Exoskeletons and active prostheses promise to enhance human mobility, but few have succeeded. Optimizing device characteristics on the basis of measured human performance could lead to improved designs. We have developed a method for identifying the exoskeleton assistance that minimizes human energy cost during walking. Optimized torque patterns from an exoskeleton worn on one ankle reduced metabolic energy consumption by 24.2 ± 7.4% compared to no torque. The approach was effective with exoskeletons worn on one or both ankles, during a variety of walking conditions, during running, and when optimizing muscle activity. Finding a good generic assistance pattern, customizing it to individual needs, and helping users learn to take advantage of the device all contributed to improved economy. Optimization methods with these features can substantially improve performance.

Exoskeletons that reduce energetic cost could make recreational running more enjoyable and improve running performance. Although there are many ways to assist runners, the best approaches remain unclear. In our study, we used a tethered ankle exoskeleton emulator to optimize both powered and spring-like exoskeleton characteristics while participants ran on a treadmill. We expected powered conditions to provide large improvements in energy economy and for spring-like patterns to provide smaller benefits achievable with simpler devices. We used human-in-the-loop optimization to attempt to identify the best exoskeleton characteristics for each device type and individual user, allowing for a well-controlled comparison. We found that optimized powered assistance improved energy economy by 24.7 ± 6.9% compared with zero torque and 14.6 ± 7.7% compared with running in normal shoes. Optimized powered torque patterns for individuals varied substantially, but all resulted in relatively high mechanical work input (0.36 ± 0.09 joule kilogram−1 per step) and late timing of peak torque (75.7 ± 5.0% stance). Unexpectedly, spring-like assistance was ineffective, improving energy economy by only 2.1 ± 2.4% compared with zero torque and increasing metabolic rate by 11.1 ± 2.8% compared with control shoes. The energy savings we observed imply that running velocity could be increased by as much as 10% with no added effort for the user and could influence the design of future products.

This study assessed kinematic differences between different foot strike patterns and their relationship with peak vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR) of the ground reaction force (GRF). Fifty-two runners ran at 3.2 m · s while we recorded GRF and lower limb kinematics and determined foot strike pattern: Typical or Atypical rearfoot strike (RFS), midfoot strike (MFS) of forefoot strike (FFS). Typical RFS had longer contact times and a lower leg stiffness than Atypical RFS and MFS. Typical RFS showed a dorsiflexed ankle (7.2 ± 3.5°) and positive foot angle (20.4 ± 4.8°) at initial contact while MFS showed a plantar flexed ankle (-10.4 ± 6.3°) and more horizontal foot (1.6 ± 3.1°). Atypical RFS showed a plantar flexed ankle (-3.1 ± 4.4°) and a small foot angle (7.0 ± 5.1°) at initial contact and had the highest VILR. For the RFS (Typical and Atypical RFS), foot angle at initial contact showed the highest correlation with VILR (r = -0.68). The observed higher VILR in Atypical RFS could be related to both ankle and foot kinematics and global running style that indicate a limited use of known kinematic impact absorbing "strategies" such as initial ankle dorsiflexion in MFS or initial ankle plantar flexion in Typical RFS.

Purpose Recent observations demonstrate that a sizeable proportion of the recreational running population runs at rather slow speeds and does not always show a clear flight phase. This study determined the key biomechanical and physiological characteristics of this running pattern, i.e., grounded running (GR), and compared these characteristics with slow aerial running (SAR) and reference data on walking at the same slow running speed. Methods Thirty male subjects performed instructed GR and SAR at 2.10 m·s−1 on a treadmill. Ground reaction forces, tibial accelerations, and metabolic rate were measured to estimate general musculoskeletal loading (external power and maximal vertical ground reaction force), impact intensity (vertical instantaneous loading rate and tibial acceleration), and energy expenditure. More explicit measures of muscular loading (muscle stresses and peak eccentric power) were calculated based on a representative subsample, in which detailed kinematics and kinetics were recorded. We hypothesized that all measures would be lower for the GR condition. Results Subjects successfully altered their running pattern upon a simple instruction toward a GR pattern by increasing their duty factor from 41.5% to 51.2%. As hypothesized, impact intensity, general measures for musculoskeletal, and the more explicit measures for muscular loading decreased by up to 35.0%, 20.3%, and 34.0%, respectively, compared with SAR. Contrary to our hypothesis, metabolic rate showed an increase of 4.8%. Conclusions Changing running style from SAR to GR reduces musculoskeletal loading without lowering the metabolic energy requirements. As such, GR might be beneficial for most runners as it has the potential to reduce the risk of running-related injuries while remaining a moderate to vigorous form of physical activity, contributing to fulfillment of the recommendations concerning physical activity and public health.