d)).
Fig. 10. The SEA joint torque tracking performance for the PID controller with sinusoidal torque input on the SEA test rig. (a) Output
joint torque trajectory comparison for one cycle, (b) output joint torque trajectory tracking, (c) motor position input trajectory, and (d)
joint angle trajectory.
The joint angle should ideally be zero throughout as the 8.1.3. Torque bandwidth. Filtered (moving averaged)
joint is fixed to a load cell. However, a small change in magnitude of the frequency response shows that the SEA
angle is observed, which is likely due to a couple of factors. has a bandwidth (magnitude drops below −3 dB) of over
First, due to the design of the exoskeleton joint, the load cell 2.5 Hz (18 rad/s), which is sufficient for our application of
could not be directly connected on the pulley face on the test finger rehabilitation (Figure 12(a)). The identified second-
setup. Instead, three screws interfaced between the load cell order model showed a fitting of 85.06%. A comparison of
and joint. When loaded, these screws deflected slightly due the system response shows that the desired and measured
to their cantilever configuration. Second, these same screws torques have a low phase angle even at relatively higher
interfaced with the pulley by way of through holes. These frequencies (> 2 Hz) (Figure 12(c)). However, there is
through holes were slightly larger than the screw diame- some dynamics that is not accurately captured by the
ter, which may have caused relative movement between the second-order model, especially at the peaks, due to the
screw and pulley. Regardless, any change in the joint angle non-linearities present in the system.
was accounted for in the estimates of the SEA torque so it
did not affect our results.
8.2. Kinematic transparency
For the kinematic transparency experiments, the MCP, PIP,
8.1.2. Performance at different peak torques. The SEA and DIP joint angles were evaluated using the motion cap-
was able to track the torque trajectory of 0.15 Nm and ture data with and without the device (Figure 13). We used
0.3 Nm sinusoids with an RMSE of 9.28% and 11.59% Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient averaged
and fidelity of 98.58% and 97.7%, respectively (Figure 11, over three repetitions to quantify the level of similarity
Table 1). Thus the designed SEA can apply accurate and between the joint angle trajectories with and without the
high-fidelity torques in the torque ranges required for our exoskeleton. We use correlation as a measure of trans-
application of finger rehabilitation. parency instead of RMS error as it is difficult for the subject
Agarwal et al 15
Table 1. Joint torque root mean square error (RMSE) for the best fit, estimated and actual torque trajectories for the SEA. The percent
error represents the percentage of RMS error with respect to the peak torque.
Peak Torque Magnitude Best fit Estimated Actual Fidelity
Nm Nm % Nm % Nm % %
0.15 0.0128 8.76 0.0132 9.00 0.0136 9.28 98.58

0.30 0.0179 5.54 0.0379 11.76 0.0374 11.59 97.70
Fig. 11. The joint torque tracking performance of the SEA with sinusoidal torque input. Output joint torque trajectory comparison for
peak torque magnitude of: (a), (b) 0.15 Nm and (c), (d) 0.3 Nm.
to exactly replicate the same motion over and over again exoskeleton (< 30◦ ) than with the exoskeleton (< 10◦ ).
with or without the device. This shows that some deviation might be observed due to
Results from the kinematic transparency tests showed a subject’s inability to maintain constant finger joint angles
that in general there is strong correlation between the for certain tasks rather than solely the kinematics of the
joint angle trajectories without and with the exoskeleton device. In addition, some MCP abduction-adduction joint
(Table 2). The results for motions (ii) and (iii) showed that motion (< 12◦ ) was observed even when the subjects were
the exoskeleton preserved the nature of motion at the MCP, instructed to maintain a constant angle at that joint, both
PIP, and DIP in flexion–extension and MCP in abduction- without and with the exoskeleton. For motion (i), similar
adduction (Figure 13(c), (d), (e), and (f)). For motion (i), MCP abduction-adduction motion is observed without and
higher PIP joint angle variation was observed with the with the device, which shows that the device allows for
device (< 20◦ ) than without it (< 10◦ ) (Figure 13(a) and the natural abduction-adduction motion while performing
(b)). This might be due to the coupling that exists between flexion–extension motion at the other joints. Thus the over-
the exoskeleton MCP and PIP chains, which makes some all nature of the motion at the MCP, PIP, and DIP joints is
motion at the PIP joint while moving the MCP joint rela- similar without with the device at all speeds. In addition,
tively more comfortable for the subject. Also, higher motion at low speeds the joint angles at the PIP joint were higher
was observed at the PIP joint for motion (iv) without the when the subject was wearing the device as compared to

Fig. 12. Results from the frequency response analysis of the SEA:
(a) magnitude from the raw measurements, filtered, and identified
second-order system, (b) phase from the identified second-order
system, and (c) comparison of the measured, desired, and simu-
lated (identified second-order) system response for a portion of
the chirp signal trajectory.
without the exoskeleton (Figure 13(a) and (b)). Also, the Fig. 13. Kinematic transparency results without and with the
plots showed that at high speed, the angle range of the sub- exoskeleton for one subject. The left and right columns represent
ject was significantly reduced, both without and with the the plots of the various finger joint angles without and with the
exoskeleton, as the task was demanding (Figure 13(e) and hand exoskeleton for the different experiments, respectively. (a)
(f)). and (b) represent the motion (i) at low speed, (c) and (d) represent
The current design with adjustable link lengths supports the motion (ii) at medium speed, (e) and (f) represent the motion
hand sizes with index finger lengths in the range of 60 to (iii) at high speed, and (g) and (h) represent the motion (iv) at low
80 mm, which corresponds to 95th percentile of the British speed.
adult population (both males and females) aged between
19 and 65 years (Ergonomics for Schools, 2008; Feeney,
2002). All ranges of middle and distal phalanx thickness
could be accommodated as a velcro strap is used to connect
the device at these phalanges. In addition, we have three
8.3. Active range of motion
different sizes for the proximal phalanx rest (link that con- The AROM with the exoskeleton was affected by the rela-
nects to the proximal phalanx) and hand base to allow for an tive attachment of the device to the subjects’ fingers. Table 3
ergonomic fit to hands of different sizes. The design allows presents the results of the AROM for the two subjects.
for quick replacement of these parts to reduce the donning Results showed that the AROM of the subject was reduced
time of the device. when the device is attached to the hand. The reduction in
Agarwal et al 17
Fig. 14. A comparison of the finger joint angle estimates obtained using: (a) angle sensor data with kinematic model and (b) motion
capture data.
Table 2. Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient aver-

aged over three repetitions as obtained from the kinematic trans-
parency tests. The p-value was computed using a Student’s t
distribution.
Motion type MCP PIP DIP
(i) 0.9002 – –
(p < 0.01)
(ii) – 0.9723 0.9209
(p < 0.01) (p < 0.01)
(iii) 0.8937 0.9852 0.9892
(p < 0.01) (p < 0.01) (p < 0.01)
(iv) 0.7888 – – Fig. 15. Box plot of the differences between the finger joint angle
(p < 0.01) estimates obtained using the sensor data with kinematic model and
motion capture data. The central mark represents the median, the
edges of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers
Table 3. Active range of motion results for the different subjects extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers and
without and with the index finger exoskeleton. the outliers are plotted individually.
Active Range of Motion
Without Exoskeleton With Exoskeleton with the kinematic model and the motion capture data at
Subject Joint Flexion Extension Flexion Extension the MCP, PIP, and DIP joint, respectively (Figure 14(a)
MCP 94◦ 5.2◦ 72.1◦ 2.2◦ and (b)). A box plot of the differences also shows increas-
Subject 1 PIP 113.4◦ 0.2◦ 92.4◦ 0◦ ing difference in median and spread from MCP to PIP to
DIP 88◦ 10◦ 64.13◦ 8◦ DIP joint (Figure 15). This is because the estimates in the
MCP chain affect the estimates of both the PIP and DIP
MCP 84.1◦ 2.5◦ 68.4◦ 0.5◦
Subject 2 PIP 125.9◦ 0.5◦ 89.6◦ 0◦ chains and the estimates in the PIP chain affect the esti-
DIP 83.3◦ 5.9◦ 56.2◦ 1.1◦ mates of the DIP chain. This increasing model uncertainty
down the exoskeleton chain leads to increased finger joint
angle differences.
AROM was larger for PIP and DIP joints compared to the
MCP joint. 8.5. Exoskeleton joint torque tracking
The controller was able to track the desired torque with
normalized RMS error of 2.7% (0.0061 Nm) and 14.7%
8.4. Kinematic model validation (0.0064 Nm) at the exoskeleton MCP and PIP joint,
Normalized RMS differences of 5.8% (1.6878◦ ), 7.5% respectively (Figures 16(a) and 16(b)). Limited noise was
(5.9485◦ ), and 19.7% (8.6929◦ ) are observed between the observed after filtering the exoskeleton joint angle sensor
finger joint angle estimates obtained using the sensor data data (Figure 16(c)). However, some noise was observed
Fig. 16. The exoskeleton joints torque tracking results from the index finger exoskeleton prototype. (a) Exoskeleton MCP joint torque
trajectories, (b) exoskeleton PIP joint torque trajectories, (c) exoskeleton joint angle trajectories, and (d) exoskeleton joint velocity
trajectories.
in the exoskeleton joint velocity estimates due to numeri- had a much more significant contribution in the control
cal differentiation (Figure 16(d)). The residual noise in the input when compared to the other terms. However, at the
filtered data also shows up in the estimated joint torque derivative level the term J̇n,11 had much more significant
trajectories. contribution to the control input as compared to the other
terms. Also, the kinematics estimator was able to estimate
the various joint displacements in the coupled system using
8.6. Finger joint torque tracking the obtained parameter estimates (Figure 17(e)). The esti-
The off-line parameter estimator was able to estimate the mates of the reaction forces at the MCP and PIP joints
system parameters, which lie within the reasonable range (Figure 17(f)) showed that the forces (< 12.5 N both at the
based on typical hand sizes for these parameters (Table 4). finger MCP and PIP joints) were well below that experi-
The results showed that the system was able to track the enced by the human finger joints while performing activities
desired finger torque trajectory satisfactorily well with a of daily living (∼ 86.6 N and ∼ 58.5 N at MCP and PIP
normalized RMS error of 1.7% (0.0041 Nm) and 3.4% joint, respectively) (Moran et al., 1985).
(0.0012 Nm) at the finger MCP and PIP joint, respec-
tively (Figure 17(a) and 17(b)). Also, as was observed in
the simulation (Figure 7(a) and Figure 7(b)), better track-
8.7. Dynamic transparency
ing is observed at the MCP joint as compared to the PIP The exoskeleton was able to maintain small torques both
joint as the system exhibits more non-linear and uncer- at the MCP (RMSE = 0.0029 Nm) (Figure 18(c)) and
tain behavior (due to error in parameter values) down the PIP joints (RMSE = 0.0092 Nm) (Figure 18(d)) through-
exoskeleton chain compared to the MCP joint. The obtained out the arbitrary motion generated by the wearer (Fig-
Jacobian estimates were relatively noise-free (Figure 17(c)), ure 18(b)). Some transient residual torques were observed
however, some noise was observed in the Jacobian deriva- when the wearer performed fast movements, which settled
tive estimates (Figure 17(d)) as these are obtained using down to zero subsequently. Residual torques generated at
the noisy velocity estimates. Also, the terms Jn,11 and Jn,22 the exoskeleton joints were due to the error in tracking the
Agarwal et al 19
Fig. 17. The finger joints torque tracking results from the index finger exoskeleton prototype. (a) MCP finger joint torque
trajectory, (b) PIP finger joint torque trajectory, (d) Jacobian estimates, (e) Jacobian derivative estimates, (c) estimated joint displace-
ments for the various joints in the MCP and PIP chain (x3 is plotted on the right Y-axis), and (f) finger joint reaction forces. (Best viewed
in color)
desired motor joint angle trajectories (Figures 18(e) and and low reflected inertia, be kinematically and dynami-
18(f)). cally compatible with the human finger while being quickly
adjustable to a specific subject and be light in weight while
allowing for free motion of the hand with low movement
resistance. Experiments showed that the device is capable of
9. Discussion
bidirectional torque control at both the exoskeleton and the
We presented a novel index finger exoskeleton with finger joints. The kinematic and dynamic transparency tests
Bowden-cable-based SEAs that accomplishes the stated showed that the device is compatible with the finger motion.
design objectives i.e. the design should allow for accurate Finally, the Bowden-cable-based actuation mechanism with
and bidirectional torque control with high backdrivability the use of SLS for manufacturing the prototype makes the

Table 4. The offline parameter estimation results (P̂) along with the initial parameter values (P0 ) used for optimization.a
P xA yA lBC lCD lAH lFG lGH
P0 (m) 0.008 –0.030 0.047 0.025 0.047 0.018 0.015

P̂ (m) 0.000 –0.036 0.042 0.035 0.040 0.029 0.029
LB (m) –0.002 –0.029 0.040 0.024 0.038 0.016 0.014
UB (m) 0.010 –0.039 0.050 0.037 0.052 0.030 0.030
a LB and UB represent the lower bound and upper bound, respectively, of the parameter as measured using a caliper for typical hand sizes.
Fig. 18. The dynamic transparency test results as obtained from the index finger exoskeleton prototype. (a) Exoskeleton joint angle
trajectories, (b) estimated finger joint angle trajectories, (c) exoskeleton MCP joint torque trajectories, (d) exoskeleton PIP joint torque
trajectories, (e) MCP joint motor angle trajectories, and (f) PIP joint motor angle trajectories.
design light in weight (∼80 g), while also allowing for free was wearing the device, the estimates from the SEA were
motion of the hand with minimal resistance. compared to the desired torque trajectory ((Figures 16(a),
The control experiments showed that the device actuated 16(b), 17(a), 17(b), 18(c), 18(d)). We anticipate that the
the finger with good bidirectional torque control. However, actual torques would show some deviation from the desired
since it was difficult to directly measure the joint torques torques, especially at the peaks, as observed on the SEA test
on the actual prototype using a load cell while a subject rig (Figures 10(a), 10(b)). Also, the torques required for the
Agarwal et al 21
actual prototype (Figures 17(a) and 17(b)) were higher than out a study to compare the efficacy of the device with
that obtained from the simulation (Figures 7(a) and 7(b)). other devices used in studies published in the literature. The
This is because there were several simplifications made dur- device can also be geared towards rehabilitation and teleop-
ing the simulation: (i) the finger passive joint torque model eration applications by changing the spring stiffness at the
is an approximation of the torque offered by the human fin- SEA joints.
ger and varies among subjects, (ii) the human joint also
offers some non-linear damping torque (Esteki and Man- Acknowledgements
sour, 1996) which was modeled as linear, (iii) the losses The authors thank Mark Philips, Dongyang Chen, Dan Duy
due to friction at the exoskeleton joints were assumed to Nguyen, and Prashant Rao for assisting in printing the exoskeleton
be negligible, and (iv) the inertial torque was not accurately parts using SLS, recommending the appropriate Bowden cables,
modeled. CAD model renderings, and data acquisition setup, respectively.
The experiments for kinematic characterization showed
that the device fits well to the hands of the subjects and Funding
was easily adjustable. It was also observed that the rela-
This work was supported, in part, by the National Science Founda-
tive attachment of the exoskeleton to the finger phalanges
tion (NSF) grants CNS-1135949 and CNS-1135916. The contents
affected the achievable range of finger flexion–extension
are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily
angle by the exoskeleton. So, by adjusting the exoskeleton
represent the official views of the NSF.
attachment relative to the finger, different regions of the fin-
ger ROM can be exercised. However, there were a few lim-
itations of the methodology used to evaluate the kinematic Notes
performance of the device. First, the motion capture data 1. See http://www.remingtonmedical.com/product/detail/A1.
were assumed to be the ground truth for the actual motion 2. See http://orthoplusinc.com/index.php/products/continuous -
passive-motion/kinetec-maestra-portable-hand-cpm.
of a subject’s finger; however, there was some noise in the 3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering.
data, especially due to the close proximity of the mark- 4. See https://www.rtai.org/.
ers on a subject’s finger. Second, the subjects were asked
to move the finger without significant adduction-abduction References
motion, however, some motion was observed (< 12◦ ) as it
Adamovich SV, Merians AS, Boian R, Lewis JA, Tremaine M,
was difficult for the subjects to avoid it during a timed trial. Burdea GS, Recce M and Poizner H (2005) A virtual reality-
Any out-of-plane rotation due to the adduction-abduction based exercise system for hand rehabilitation post-stroke. Pres-
motion will result in an over-estimation of the joint angles. ence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 14(2): 161–174.
We are also working on optimizing the structural design of Agarwal P, Hechanova A and Deshpande A (2013a) Kinematics
the device, including the size of the SEAs, to make it more and dynamics of a biologically inspired index finger exoskele-
compact. Overall the prototype manufactured using SLS ton. In: 13th ASME dynamic systems and control conference,
was strong and light in weight. However, we plan to replace Palo Alto, CA, USA, 21–23 October 2013. ASME.
some of the small and critical load-bearing parts with metal Agarwal P, Kuo PH, Neptune RR and Deshpande AD (2013b)
components to ensure durability of the device. We envi- A novel framework for virtual prototyping of rehabilitation
sion that, given the pervasiveness of 3D printing technology exoskeletons. In: IEEE international conference on rehabili-
tation robotics, Seattle, WA, USA, 24–26 June 2013, pp. 1–6.
in the future, rapid customization of the interfacing com-
IEEE.
ponents in the design to a specific patient in a clinical Aiple M and Schiele A (2013) Pushing the limits of the cybergrasp
setting will become a reality, thereby improving both the for haptic rendering. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on
ergonomics and performance of the device. robotics and automation, Karlsruhe, Germany, 6–10 May 2013,
Experiments showed that the robustness of the finger pp. 3541–3546. IEEE.
joint torque control is dependent on the obtained parameter Anderson J (2002) Examination and diagnosis of musculoskeletal
estimates. In the future, we plan to implement robust control disorders. Australasian Radiology 46(2): 216–217.
techniques (e.g. sliding mode control (Slotine and Sastry, Barnett C, Cobbold A (1968) Effects of age upon the mobility of
1983)) to accommodate for errors in the obtained parameter human finger joints. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 27(2):
estimates. In addition, we plan to implement other control 175–177.
techniques such as impedance and assist-as-needed control Bernhardt M, Frey M, Colombo G and Riener R (2005) Hybrid
force-position control yields cooperative behaviour of the reha-
(Cai et al., 2006) on the device. Furthermore, we plan to
bilitation robot lokomat. In: 9th IEEE international conference
carry out human subject studies with individuals exhibiting on rehabilitation robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 June – 1 July
finger pathologies to understand what control techniques 2005, pp. 536–539. IEEE.
can result in quicker recovery. We believe that such stud- Blank AA, French JA, Pehlivan AU and O’Malley M (2014) Cur-
ies will provide us with valuable feedback, and inputs from rent trends in in robot-assisted upper-limb stroke rehabilitation:
clinicians and potential users will further help in improv- promoting patient engagement in therapy. Current Physical
ing the performance of the device. We also plan to carry Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports (in press).

Bouzit M, Burdea G, Popescu G and Boian R (2002) The Rut- Evans RC (2008) Illustrated Orthopedic Physical Assessment.
gers Master II-new design force-feedback glove. IEEE/ASME Edinburgh: Mosby.
Transactions on Mechatronics 7(2): 256–263. Feeney R (2002) Specific Anthropometric and Strength Data for
Brault MW (2012) Americans with Disabilities: 2010. Wash- People with Dexterity Disability. London: Consumer and Com-
ington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and petition Policy Directorate: Department of Trade and Industry.
Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau. Gharaybeh MA and Burdea GC (1994) Investigation of a shape
Brokaw EB, Black I, Holley RJ and Lum PS (2011) Hand spring memory alloy actuator for dextrous force-feedback masters.
operated movement enhancer (HandSOME): a portable, pas- Advanced Robotics 9(3): 317–329.
sive hand exoskeleton for stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Transac- Harwin WS, Rahman T and Foulds RA (1995) A review of design
tions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 19(4): issues in rehabilitation robotics with reference to North Ameri-
391–399. can research. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering
Bunnell S and Boyes JH (1970) Bunnell’s Surgery of the Hand. 3(1): 3–13.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. Hasegawa Y, Mikami Y, Watanabe K and Sankai Y (2008) Five-
Burdea G and Zhuang J (1991) Dextrous telerobotics with force fingered assistive hand with mechanical compliance of human
feedback–an overview: Part 2. control and implementation. finger. In: 2008 IEEE international conference on robotics
Robotica 9(3): 291–298. and automation, Pasadena, CA, USA, 19–23 May 2008, pp.
Byrd R, Hribar M and Nocedal J (1999) An interior point algo- 718–724. IEEE.
rithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. SIAM Journal on Hayward V and Astley OR (1996) Performance measures for
Optimization 9(4): 877–900. haptic interfaces. In: Robotics research: the 7th international
Cai LL, Fong AJ, Otoshi CK, Liang Y, Burdick JW, Roy RR and symposium. London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 195–206.
Edgerton VR (2006) Implications of assist-as-needed robotic Heo P, Gu G, Lee S, Rhee K and Kim J (2012) Current hand
step training after a complete spinal cord injury on intrin- exoskeleton technologies for rehabilitation and assistive engi-
sic strategies of motor learning. The Journal of Neuroscience neering. International Journal of Precision Engineering and
26(41): 10,564–10,568. Manufacturing 13(5): 807–824.
Cempini M, Cortese M and Vitiello N (2014) A powered finger– Hwang CH, Seong JW and Son DS (2012) Individual finger
thumb wearable hand exoskeleton with self-aligning joint axes. synchronized robot-assisted hand rehabilitation in subacute
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 99: 1–12. to chronic stroke: a prospective randomized clinical trial of
Chan RB and Childress DS (1990) On information transmission efficacy. Clinical Rehabilitation 26(8): 696–704.
in human-machine systems: channel capacity and optimal fil- In H and Cho KJ (2013) Analysis of the forces on the fin-
tering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics ger joints by a joint-less wearable robotic hand, snu exo-
20(5): 1136–1145. glove. In: Converging Clinical and Engineering Research on
Chen D, Yun Y and Deshpande AD (2014) Experimental charac- Neurorehabilitation, pp. 93–97.
terization of bowden cable friction. In: 2014 IEEE international Jones C, Wang F, Morrison R, Sarkar N and Kamper D (2014)
conference on robotics and automation, Hong Kong, China, 31 Design and development of the cable actuated finger exoskele-
May – 7 June 2014, pp. 5927–5933. IEEE. ton for hand rehabilitation following stroke. IEEE/ASME
Chiri A, Vitiello N, Giovacchini F, Roccella S, Vecchi F and Transactions on Mechatronics 19(1): 131–140.
Carrozza MC (2012) Mechatronic design and characterization Kaneko M, Wada M, Maekawa H, Tanie K (1991) A new con-
of the index finger module of a hand exoskeleton for post- sideration on tendon-tension control system of robot hands. In:
stroke rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatron- 1991 IEEE international conference on robotics and automa-
ics 17(5): 884–894. tion, Sacramento, CA, USA, 9–11 April 1991, pp. 1028–1033.
Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Car- IEEE.
rozza MC, Dario P and Minuco G (2005) Robotic techniques Kawasaki H, Kimura H, Ito S, Nishimoto Y, Hayashi H and
for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. Sakaeda H (2006) Hand rehabilitation support system based
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engi- on self-motion control, with a clinical case report. In: World
neering 13(3): 311–324. automation congress, Budapest, Hungary, 24–26 July 2006, pp.
Deshpande AD, Gialias N and Matsuoka Y (2012) Contribu- 1–6. IEEE.
tions of intrinsic visco-elastic torques during planar index fin- Klein J, Spencer SJ and Reinkensmeyer DJ (2012) Breaking
ger and wrist movements. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical it down is better: Haptic decomposition of complex move-
Engineering 59(2): 586–594. ments aids in robot-assisted motor learning. IEEE Transac-
DiCicco M, Lucas L and Matsuoka Y (2004) Comparison of con- tions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 20(3):
trol strategies for an emg controlled orthotic exoskeleton for 268–275.
the hand. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on robotics Kuo PH and Deshpande AD (2012) Muscle–tendon units provide
and automation, Barcelona, Spain, 18–22 April 2005, vol. 2, limited contributions to the passive stiffness of the index finger
pp. 1622–1627. IEEE. metacarpophalangeal joint. Journal of Biomechanics 45(15):
Dionysian E, Kabo J, Dorey F and Meals R (2005) Proximal 2531–2538.
interphalangeal joint stiffness: measurement and analysis. The Lee KS and Jung MC (2014) Ergonomic evaluation of
Journal of Hand Surgery 30(3): 573–579. biomechanical hand function. Safety and Health at Work 6(1):
Ergonomics for Schools (2008) Hand tools. Available at: 9–17.
http://www.ergonomics4schools.com/lzone/tools.htm. Levangie PK and Norkin CC (2011) Joint Structure and Function:
Esteki A and Mansour J (1996) An experimentally based non- A Comprehensive Analysis. FA Davis.
linear viscoelastic model of joint passive moment. Journal of Li J, Zheng R, Zhang Y and Yao J (2011) iHandRehab: an inter-
Biomechanics 29(4): 443–450. active hand exoskeleton for active and passive rehabilitation.
Agarwal et al 23
In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Sergi F, Lee MM and O’Malley MK (2013) Design of a
Zurich, Switzerland, 29 June–1 July 2011. IEEE. series elastic actuator for a compliant parallel wrist rehabili-
Lii NY, Chen Z, Pleintinger B, Borst CH, Hirzinger G and Schiele tation robot. IEEE international conference on rehabilitation
A (2010) Toward understanding the effects of visual-and force- robotics, Seattle, WA, USA, 24–26 June 2013, pp. 1–6. IEEE.
feedback on robotic hand grasping performance for space tele- Sheridan T and Ferrell W (1974) Man–Machine Systems: Intro-
operation. In: 23rd IEEE/RSJ international conference on intel- ductory Control and Decision Models of Human Performance.
ligent robots and systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 18–22 Oct 2010, pp. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3745–3752. IEEE. Slotine J and Sastry SS (1983) Tracking control of non-linear sys-
Ljung L (1999) Informative experiments. In: System Identifica- tems using sliding surfaces, with application to robot manipu-
tion: Theory for the User (System Sciences Series). Englewood lators. International Journal of Control 38(2): 465–492.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc., pp. 361–369. Smith SW (2003) Digital Signal Processing: A Practical Guide
Lotze M, Braun C, Birbaumer N, Anders S and Cohen LG (2003) for Engineers and Scientists. Boston, MA: Newnes.
Motor learning elicited by voluntary drive. Brain 126(4): Taheri H, Rowe JB, Gardner D, Chan V, Gray K, Bower C,
866–872. Reinkensmeyer DJ and Wolbrecht ET (2014) Design and pre-
Lucas L, DiCicco M and Matsuoka Y (2004) An EMG-controlled liminary evaluation of the finger rehabilitation robot: con-
hand exoskeleton for natural pinching. Journal of Robotics and trolling challenge and quantifying finger individuation during
Mechatronics 16: 482–488. musical computer game play. Journal of Neuroengineering and
Marchal-Crespo L and Reinkensmeyer DJ (2009) Review of con- Rehabilitation 11(1): 10.
trol strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic Takagi M, Iwata K, Takahashi Y, Yamamoto SI, Koyama H
injury. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 6(1): and Komeda T (2009) Development of a grip aid system
20. using air cylinders. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on
Meng W, Liu Q, Zhou Z, Ai Q, Sheng B and Xie SS (2015) Recent robotics and automation, Kobe, Japan, 12–17 May 2009, pp.
development of mechanisms and control strategies for robot- 2312–2317. IEEE.
assisted lower limb rehabilitation. Mechatronics (in press). Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR and Cramer
Moran JM, Hemann JH and Greenwald AS (1985) Finger joint SC (2008) Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain
contact areas and pressures. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 131(2): 425–437.
3(1): 49–55. Tong K, Ho S, Pang P, Hu X, Tam W, Fung K, Wei X, Chen P
Morrell JB and Salisbury JK (1998) Parallel-coupled micro- and Chen M (2010) An intention driven hand functions task
macro actuators. The International Journal of Robotics training robotic system. In: Annual international conference of
Research 17(7): 773–791. the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, Buenos
Mulas M, Folgheraiter M and Gini G (2005) An EMG-controlled Aires, Argentina, 1–4 September 2010, pp. 3406–3409. IEEE.
exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation. In: 9th IEEE international Toya K, Miyagawa T, Kubota Y (2011) Power-assist glove oper-
conference on rehabilitation robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 ated by predicting the grasping mode. Journal of System Design
June–1 July 2005, pp. 371–374. IEEE. and Dynamics 5(1): 94–108.
Norton RL (1999) Design of Machinery: An Introduction to the Ueki S, Kawasaki H, Ito S, Nishimoto Y, Abe M, Aoki T, Ishigure
Synthesis and Analysis of Mechanisms and Machines. London: Y, Ojika T and Mouri T (2012) Development of a hand-assist
WCB McGraw-Hill. robot with multi-degrees-of-freedom for rehabilitation therapy.
Pehlivan A, Sergi F and O’Malley M (2014) A subject-adaptive IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 17(1): 136–146.
controller for wrist robotic rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Trans- Vallery H, Veneman J, Van Asseldonk E, Ekkelenkamp R, Buss
actions on Mechatronics 99: 1–13. M and Van Der Kooij H (2008) Compliant actuation of rehabil-
Perez MA, Lungholt BK, Nyborg K and Nielsen JB (2004) Motor itation robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 15(3):
skill training induces changes in the excitability of the leg 60–69.
cortical area in healthy humans. Experimental Brain Research Vallery H, Duschau-Wicke A and Riener R (2009) Optimized pas-
159(2): 197–205. sive dynamics improve transparency of haptic devices. In: 2009
Ren Y, Park HS and Zhang LQ (2009) Developing a whole- IEEE international conference on robotics and automation,
arm exoskeleton robot with hand opening and closing mech- Kobe, Japan, 12–17 May 2009, pp. 301–306. IEEE.
anism for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. In: 11th IEEE inter- Veneman JF, Ekkelenkamp R, Kruidhof R, van der Helm FC
national conference on rehabilitation robotics, Kyoto, Japan, and van der Kooij H (2006) A series elastic-and bowden-
23–26 June 2009, pp. 761–765. IEEE. cable-based actuation system for use as torque actuator in
Sarakoglou I, Tsagarakis NG and Caldwell DG (2004) Occupa- exoskeleton-type robots. The International Journal of Robotics
tional and physical therapy using a hand exoskeleton based Research 25(3): 261–281.
exerciser. In: 17th IEEE/RSJ international conference on intel- Wang S, Li J, Zheng R, Chen Z and Zhang Y (2011) Multiple reha-
ligent robots and systems, Sendai, Japan, 28 September–2 bilitation motion control for hand with an exoskeleton. In: 2011
October 2004, vol. 3, pp. 2973–2978. IEEE. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation,
Schabowsky C, Godfrey S, Holley R and Lum P (2010) Develop- Shanghai, China, 9–13 May 2011, pp. 3676–3681. IEEE.
ment and pilot testing of HEXORR: Hand exoskeleton rehabil- Wege A and Hommel G (2005) Development and control of a
itation robot. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation hand exoskeleton for rehabilitation of hand injuries. In: 5th
7(1): 1–16. IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and
Schmidt RA and Bjork RA (1992) New conceptualizations systems, Raleigh, NC, 2–6 August 2005, pp. 3046–3051. IEEE.
of practice: Common principles in three paradigms sug- Wege A, Kondak K and Hommel G (2006) Force control strategy
gest new concepts for training. Psychological Science 3(4): for a hand exoskeleton based on sliding mode position con-
207–217. trol. In: 19th IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent

robots and systems, Beijing, China, 9–15 October 2006, pp.
11 lBC lCD cos θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ8 x3
4615–4620. IEEE. −
CD
Wu JZ, An KN, Cutlip RG, Krajnak K, Welcome D and Dong RG

8

(2008) Analysis of musculoskeletal loading in an index finger
lBC lCD cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θHFG + θ1 + θ8 x3
during tapping. Journal of Biomechanics 41(3): 668–676. −
CD
Zhou J, Malric F and Shirmohammadi S (2010) A new hand-

8
measurement method to simplify calibration in cyberglove-
7 lAH lBC sin θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ8 x3
based virtual rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- CD
−
tation and Measurement 59(10): 2496–2504. 4

lAH lBC sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θHFG + θ1 + θ8 x3
CD
+
Appendix: Expression for Jacobian 4

∂X −1 lAH − x3
The expression for Jacobian (J = ) is obtained + lAH lBC lCD cos θHFG + tan
∂r lCD

symbolically using MATLAB as expressed in (19).
− θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ8
lBC lCD cos(θ1 − θ4 )
J1,1 = − lBC sin(θ1 − θ4 )
x3
lBC lCD cos θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 − θ8 x3
J1,2 =0 −
CD
lBC cos(θ1 − θ4 ) 8
J2,1 = lBC lCD cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θHFG − θ1 + θ8 x3
x3 CD
+
J2,2 =0 8

n3,1 sin θHFG + tan−1 lAH −x3
− θ − θ
J3,1 = lAH lBC l 1 8
CD
x3
d3,1 −
4
lEF cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 + θ6r )
lAH lBC sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θHFG − θ1 + θ8 x3
CD
J3,2 = − −
lEF cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 + θ6r ) − lCE cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 ) 4

lAH − x3
n4,1 + lAH lBC lCD cos θHFG + tan−1 + θ1 − θ8
J4,1 = lCD
d4,1
−1 lAH −x3
lBC lCD cos θHFG + tan lCD
− θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ8 x3
lCE lEF sin(θ6r )
−
J4,2 = 2
lFH (lEF cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 + θ6r ) − lCE cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 )) lBC sin(θHFG + θ1 − θ8 ) x3 2
(19) +
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
where Ji,j represents the ( i, j)th entry in the Jacobian and CD
lBC sin(θ1 − θHFG + θ8 ) x3 2

5 lBC sin θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ8 x3 2 +
CD
n3,1 = − 2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
4 CD
lBC sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θHFG + θ1 + θ8 x3 2 lBC lCD cos(θHFG + θ1 − θ8 ) x3

−
CD −
4 (lAH −x3 )2
4 lCD 2
+1
lAH 2 lBC sin θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ8
+
CD lBC lCD cos(θ1 − θHFG + θ8 ) x3
2 +

4 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
−x
lBC sin θHFG + tan−1 AHl 3 − θ1 − θ8 x3 2
l
CD
CD
+
4 lAH lBC sin(θHFG + θ1 − θ8 ) x3
−
−1 lAH −x3
lBC sin tan lCD
− θ HFG − θ1 + θ8 x3
2
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
+ CD
4 lAH lBC sin(θ1 − θHFG + θ8 ) x3
lAH lBC sin θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ8
2 −
CD
+ 2 (lAH −x3 )2
+1
2 lCD 2
lBC sin θHFG + tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ8 x3 2 d3,1 = x3 (lEF cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 + θ6r )
CD
−
2 −lCE cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 ))

Agarwal et al 25

lBC lCE cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + θ5 x3 2 3 lBC lCD lCE sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ5 x3
CD CD
n4,1 = −
4 2
lBC lEF cos tan−1 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 − θ6r x3 2 + lAH lBC lCD lCE sin tan−1 lAH − x3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5
lAH −x3
lCD
− lCD
2 lBC lEF cos(θ1 + θ5 + θ6r ) x3 2
5 lBC lCE cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ5 x3 2 −
CD
+ 2 (lAH −x3 )2
+1
4 lCD 2

lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + θ5 + θ6r x3 2 7 lAH lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ5 − θ6r x3
CD
− −
CD
4 4
lAH −x3
lAH 2 lBC lCE cos tan−1 lCD
− θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 lBC lCE cos(θ1 + θ5 ) x3 2
− +
2
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2

−1 lAH −x3
5 lBC lEF cos tan lCD
+ θ1 − θ5 − θ6r x3 2 CD

+ 11 lBC lCD lEF x3 sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ5 − θ6r
4 +
CD
−1 lAH −x3
lBC lCE x3 2
cos tan l
− θ1 − θ5 8
CD
− lAH lBC lCE x3 cos tan−1 lAH −x3
− θ1 − θ5
4 + lCD
2
lAH lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 − θ6r 4
−1 lAH − x3
CD
+
2 − lAH lBC lCD lEF sin tan
lCD
−1 lAH −x3
2
lAH lBC lCE cos tan l
+ θ1 − θ5
CD
− − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 − θ6r
2
lAH −x3
lBC lEF cos tan −1
+ θ1 + θ5 + θ6r x3 2
lAH lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 + θ5 + θ6r x3
lCD
+
4 −
CD
−1 lAH −x3 4

lBC lCE cos tan + θ1 + θ5 x3 2
−1 lAH − x3
l CD
− + lAH lBC lCD lCE sin tan + θ1 − θ5
4
lCD

−x
lBC lCE cos tan−1 AHl 3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 x3 2
l
lBC lCD lEF sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 + θ5 + θ6r x3
CD
+ −
CD
2 8
lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 − θ5 − θ6r x3 2 lAH lBC lCE cos tan −1 lAH −x3
+ θ + θ x3
CD
+ +
lCD 1 5
4 4
lAH 2 lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ5 − θ6r lAH lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 − θ5 − θ6r x3
CD
+ −
CD
2 4
lAH lBC lEF cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + θ5 + θ6r x3 lBC lCE x3 2 cos(θ1 − θ5 )
+
CD
−
4 (lAH −x3 )2
2 +1
lBC lEF cos(θ1 − θ5 − θ6r ) x3 2 lCD 2
+
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
lBC lCD lCE sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 x3
CD
CD −
2
lBC lCD lEF sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + θ5 + θ6r x3 lBC lCD lEF sin tan −1 lAH −x3
− θ − θ − θ x3
CD
+ +
lCD 1 5 6r
8 8

lBC lCD lEF sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + 2 θ4 − θ5 − θ6r x3 −1 lAH − x3
+
CD − lAH lBC lCD lEF sin tan + θ1 − θ5 − θ6r
lCD
2
7 lAH lBC lCE cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 + θ1 − θ5 x3 lAH lBC lEF cos(θ1 − θ5 − θ6r ) x3
CD
−
+
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
4 CD
lAH lBC lCE cos tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θ1 + θ5 x3 l BC l CD l EF sin(θ 1 − θ5 − θ6r ) x3
CD
− +
4
4 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
CD
lAH lBC lEF cos(θ1 + θ5 + θ6r ) x3 lAH lBC lCE x3 cos(θ1 − θ5 )

+ +
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1 2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2 2
CD CD
lBC lCD lEF sin(θ1 + θ5 + θ6r ) x3 d4,1 = lFH x3 (lEF cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 + θ6r )
+
−lCE cos(θHFG + θ5 − θ8 ))
4 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
CD
lAH lBC lCE cos(θ1 + θ5 ) x3 The derivative of the Jacobian is evaluated numerically
− using (20).
2 (lAHl −x23 ) + 1
2
CD J( t) −J( t − t)
J̇( t) = (20)
t
View publication stats

An Index Finger Exoskeleton With Series Elastic Actuation For Rehabilitation: Design, Control and Performance Characterization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Index Finger Exoskeleton With Series Elastic Actuation For Rehabilitation: Design, Control and Performance Characterization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

An index ﬁnger exoskeleton with series elastic actuation for rehabilitation:

Article in The International Journal of Robotics Research · October 2015

Priyanshu Agarwal Jonas Fox

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Youngmok Yun Marcia Kilchenman O'Malley

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maestro View project

Human Gait Pattern Prediction View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design, control and performance DOI: 10.1177/0278364915598388

1. Introduction admittance, assist-as-needed (Cai et al., 2006)) can be more

algorithms (subject-specific kinematics estimation, posi- USA

bidirectional peak torque of at least 0.3 Nm based on the

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

(Figure 1). This additive manufacturing method allowed us

significantly affecting the curvature of the Bowden cables.

l1 = −l2 = rj ( θj − θj0 ) −rm θm (1)

where li is the extension in spring with length li . rj and rm

4.2. Index finger exoskeleton

viscoelastic torques at the finger joints (Deshpande et al.,

where τj,mcp and τj,pip represent the torques applied at the

respectively. The PID controller with the corresponding

to quantify the distortion of the output due to the non-

linear chirp signal expressed in (16) was used as the desired

The magnitude (|GCL |( jω)) of the frequency response of the

Peak Torque Magnitude Best fit Estimated Actual Fidelity

0.15 0.0128 8.76 0.0132 9.00 0.0136 9.28 98.58

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

Table 2. Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient aver-

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

P xA yA lBC lCD lAH lFG lGH

P0 (m) 0.008 –0.030 0.047 0.025 0.047 0.018 0.015

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

Wu JZ, An KN, Cutlip RG, Krajnak K, Welcome D and Dong RG

Zhou J, Malric F and Shirmohammadi S (2010) A new hand-

where Ji,j represents the ( i, j)th entry in the Jacobian and CD

    lBC sin(θ1 − θHFG + θ8 ) x3 2

lBC sin tan−1 lAHl −x3 − θHFG + θ1 + θ8 x3 2 lBC lCD cos(θHFG + θ1 − θ8 ) x3

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

lAH lBC lEF cos(θ1 + θ5 + θ6r ) x3 lAH lBC lCE x3 cos(θ1 − θ5 )

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on November 3, 2015

View publication stats

You might also like

lBC sin(θ1 − θHFG + θ8 ) x3 2