State of the art and future directions for lower limb robotic exoskeletons

709Citations
Citations of this article
975Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Research on robotic exoskeletons has rapidly expanded over the previous decade. Advances in robotic hardware and energy supplies have enabled viable prototypes for human testing. This review paper describes current lower limb robotic exoskeletons, with specific regard to common trends in the field. The preponderance of published literature lacks rigorous quantitative evaluations of exoskeleton performance, making it difficult to determine the disadvantages and drawbacks of many of the devices. We analyzed common approaches in exoskeleton design and the convergence, or lack thereof, with certain technologies. We focused on actuators, sensors, energy sources, materials, and control strategies. One of the largest hurdles to be overcome in exoskeleton research is the user interface and control. More intuitive and flexible user interfaces are needed to increase the success of robotic exoskeletons. In the last section, we discuss promising future solutions to the major hurdles in exoskeleton control. A number of emerging technologies could deliver substantial advantages to existing and future exoskeleton designs. We conclude with a listing of the advantages and disadvantages of the emerging technologies and discuss possible futures for the field.

References Powered by Scopus

4153Citations
2568Readers
Get full text
Get full text
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

374Citations
859Readers
Get full text

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Young, A. J., & Ferris, D. P. (2017). State of the art and future directions for lower limb robotic exoskeletons. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 25(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2521160

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25050100150200

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 413

74%

Researcher 77

14%

Professor / Associate Prof. 46

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 21

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 485

88%

Computer Science 29

5%

Medicine and Dentistry 23

4%

Nursing and Health Professions 15

3%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0