Powered Ankle Exoskeletons: Existent Designs and Control Systems

A.H. Weerasingha, W.P.K. Withanage, A.D.K.H. Pragnathilaka, R.K.P.S. Ranaweera, R.A.R.C. Gopura
Bionics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Moratuwa, Katubedda, Moratuwa 10400, Sri Lanka
E-mail: amashiweerasingha@gmail.com, kesarawithanage5@gmail.com, kasun.adkh@gmail.com,
pubudur@uom.lk, gopurar@uom.lk
www.mrt.ac.lk

Abstract
This paper performs a comprehensive review on active ankle exoskeletons powered by external means. Initially,
anatomy of the ankle joint complex is highlighted. Next, associated research challenges and design difficulties are
recognized for the development of robotic hardware systems. Then, mechanisms, actuation methods, and control
methods are systematically presented. Here, exoskeletons designs from 2005 to 2017 were studied to recognize the
latest paradigm shifts. As such, this paper provides a classification, a comparison and an overview of related
technologies. Finally, design recommendations are made for the development of powered ankle exoskeletons.
Keywords: powered ankle exoskeleton, mechanisms, actuation methods, control methods.

1. Introduction achieve proper functionality while ensuring safety of the

Robotic exoskeletons are classified as upper-extremity,
lower-extremity, and other systems.1 Lower extremity
exoskeletons (LEE) are predominantly used for gait
rehabilitation, power augmentation and motion
assistance.2 According to statistics around the globe,
elderly population exceeds 10% of the total population.
Conversely, people suffering with neurological or
muscular disorders are on the rise.3 As such, medical
industry has shown a growing interest to use LEE for
restoring patients’ mobility and to alleviate health care
issues arising from locomotion difficulties.3
LEE is designed to support anatomical functions of
the six different human joints of the lower extremity. In
general, hip, knee and ankle have seven degrees of
freedom (DOF) per limb. Here, the ankle joint complex,
having tri-planar motions, plays a major role in
performing locomotion. Over the years, powered ankle
exoskeletons have been rapidly advancing with the
introduction of novel materials, actuators, and sensors.
Contemporary ankle exoskeletons have been designed to
wearer. However, their performance in terms of
metabolic energy saving, ergonomic conformity, agility,
etc. need further improvements. In order to eliminate
such limitations, an improved understanding of their
features and characteristics is paramount. In that context,
this paper focus on reviewing both mechanical and
control systems of recently developed ankle exoskeletons
at research-level. In order to limit the scope of the study
and to provide a broad understanding of the knowledge
base, powered ankle exoskeletons using different state-
of-the-art technologies are selected for this review. In
particular, exoskeletons designs from 2005 to 2017 is
studied to recognize the latest paradigm shifts. In
summary, section 2 summarizes the design difficulties
arising from anatomical and/or biomechanical
complexity of ankle joint. Under section 3 and 4, existent
powered ankle exoskeletons which support locomotion
are reviewed based on actuation and control methods
respectively. The discussion in section 5 explains latest
trends, patterns and possible future directions for
developing assistive powered ankle exoskeletons.

© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan

76
A.H. Weerasingha, W.P.K. Withanage, A.D.K.H. Pragnathilaka, R.K.P.S. Ranaweera, R.A.R.C. Gopura
Fig. 1 Anatomy of ankle joint complex: (A) bone structure and DOF, (B) oblique axis of talocrural joint , (C) oblique axis of subtalar
7 4
joint , (D) muscles responsible for triplanar ankle motions .
2. Design Considerations for Ankle Exoskeletons
Anatomy of ankle joint complex and design difficulties
of ankle exoskeletons is summarized in this section.
2.1. Anatomy of Ankle Joint Complex
The three significant DOF of ankle joint complex are
plantarflexion-dorsiflexion, eversion-inversion and
abduction-adduction (see Fig. 1(A)). Plantarflexion
during stance phase supplies majority of the energy
required for propulsion while walking.4 Range of
motions (ROM) for each DOF are plantarflexion 500 -
dorsiflexion 200, inversion 350 - eversion 250, and
abduction 200 - adduction 250.5 However, studies shown
that ROM may vary with age and gender.6
Ankle movements mainly happens about talocrural
and subtalar joints (see Fig. 1(A)). Talocrural joint is
formed by talus, tibia and fibula bones.4 Top of the talus
fits inside the socket formed by tibia and fibula. This joint
is mechanically similar to a mortise and tenon joint
providing plantarflexion-dorsiflexion. Bottom of the
talus locates on the calcaneus forming subtalar joint that
allows eversion-inversion and abduction-adduction of
ankle.7 Thus joint complex supports triplanar motions.
Collection of muscles are responsible for generating
the motions of foot segment during ambulation (see Fig.
1(D)). The tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum longus,
extensor hallucis longus and fibularis tertius muscles
with tendons dorsiflexes the foot. The gastrocnemius,
soleus, plantaris, fibularis longus, fibularis brevis, tibialis
posterior, flexor digitorum longus and flexor hallucis
longus muscles with tendons plantarflexes the foot.
Fibularis longus, Fibularis brevis, Fibularis tertius
muscles and their tendons performs the eversion. Tibialis
anterior and tibialis posterior muscles along with related
tendons performs the inversion of ankle.4
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
77
7
2.2. Design Difficulties of Ankle Exoskeletons
According to biomechanics studies, synovial hinge joints
at ankle plays a crucial role in supporting motions of
human lower extremity8. The fitting of the exoskeleton at
the ankle is more difficult than hip and knee, due to strict
requirements of smaller space as well as anatomical
complexity introduced by talocrural and subtalar joints.7
The anatomical axes (see Fig. 1(B and C)) of talocrural
and subtalar joints are placed in an oblique sense that
cause foot to move across all three planes allowing
pronation and supination to occur during walking.7
Hence, constraining motions to a single plane can lead to
abnormal joint movements, poor muscle recruitment and
increasing overall energetic cost.8
Ground irregularities, body weight and walking speed
directly affect the mechanical stiffness assumed by ankle
and foot.9 Hence, the exoskeleton should adjust the
system resistance to account for the variable stiffness of
the biological counterpart during walking, running, etc.
If stiffness not properly adjusted, it may even lead to loss
of stability or even injury of the joint.10
If a person weighing 75 kg walks at an average speed
of 1.3 m/s, maximum torque and power generated at the
ankle joint according to kinetic analysis is 150 Nm and
200 W respectively.8 This is considerably greater than the
calculated values at hip and knee joints. A powerful
electromechanical, pneumatic or hydraulic actuation
system can be introduced to satisfy this requirement,11
however such a system will ultimately increase size and
weight of the exoskeleton. Here, bulky designs tend to
disrupt the normative motions of the lower extremity and
added inertia may burden the actuators energetically.12
Although, tethered systems are acceptable for
rehabilitation applications, portability is an indispensable
trait for power-assist ankle exoskeletons.13
 Powered Ankle Exoskeletons:

Fig. 2. Ankle exoskeletons: (A) PAFO14 by Beijing Institute of Technology 2015, (B) autonomous exoskeleton15 by MIT 2014, (C)
ankle exoskeleton16 by Carnegie Mellon University 2014, (D) soft exosuit17 by Harvard University 2013, (E) knee-ankle-foot robot18 by
NUS 2013, (F) achilles ankle exoskeleton19 by Delft University of Technology 2015 (G) AFO20 by Case Western Res. University 2012,
(H) PPAFO21 by University of Illinois 2011, (I) soft orthotic device22 by Harvard University 2011.

walking during load carriage in 2014 (See Fig. 2(B)). A

Fig. 3. Classification of powered ankle exoskeletons
3. Mechanisms and Actuation Methods
In this paper both actuation methods and mechanisms are
classified as in Fig. 3. Details are then presented under
electric, pneumatic, hydraulic, and other categories.
3.1. Electric Actuators
Beijing Institute of Technology in 2015 developed a
portable powered ankle foot orthosis (PAFO), which
employs electric motor drive to provide plantarflexion
and dorsiflexion assistance (see Fig. 2(A)) for treatment
of ankle injuries.14 The powertrain is composed of an
electric actuator, which is the elementary unit to provide
energy for ankle movement, and a transmission system,
that deliver power to the ankle joint at desirable speeds.
The transmission is composed of a harmonic drive, a
bevel gear drive, and a synchronous belt drive. Although
the device is capable of delivering higher torques, the
system is bulky and heavy to warrant everyday use.
An autonomous battery powered exoskeleton15 was
developed by MIT to reduce metabolic cost of human
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
device is a self-contained and has all necessary
components on board such as power supply, actuator and
controllers. The bilateral exoskeleton was comprised of
three main sub-assemblies such as a pair of fiberglass
struts attached to each foot, unidirectional actuators
mounted on the anterior of shank segments, and control
package including battery worn on the waist. Power is
transmitted to the ankle joint by pulling on the struts
during propulsion phase. Features such as autonomous
operation, lightweight architecture and ergonomic
conformity have contributed to its successful
implementation.15
An exoskeleton that provide greater peak torque, peak
velocity and range of motion, was developed by Carnegie
Mellon University in 2014. It was actuated by a powerful
off-board motor and real-time controller with mechanical
power transmission through a flexible and tethered
Bowden cable.16 The exoskeleton frame includes
rotational joints on either side of the ankle with axes of
rotation approximately co-linear with the human joint.
Each of the frames are attached to the foot and shank
segments (See Fig.2(C)). The foot mount has a lever arm
posterior to the ankle that wraps around the heel. A
Bowden cable tethered to the lever transmit the required
joint power to assist propulsion. Proposed system mainly
served as a universal platform to test influence of
powered assistance.
The Soft Exosuit developed by Harvard University in
2013 is a battery-powered portable device actuated by a
cable-driven system.17 It is essentially worn like a
garment with a backpack unit (See Fig. 2(D)). Hence, the
effective dynamic stiffness of the flexible suit and its
interaction with the lower extremity are important design
considerations. The sheath of the Bowden cable is
strapped to the suit, where one terminal is located at the

78
A.H. Weerasingha, W.P.K. Withanage, A.D.K.H. Pragnathilaka, R.K.P.S. Ranaweera, R.A.R.C. Gopura
backside of the calf muscle and other connected to the
motor drive unit carried on the back. A moment is
generated directly about the biological ankle joint by
means of pulling the heel upward using Bowden cable.
The cable acts in a similar way to the biological muscle
that stretches pre-stressed tendons. The Exosuit is
designed to support power absorption through passively
extending as well as assisting the muscle contractions.
Series elastic actuator (SEA) is a type of electrically
powered actuation method with elastic spring elements
connected in series. National University of Singapore in
2013 developed a portable knee-ankle-foot orthosis using
modified SEA which eliminate conventional limitations
of earlier SEA models.18 It (See Fig. 2(E)) consists of a
DC motor, a ball screw, a pair of spur gears and a pair of
spring assemblies.
Similarly, Achilles Ankle Exoskeleton developed by
Delft University in 2015 uses a SEA to provide push-off
assistance for healthy subjects during walking.19 Achilles
exoskeleton is comprised of three units. The two boot
units include SEAs, sensors and mechanisms to transmit
power to the human leg and, and a backpack unit, to carry
batteries and power management system (See Fig. 2(F)).
It is the most commonly used actuation method in recent
powered ankle exoskeletons. The active power submitted
to the ankle joint by the electric motor is supplemented
by the passive energy stored in the springs. Hence, an
increase of the overall energetic input to the joint results
in better performance of the actuator.
An Ankle Foot Orthosis (AFO) was developed by
Case Western Reserve University in 2012 to assist
plantar-dorsiflexion.20 It is comprised of a series elastic
actuator, a four-bar linkage and a crank-slider mechanism
(See Fig. 2(G)). Actuation force is derived from a pre-
tensioned spring and torque is delivered to the ankle via
four-bar linkage. The drive link which the actuator acts
on is attached to the slider mechanism that support the
insertion point of the four-bar linkage mechanism.
Thereby the moment arm of the spring is dynamically
adjusted. Yet, low speed of operation of this powered
device is a notable drawback.
3.2. Pneumatic Actuators
A Portable Powered Ankle-Foot Orthosis (PPAFO) was
designed by University of Illinois in 2012.21 Pneumatics
was used to supply plantarflexion and dorsiflexion torque
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
79
through rotary pneumatic actuator mounted at the ankle
(See Fig. 2(H)). The recycling scheme is used to capture
the exhaust gas from plantarflexion cycle and to drive the
following dorsiflexion cycle. The normal circuit consists
of two solenoid valves which can be used to control
rotary actuator in both directions. An additional solenoid
valve and custom accumulator were added into the
pneumatic system, to implement the recycling scheme.
Bio inspired active soft orthotic device, developed by
Harvard University in 2011, has multiple pneumatic
artificial muscles (PAM) that imitate morphology and
functionality of the actual biological muscles to control
plantarflexion-dorsiflexion and inversion-eversion
movements.22 Flexible reinforced closed membrane, the
core element of PAM is attached between limb segments
to transmit mechanical power (See Fig. 2(I)). The
behavior of PAM closely represents the biological
muscles in generating forces and motions in addition to
absorbing shock loads. Bulkiness of the pneumatic circuit
limit its use for stationary rehabilitation robots and
laboratory experimentations.
3.3. Hydraulic Actuators
Ankle exoskeleton powered by hydraulic actuators are
most rare for locomotion assistance. BLEEX developed
by University of California in 2005 include an ankle joint
having three DOF.23 BLEEX uses double acting linear
hydraulic actuators, which have two opposite facing
pistons to achieve force control in both directions.
Although hydraulic actuators have the highest power-to-
weight ratio, the complexities in attaching a hydraulic
circuit on body is notably high.
3.4. Other Actuators
AFO developed by Osaka University in 2007 has been
actuated using a computer controlled Magneto-
rheological (MR) type damper, which uses viscous
damping to achieve resistive plantar-flexor torque during
selected phases of gait.24 Passive AFO was developed by
University of Toledo in 2014, which consists of a hinged
brace and series of SMA wires.25 The super-elastic wires
can store mechanical energy during plantarflexion and
release it during dorsiflexion to compensate the inability.
These types of actuators are compact and lightweight
than conventional ones and behaves similarly to the
natural change in stiffness of ankle joint in normal gait.
 Powered Ankle Exoskeletons:

(A) Assistance Gravity and

(B) (C) GRF > On ground AND
Valve Plantar friction ankle angle < Neutral
PPAFO compensation
Dorsi GRF > On ground AND
Pressure system
None q ankle angle > Neutral
- Δq Variable τ Inner PD + Lower Contact 1 Contact 2
impedance torque
Heel sensor + - + τ exoskeleton
Event trigger + controller controller q̇
Toe sensor
I,D,K Custom-built GRF < On ground
GRF < On ground
force sensor or heel switch on
Heel Toe Fuzzy impedance ×
Torque regulator q
Gait event sensor sensor Swing
assist Human
On Off On Off Fuzzy regulator Fuzzy regulator
q̇ Ankle angle or
Heel strike Dorsi stance phase swing phase
Threshold GRF out of range
Foot flat None Foot force sensor
Heel off Plantar q q̇ q̇
Safe state
Toe off Dorsi

Fig. 4. Control algorithms in powered ankle exoskeletons: (A) event-based control method21 2011, (B) impedance control method29
2015, (C) finite-state control algorithm31 2004.

4. Control Methods
In this paper, control methods of ankle exoskeletons are
classified (see Fig. 3) and presented under input-based,
output-based and other control methods.
4.1. Input-Based Control Methods
4.1.1. Event-based Controlling Method
In event-based control method, current gait phase is
detected by means of monitoring sensor inputs.
Accordingly, assistive torque is provided while speed and
position control is achieved using controller modules.
PPAFO developed by University of Illinois in 2012 used
an event-based control algorithm (see Fig. 4(A)). It
describes the gait phase detection and torque assisting
algorithm according to the force sensing input. Events
were detected when sensor magnitudes exceeded the
tuned user-specific thresholds for the heel and metatarsal
sensors.21 Similarly, Achilles ankle exoskeleton in 2015
was controlled with force and encoder feedback using an
event-based control scheme. A feed-forward signal was
taken as a function of gait phase by using a non-linear
filter that fits a number of primitives such as Gaussian
functions to the signal to be extracted.19
4.1.2. EMG-based Controlling Method
In this controlling method electromyography (EMG)
signals are taken from limb muscles to determine motion
intention of the wearer. EMG sensors produces a signal
which varies in amplitude proportional to the magnitude
of muscle recruitment. The AFO, developed by
University of Michigan in 2010, was controlled using
EMG-based control system.26 It consists of two input
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
linguistic variables, the EMG signal and the acceleration
angle with one output linguistic variable, the motor status.
EMG signals contain important details useful to
determining motion intention. However, raw EMG
signals are random in shape and readings can be different
from user to user. Strength of EMG signal can be affected
by different thicknesses of muscle tissues and noisy
electrical environments. Further it cannot be used for
patients who have lost their muscle control.
4.2. Output-Based Control Methods
4.2.1. Model-based Controlling Method
In a model-based control structure, a desired robotic
action is computed based on a human–exoskeleton model,
relying on the accuracy of the model which requires
series of sensors to recognize kinematics and dynamics
variables. Generally, this control method can be divided
into two types, based on the model used: the dynamic
model and the muscle model.27 The dynamic model can
be achieved by modeling the human body as rigid links
joined together, using mathematical method. And the
muscle model predicts the muscle forces by taking EMG
signal inputs and gives an output of force estimation. A
Neuromuscular model (NMM) based controlled ankle
exoskeleton by NINRA in 2017 used a reflex-based force
feedback controller, to explore the adaptability to
variable speeds of the wearer.28
4.2.2. Impedance Controlling Method
The notion of impedance control method in rehabilitation
robots is to regulate the dynamic relation between the
assistive device and the wearer by relating the position
error (joint angles) to interaction force/torque via

80
A.H. Weerasingha, W.P.K. Withanage, A.D.K.H. Pragnathilaka, R.K.P.S. Ranaweera, R.A.R.C. Gopura
mechanical impedance (output impedance of the
exoskeleton, which is usually modelled as a mass-damper
spring system). High output impedance will increase the
assistance from the exoskeleton to guide the patient’s
limb onto the reference trajectory. If the patient shows
greater control in the training, the desired output
impedance of the exoskeleton will similarly be low to
allow the patient to deviate more from reference
trajectory. An AAFO (see Fig. 4(B)) designed by Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC) in 2015, was
controlled using a fuzzy based impedance control
architecture.29
4.3. Other Control Methods
Adaptive control method is a special type of nonlinear
control system which can alter its parameters to adapt to
a changing environment. This can cover a set of
techniques which provide a systematic approach for
automatic adjustment of controllers, to achieve or to
maintain a desired level of control system performance,
when the parameters of the plant dynamic model are
unknown and/or change in time. An AEO has been
proposed in 2016, which the human muscle activity is
feedback to adapt the assistive joint torque behavior.30
The triggers or transitional parameters for the finite state
algorithm are based on gait events (see Fig. 4(C)). The
MIT AAFO has been designed to assist ankle movements
of patients having drop-foot gait.31 Ground reaction force
(GRF) sensors are used to determine the gait phase and
ankle angle sensor is used to determine the angle between
the shank and the foot. In a Contact-1 state (from heel
strike to mid-stance), the objective of the controller was
to prevent foot slap. During a Contact-2 state, (from mid-
stance to toe-off) the controller minimized the impedance
of the brace so as not to impede plantarflexion
movements. Finally, during swing state, the user’s foot
was lifted to prevent toe drag. Safe state is created to shut
down the device if any unexpected situation occurs.
5. Discussion and Future Directions
Powered ankle exoskeletons are commonly designed to
perform selected task(s) of the biological ankle joint.
However, mechanisms, powering systems and
controlling methods employed in modern robotic devices
are diverse. In that context, several research-level
powered ankle exoskeletons representing various
technological domains have been presented throughout
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
81
this paper. As such, Table 1 include a comparison of the
technical characteristics of contemporary ankle
exoskeletons based on method of actuation. The most
common and recent actuation method used for powered
ankle exoskeleton is electrical actuators with different
types of transmission systems such as belt drives,
Bowden cable drives, harmonic drives and others
transmission methods. Even though SEA has a limited
bandwidth and performance issues, there is a notable
trend of their usage in powered ankle exoskeletons since
its inception. SEA is capable of storing passive energy in
the spring element and has low output impedance which
makes it a suitable actuation method for ankle
exoskeletons. However, to overcome performance
drawbacks and sensor integration issues, continuous
improvements to SEA technology is required from a
futuristic point-of-view. On the other hand, pneumatic
actuators have a notable advantage over electric actuators
as they are more comparable to biological muscles. The
artificial pneumatic muscles can remarkably mimic
human kinematics and dynamic behavior by closely
reproducing joint stiffness properties of the lower limbs.
A better actuation system with efficient power
transmission method can be developed by combining
different technologies reviewed in this paper. Even
though there is a trend of combining different actuation
methods in modern LEEs or prostheses, it has not yet
been realized with ankle exoskeletons. In general,
powered ankle exoskeletons designed for locomotion
assistance only focus on actively supporting one DOF:
namely plantarflexion and dorsiflexion, as evident form
Table 1. Instead, a hybrid actuation method can be
introduced to support multi DOF to overcome the key
design difficulties described under section 2.2. On the
other hand, a modern ankle exoskeleton design should
necessarily focus in achieving ergonomic conformity,
metabolic energy saving and improving agility.
In order to support the complex kinematic and
dynamic behavior of human motion, a combination of
control methods can be implemented. However, no
existent exoskeletons have attempted to integrate control
strategies as a whole. An exoskeleton controller has to
meet several requirements. One of the key requirements
can be identified as controllability as per the user’s
intention. This requirement can be implemented using
EMG-based control method. But EMG signal generation
is inconsistent among user population.
 Powered Ankle Exoskeletons:

Table 1 Technical characteristics of modern ankle exoskeletons

Actuation Name / Powering Control Wt
Sensory Information Advantages Limitations
Method Institute / Year Method Method (kg)
PAFO14 / Harmonic, Event-based Encoders, Ground Portable, Bulky, heavy N/A
Beijing Inst. / bevel and belt control with reaction force sensors High power and
2015 drive, Brushless PID torque
DC motor
Auto. Exo. 15 / Belt drive, Event-based Incremental optical Low metabolic cost Limited range 4.0
MIT / Brushless DC control encoders of control
2014 motor
Ankle Exo. 16 / Bowden cable Adaptive Optical encoders, Foot High peak torque Tethered, 0.87
Carnegie Mel. drive, Off- control with contact switches, and bandwidth, Bulky
Electric Uni. / 2014 board AC iterative Torque sensors Lightweight
Actuators servomotor learn.
Exosuit17 / Bowden cable Event-based Foot switches, No rigid external Heavy 12.15
Harvard Uni. / drive, Brushless control Force sensors structure, Flexible backpack and
2013 DC motor suit
Achilles AE19 / SEA, Brushless Event-based Incremental and Low metabolic cost Limited speed N/A
Delft Uni. / DC motor control absolute encoders, of operation
2016 Pressure sensors
PKAFO18 / SEA, Brushless EMG-based sEMG sensors, Liner Modular design, Sensor 0.85
NUS/ DC motor control with potentiometers, Rotary High bandwidth integration (Ac.)
2013 PD encoders, IMUs and control
Soft Orth. Dev. 22 / PAM Event- and Strain sensors, Lightweight, Need 0.95
Harvard Uni. / Model-based Pressure sensors, Greater flexibility, compressed
Pneumatic 2011 hybrid IMUs Higher Stability air supply
Actuators control
PPAFO21 / Pneumatic Event-based Potentiometers, High system Limited N/A
Uni. of Illinois / rotary actuator control Force sensors efficiency, duration of
2011 Low fuel cons. operation
BLEEX23 / Hydraulic Event-based Encoders, Linear Active control of Bulky, Need N/A
Hydraulic Uni. of California pistons control Accelerometers, multiple DOF hydraulic
Actuators
/2005 Force sensors supply
N/A - Not Available

A patient with muscular disorder will fail to use an EMG
controlled devices effectively. To overcome this situation,
a separate (pressure/ force) sensor based control strategy
can be implemented concurrently with EMG.
Importantly, with the EMG controller the user can
instruct the device in rapid succession using electrical
signals of the muscles. However, it may be difficult to
find a stable correlation between the EMG signals and the
output of the actuators.
Ability to assist user movements according to varying
conditions is also another consideration when developing
a robust controller for ankle exoskeletons. Here, the
adaptive controller architecture have been successful in
achieving this goal. When multiple DOF are controlled,
the centralized single controller won’t be much effective,
as the single controller will be overburdened to control
multiple DOF. Thus, modular controllers would be
suitable choice to assist the multiple DOF separately for
increasing system performance. Stability is the next issue
in designing a control system, which occurs due to high-
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
frequency and high-amplitude external perturbation
induced by robot-human interaction. This can cause
vibrations which may reduce the exoskeleton
performance.
In summary, the functional performance of the robot
device can be further enhanced with improvements to
both actuation method and control system. It is suggested
to perform experiments on hybrid powered ankle
exoskeleton which consist of combined actuation
methods, efficient power transmissions and modular
control systems to achieve multi DOF motions while
offering greater degree of agility and support to the
wearer.
References
1. M. Cenciarini and A. M. Dollar, “Biomechanical
considerations in the design of lower limb exoskeletons,”
in IEEE Int. Conf. Rehab. Robot. (ICORR), 2011, pp. 1–6.
2. B. Chen et al., “Recent developments and challenges of
lower extremity exoskeletons,” J. Orthop. Transl., vol. 5,
pp. 26–37, 2016.

82
A.H. Weerasingha, W.P.K. Withanage, A.D.K.H. Pragnathilaka, R.K.P.S. Ranaweera, R.A.R.C. Gopura
3. N. Li, L. Yan, H. Qian, H. Wu, J. Wu, and S. Men,
“Review on Lower Extremity Exoskeleton Robot,” Open
Autom. Control Syst. J., vol. 7, pp. 441–453, 2015.
4. J.E. Muscholino, L. Whitney, Kinesiology – The skeletal
system and muscle funtion, 2nd edition, Mosby, 2011, pp.
124 -316.
5. T. R. D. J. Hamill and K. M. Knutzen, Biomechanical
basis of human movement, 4th edition, Philadelphia :
Wolters Kluwer Health, 2015.
6. B. M. Nigg, V. Fisher, T. L. Allinger, J. R. Ronsky, and J.
R. Engsberg, “Range of motion of the foot as a function of
age,” Foot Ankle, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 336–343, 1992.
7. D. A. Neumann, “Ankle and Foot,” Kinesiology of the
musculoskeletal system, 2nd edition, Mosby, 2010, pp. 1–
8.
8. Y. Fan and Y. Yin, “Mechanism design and motion control
of a parallel ankle joint for rehabilitation robotic
exoskeleton,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Robot. Biomim.
(ROBIO), 2009, pp. 2527–2532.
9. J. L. McKay and L. H. Ting, “Optimization of muscle
activity for task-level goals predicts complex changes in
limb forces across biomechanical contexts,” PLoS Comput.
Biol., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1–17, 2012.
10. M. Cestari, D. Sanz-Merodio, J. C. Arevalo, and E. Garcia,
“An adjustable compliant joint for lower-limb
exoskeletons,” in IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol.
20, no. 2, pp. 889–898, 2015.
11. M. Alam, I. A. Choudhury, and A. Bin Mamat,
“Mechanism and Design Analysis of Articulated Ankle
Foot Orthoses for Drop-Foot,” Sci. World J., vol. 2014, pp.
1–14, 2014.
12. S. Superiore, S. Anna, N. Vitiello, S. Superiore, and S.
Anna, “Robotics and Autonomous Systems Review of
assistive strategies in powered lower-limb orthoses and
exoskeletons," J. Rob. Aut. Syst., vol. 64, pp. 120–136,
2015.
13. K. Z. Takahashi, M. D. Lewek, and G. S. Sawicki, “A
neuromechanics-based powered ankle exoskeleton to
assist walking post-stroke: a feasibility study,” J.
Neuroeng. Rehabil., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 12–23, 2015.
14. Y. Bai, X. Gao, J. Zhao, F. Jin, F. Dai, and Y. Lv, “A
Portable Ankle-Foot Rehabilitation Orthosis Powered by
Electric Motor,” Open Mech. Eng. J., vol. 9, no. 1, pp.
982–991, 2015.
15. L. M. Mooney, E. J. Rouse, and H. M. Herr, “Autonomous
exoskeleton reduces metabolic cost of human walking,” J.
Neuroeng. Rehabil., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2014.
16. K. A. Witte, J. Zhang, R. W. Jackson, and S. H. Collins,
“Design of two lightweight, high-bandwidth torque-
controlled ankle exoskeletons,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot.
Autom., pp. 1223–1228, 2015.
17. A. T. Asbeck, S. M. M. De Rossi, K. G. Holt, and C. J.
Walsh, “A biologically inspired soft exosuit for walking
assistance,” Int. J. Rob. Res., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 744–762,
2015.
© The 2018 International Conference on Artificial Life and Robotics (ICAROB2018), Feb. 1-4, B-Con Plaza, Beppu, Oita, Japan
83
18. H. Yu et al., “Mechanical design of a portable knee-ankle-
foot robot,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., pp. 2183–
2188, 2013.
19. W. Van Dijk, C. Meijneke, and H. Van Der Kooij,
“Evaluation of the achilles ankle exoskeleton,” IEEE
Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 151–
160, 2017.
20. A. Polinkovsky, R. J. Bachmann, N. I. Kern, and R. D.
Quinn, “An Ankle Foot Orthosis with Insertion Point
Eccentricity Control,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Int. Robot.
and Syst., 2011, pp. 1603–1608.
21. K. A. Shorter, G. F. Kogler, E. Loth, W. K. Durfee, and E.
T. Hsiao-Wecksler, “A portable powered ankle-foot
orthosis for rehabilitation,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., vol. 48,
no. 4, 2011, pp. 4594–472.
22. Y. L. Park et al., “Bio-inspired active soft orthotic device
for ankle foot pathologies,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robot.
Syst., pp. 4488–4495, 2011.
23. A. B. Zoss, H. Kazerooni, and A. Chu, “Biomechanical
design of the Berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton
(BLEEX),” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 11, no.
2, pp. 128–138, 2006.
24. K. I. J. Furusho et al., “Development of Shear Type
Compact MR Brake for the Intelligent Ankle-Foot
Orthosis and Its Control,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Rehab. Robot.
(ICORR), 2007 , pp. 89–94.
25. L. Deberg and M. T. Andani, “An SMA Passive Ankle
Foot Orthosis : Design , Modeling , and Experimental
Evaluation,” Smart Mater. Res., vol. 2014, 2014.
26. P. C. Kao, C. L. Lewis, and D. P. Ferris, “Invariant ankle
moment patterns when walking with and without a robotic
ankle exoskeleton,” J. Biomech., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 203–
209, 2010.
27. H. S. Lo and S. Q. Xie, “Medical Engineering & Physics
Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation : State of
the art and future prospects,” Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 34, no.
3, pp. 261–268, 2012.
28. S. M .T. Reza, N. Ahmad, I. A. Choudhury, and R. A. R.
Ghazilla, “A fuzzy controller for lower limb exoskeletons
during sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit movement using
wearable sensors,” Sensors (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
4342–4363, 2014.
29. J. V Mccall, S. A. Philius, R. W. Nuckols, and G. S.
Sawicki. Performance of a powered ankle exoskeleton
using neuromuscular model-based control over a range of
walking speeds [Online]. Available:
http://hpl.bme.unc.edu/McCall_ASB_2017.pdf.
30. L. Peternel, T. Noda, T. Petri, A. Ude, J. Morimoto, and J.
Babic, “Adaptive control of exoskeleton robots for
periodic assistive behaviours based on EMG feedback
minimisation,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 2, 2016.
31. J. A. Blaya and H. Herr, “Adaptive Control of a Variable-
Impedance Ankle-Foot Orthosis to Assist Drop-Foot Gait,”
IEEE trans. Neur. sys. Rehab. Eng., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 24–
31, 2004.