Cited by 18Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsMotor Control and Adaptation

Hybrid Cooperative Control of Functional Electrical Stimulation and Robot Assistance for Upper Extremity Rehabilitation

Open access
Dalla Gasperina, S., Ferrari, F., Gandolla, M., Pedrocchi, A., Ambrosini, E.·2024·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Hybrid systems that integrate Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and robotic assistance have been proposed in neurorehabilitation to enhance therapeutic benefits. This study focuses on designing a cooperative controller capable of distributing the required torque for movement between robotic actuation and FES, thereby eliminating the need for time-consuming calibration procedures. METHODS: The control schema comprises three main blocks: a motion generation block that defines the desired trajectory, a motor control block including both a weight compensation feedforward and a feedback impedance controller, and an FES control block, based on trial-by-trial Iterative Learning Control (ILC), that adjusts the stimulation intensity according to a predefined stimulation waveform. The feedforward motor assistance can be dynamically regulated using an allocation factor. Experiments involving 12 healthy volunteers were conducted using a one-degree-of-freedom elbow testbed. RESULTS: The experimental results showcased the successful integration of Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) with robotic actuation, ensuring precise trajectory tracking with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) below 7°. Notably, allocating more torque to FES led to a 51 % reduction in motor torque. In conditions where FES operated alone, there was poorer tracking performance with an RMSE of 24° and an early onset of muscle fatigue, as evidenced by a reduced number of achieved repetitions. Furthermore, the hybrid approach enabled 100 fatigue-free elbow flexion repetitions, underscoring the effectiveness of cooperative FES-motor control in extending the benefits of FES-induced exercises. SIGNIFICANCE: This study proposes a flexible approach which can be extended to a multi-degree-of-freedom hybrid system. Furthermore, it underscores the significance of employing a straightforward and adaptable methodology with a rapid calibration procedure, making it easily transferable to clinical applications.

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/tbme.2024.3384939

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Hybrid and bioinspired methods outperform isolated approaches by balancing stiffness and flexibility.

    “These methods outperform isolated approaches by balancing stiffness and flexibility [46].”

    From Hybrid Fault-Tolerant Control in Cooperative Robotics: Advances in Resilience and Scalability (2025) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Introduction and Discussion (pages unavailable in our copy) support a narrower advantage for hybrid FES–robot assistance: better tracking than FES alone while using less motor torque than motor-only assistance. The Discussion also reports worse tracking than motor-only assistance. The paper does not describe a bioinspired method or attribute these trade-offs to balancing stiffness and flexibility. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dalla Gasperina, S., Ferrari, F., Gandolla, M., Pedrocchi, A., & Ambrosini, E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
  • Politecnico di Milano (IT)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Published
2024-09
Volume
71
Issue
9
Pages
2642-2650
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
OpenAlex
W4394627653
Cited by
18
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Istituto Nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (PR19-RR-P5)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
functional electrical stimulation, robotic assistance, upper limb rehabilitation, neurorehabilitation, hybrid control, torque distribution, impedance control, iterative learning control, muscle fatigue, elbow flexion, trajectory tracking
MeSH terms
Adult, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Robotics, Torque, Upper Extremity, Young Adult

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