Prototype of Wearable Robot with Tactile Sensor Measurable Contact Force Distribution with User

Ito, Daiki; Funabora, Yuki; Doki, Shinji; Doki, Kae

doi:10.1109/icarcv.2018.8581233

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other than questionnaires, visual analog scales (VAS) were also used to extract perceived discomfort [ 18 ]. Among the sensor solutions presented in the recordings, 14 (28%) proposed customized sensor solutions for their pHEI measurements [ 9 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Most of the developed solutions were FSR-based [ 19 , 25 , 30 , 33 , 35 ] or air-based pressure sensors [ 18 , 23 , 28 , 29 , 31 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optical solutions were divided into optical-fiber sensors [ 26 , 27 , 36 ] and optoelectronic laser-based sensors [ 9 , 20 , 21 ]. The remaining solutions were composed of force sensor [ 22 ], tactile sensor [ 24 ], 3D-printed capacitive sensors [ 32 ], and elastic band able to measure interaction through its deformation [ 34 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Normal force metrics were generally the mean absolute value of normal force during the task [ 18 , 45 , 50 ], force root mean square (RMS) [ 51 , 52 , 53 ], average force in a cyclic task [ 9 , 39 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ], peak force [ 9 , 58 , 59 , 60 ], and force range [ 61 ]. Normal force mapping allowed the detection of possible areas for interface improvements [ 24 , 30 , 35 , 42 , 52 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-two results (44%) focused on evaluating or improving pHEI safety [ 18 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 64 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. However, 10 of them effectively compared results with safety references [ 18 , 20 , 25 , 45 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 66 , 68 , 69 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Characterization and Evaluation of Human–Exoskeleton Interaction Dynamics: A Review

Massardi

Rodriguez-Cianca

Pinto-Fernández

et al. 2022

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exoskeletons and exosuits have witnessed unprecedented growth in recent years, especially in the medical and industrial sectors. In order to be successfully integrated into the current society, these devices must comply with several commercialization rules and safety standards. Due to their intrinsic coupling with human limbs, one of the main challenges is to test and prove the quality of physical interaction with humans. However, the study of physical human–exoskeleton interactions (pHEI) has been poorly addressed in the literature. Understanding and identifying the technological ways to assess pHEI is necessary for the future acceptance and large-scale use of these devices. The harmonization of these evaluation processes represents a key factor in building a still missing accepted framework to inform human–device contact safety. In this review, we identify, analyze, and discuss the metrics, testing procedures, and measurement devices used to assess pHEI in the last ten years. Furthermore, we discuss the role of pHEI in safety contact evaluation. We found a very heterogeneous panorama in terms of sensors and testing methods, which are still far from considering realistic conditions and use-cases. We identified the main gaps and drawbacks of current approaches, pointing towards a number of promising research directions. This review aspires to help the wearable robotics community find agreements on interaction quality and safety assessment testing procedures.

show abstract