Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots

Vallery, Heike, Veneman, Jan, van Asseldonk, Edwin, Ekkelenkamp, Ralf, Buss, Martin, van Der Kooij, Herman·2008·IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine

Abstract

This article discusses the pros and cons of compliant actuation for rehabilitation robots on the example of LOPES, focusing on the cons. After illustrating the bandwidth limitations, a new result has been derived: if stability in terms of passivity of the haptic device is desired, the renderable stiffness is bounded by the stiffness of the SEA's elastic component. In practical experiments with the VMC, the aforementioned limitations affected the control performance. Desired gait modifications were not tracked exactly, because the subjects were able to deviate from the prescribed pattern even in the stiffest possible configuration. Despite the limitations, the practical experiments also demonstrated the general effectiveness of the realization. Manipulation of selected gait parameters is possible, whereby other parameters are left unaffected. This high selectivity is made possible by the low level of undesired interaction torques, which is achieved by elastic decoupling of motor mass and a lightweight exoskeleton. The discrepancy between theoretical bounds and rendered stiffness indicated that healthy subjects might represent a stabilizing component of the coupled system, which could be different for patients. In light of the theoretical stability analysis and with the focus on patients, the LOPES actuation was slightly modified. The robot was equipped with stiffer springs to obtain sufficient stiffness and to ensure stability without relying on stabilizing effects of the human. For this application, the disadvantages of compliant actuation can thus be tolerated or dealt with, and they are small compared with the advantages. Given that a rehabilitation robot, in the first place, is supposed to imitate therapist action, the limitations of bandwidth and stiffness do not pose severe problems. In contrast, safety and backdrivability are highly relevant, and they can be ensured easier with a compliant actuator. Therefore, we conclude that compliant actuation and a lightweight exoskeleton provide effective means to accomplish the desired AAN behavior of a rehabilitation robot. The next step is to evaluate the robot behavior, control performance, and therapeutic effectiveness in patient studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/mra.2008.927689

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Vallery, H., Veneman, J., van Asseldonk, E., Ekkelenkamp, R., Buss, M., & van Der Kooij, H.
Venue
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
Published
2008-09
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
60-69
ISSN
1070-9932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116767351
Cited by
448
References
26
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/mra.2008.927689
The paper
Vallery, H., Veneman, J., van Asseldonk, E., Ekkelenkamp, R., Buss, M., & van Der Kooij, H. (2008). Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2008.927689

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.