Real-Time Strap Pressure Sensor System for  Powered Exoskeletons

Tamez-Duque, Jesús; Cobian-Ugalde, Rebeca; Kilicarslan, Atilla; Venkatakrishnan, Anusha; Soto, Rogelio; Contreras-Vidal, José L.

doi:10.3390/s150204550

Cited by 66 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pain is a warning sign of damage caused by excessive contact pressure, and likewise a good indicator of potential cell damage and death (Fransson-Hall and Kilbom, 1993). The point at which a user begins to feel pain and develops lesions is often referred to as the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT), which has been measured as occurring at around 280kPa -480kPa (Pons, 2008;Tamez-Duque et al, 2015). The maximum pressure observed in this study was 93.6kPa, which falls below the PPT levels, suggesting the device does not pose a problem to workers with regards to pain sensation and tissue damage, at least in the short-term (Tamez-Duque et al, 2015).…”

Section: User Assessment Of the Exoskeletonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The point at which a user begins to feel pain and develops lesions is often referred to as the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT), which has been measured as occurring at around 280kPa -480kPa (Pons, 2008;Tamez-Duque et al, 2015). The maximum pressure observed in this study was 93.6kPa, which falls below the PPT levels, suggesting the device does not pose a problem to workers with regards to pain sensation and tissue damage, at least in the short-term (Tamez-Duque et al, 2015). This was also supported in the LPP scores where the highest pressure was rated as Somewhat Strong (44% of maximum) for the Upper Legs and Light for the Back/Shoulders and Belly/Hips.…”

Section: User Assessment Of the Exoskeletonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an industrial exoskeleton on muscle activity, perceived musculoskeletal effort, measured and perceived contact pressure at the trunk, thighs and shoulders, and subjective usability for simple sagittal plane lifting and lowering conditions. Twelve male participants lifted and lowered a box of 7.5 kg and 15 kg, respectively, from mid-shin height to waist height, five times, both with and without the exoskeleton. The device significantly reduced muscle activity of the Erector Spinae (12%-15%) and Biceps Femoris (5%). Ratings of perceived musculoskeletal effort in the trunk region were significantly less with the device (9.5%-11.4%). The measured contact pressure was highest on the trunk (91.7 kPa-93.8 kPa) and least on shoulders (47.6 kPa-51.7 kPa), whereas pressure was perceived highest on the thighs (35-44% of Max LPP). Six of the users rated the device usability as acceptable. The exoskeleton reduced musculoskeletal loading on the lower back and assisted with hip extensor torque during lifting and lowering. Contact pressures fell below the Pain Pressure Threshold. Perceived pressure was not exceptionally high, but sufficiently high to cause discomfort if used for long durations.

show abstract

Section: User Assessment Of the Exoskeletonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: User Assessment Of the Exoskeletonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even in the studies that do report them, they are usually briefly mentioned without specifying the frequency, cause, location, and seriousness of the damage. Of interest, exoskeletons with integrated pressure sensors have been proposed as a novel method to prevent skin injuries related to excessive pressure in mobility-impaired exoskeleton users 58. Force sensing arrays, integrated with wireless transmitters, were placed at exoskeleton joints to give alarm when excessive pressure occurs.…”

Section: Risks Of Powered Exoskeletonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review

He¹,

Eguren²,

Luu³

et al. 2017

MDER

119

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gait disability is a major health care problem worldwide. Powered exoskeletons have recently emerged as devices that can enable users with gait disabilities to ambulate in an upright posture, and potentially bring other clinical benefits. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved marketing of the ReWalk™ Personal Exoskeleton as a class II medical device with special controls. Since then, Indego™ and Ekso™ have also received regulatory approval. With similar trends worldwide, this industry is likely to grow rapidly. On the other hand, the regulatory science of powered exoskeletons is still developing. The type and extent of probable risks of these devices are yet to be understood, and industry standards are yet to be developed. To address this gap, Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, Clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed databases were searched for reports of adverse events and inclusion and exclusion criteria involving the use of lower limb powered exoskeletons. Current inclusion and exclusion criteria, which can determine probable risks, were found to be diverse. Reported adverse events and identified risks of current devices are also wide-ranging. In light of these findings, current regulations, standards, and regulatory procedures for medical device applications in the USA, Europe, and Japan were also compared. There is a need to raise awareness of probable risks associated with the use of powered exoskeletons and to develop adequate countermeasures, standards, and regulations for these human-machine systems. With appropriate risk mitigation strategies, adequate standards, comprehensive reporting of adverse events, and regulatory oversight, powered exoskeletons may one day allow individuals with gait disabilities to safely and independently ambulate.

show abstract

“…11 For example, typical interface pressures under the ischium during sitting reportedly range up to 165 mmHg (22 kPa), 12 and a maximum average pressure of 220 mmHg (29.3 kPa) was recorded on the thighs of an able-bodied subject using an exoskeleton. 13 Hence the appropriateness of the 32 mmHg threshold criterion for wearable robotics applications is unclear. 9 While there continues to be a focus on acceptability of pressure magnitudes, few studies have also considered the importance of pressure Direction, Distribution and Duration (3Ds), in addition to loading cycle frequency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computerized Cuff Pressure Algometry as Guidance for Circumferential Tissue Compression for Wearable Soft Robotic Applications: A Systematic Review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we review the literature on quantitative sensory testing of deep somatic pain by means of computerized cuff pressure algometry (CPA) in search of pressure-related safety guidelines for wearable soft exoskeleton and robotics design. Most pressure-related safety thresholds to date are based on interface pressures and skin perfusion, although clinical research suggests the deep somatic tissues to be the most sensitive to excessive loading. With CPA, pain is induced in deeper layers of soft tissue at the limbs. The results indicate that circumferential compression leads to discomfort at ∼16-34 kPa, becomes painful at ∼20-27 kPa, and can become unbearable even below 40 kPa.

show abstract

Real-Time Strap Pressure Sensor System for Powered Exoskeletons

Cited by 66 publications

References 26 publications

Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks

Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks

Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review

Computerized Cuff Pressure Algometry as Guidance for Circumferential Tissue Compression for Wearable Soft Robotic Applications: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About