Cited by 111Prosthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsStroke Rehabilitation and RecoverySoft Robotics and Applications

Walking Faster and Farther With a Soft Robotic Exosuit: Implications for Post-Stroke Gait Assistance and Rehabilitation

Open access
Awad, Louis N., Kudzia, Pawel, Revi, Dheepak Arumukhom, Ellis, Terry D., Walsh, Conor J.·2020·IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Soft robotic exosuits can improve the mechanics and energetics of walking after stroke. Building on this prior work, we evaluated the effects of the first prototype of a portable soft robotic exosuit. METHODS: Exosuit-induced changes in the overground walking speed, distance, and energy expenditure of individuals post-stroke were evaluated statistically with alpha set to 0.05 and compared to minimal clinically important difference scores. RESULTS: 5kg exosuit did not substantially modify walking speed, distance, or energy expenditure when worn unpowered. In contrast, when the exosuit was powered on to provide an average 22.87±0.58 %bodyweight of plantarflexor force assistance during the paretic limb's stance phase and assist the paretic dorsiflexors during swing phase to reduce drop-foot, study participants walked a median 0.14±0.06 m/s faster during the 10-meter walk test and traveled 32±8 m farther during the six minute walk test. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals post-stroke can leverage the paretic plantarflexor and dorsiflexor assistance provided by soft robotic exosuits to achieve clinically-meaningful increases in speed and distance.

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/ojemb.2020.2984429

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Awad, L. N., Kudzia, P., Revi, D. A., Ellis, T. D., & Walsh, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Awad, Louis N.
  • Walsh, Conor J.
Venue
IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Published
2020
Volume
1
Pages
108-115
ISSN
2644-1276 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3014201768
Cited by
111
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 6
FWCI
5.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Open Journal of Engineering in Medicine and Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01HD088619)
  • American Heart Association (18TPA34170171)
  • Wyss Institute at Harvard University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Soft Robotics and Applications
Keywords
stroke rehabilitation, gait assistance, walking speed, walking distance, energy expenditure, foot drop, paretic limb, powered exoskeleton, overground walking

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