A novel robot for imposing perturbations during overground walking: mechanism, control and normative stepping responses

Andrej Olenšek, Matjaž Zadravec, Zlatko Matjačić, Andrej Olenšek, Matjaž Zadravec, Zlatko Matjačić

Abstract

Background: The most common approach to studying dynamic balance during walking is by applying perturbations. Previous studies that investigated dynamic balance responses predominantly focused on applying perturbations in frontal plane while walking on treadmill. The goal of our work was to develop balance assessment robot (BAR) that can be used during overground walking and to assess normative balance responses to perturbations in transversal plane in a group of neurologically healthy individuals.

Methods: BAR provides three passive degrees of freedom (DoF) and three actuated DoF in pelvis that are admittance-controlled in such a way that the natural movement of pelvis is not significantly affected. In this study BAR was used to assess normative balance responses in neurologically healthy individuals by applying linear perturbations in frontal and sagittal planes and angular perturbations in transversal plane of pelvis. One way repeated measure ANOVA was used to statistically evaluate the effect of selected perturbations on stepping responses.

Results: Standard deviations of assessed responses were similar in unperturbed and perturbed walking. Perturbations in frontal direction evoked substantial pelvis displacement and caused statistically significant effect on step length, step width and step time. Likewise, perturbations in sagittal plane also caused statistically significant effect on step length, step width and step time but with less explicit impact on pelvis movement in frontal plane. On the other hand, except from substantial pelvis rotation angular perturbations did not have substantial effect on pelvis movement in frontal and sagittal planes while statistically significant effect was noted only in step length and step width after perturbation in clockwise direction.

Conclusions: Results indicate that the proposed device can repeatedly reproduce similar experimental conditions. Results also suggest that "stepping strategy" is the dominant strategy for coping with perturbations in frontal plane, perturbations in sagittal plane are to greater extent handled by "ankle strategy" while angular perturbations in transversal plane do not pose substantial challenge for balance. Results also show that specific perturbation in general elicits responses that extend also to other planes of movement that are not directly associated with plane of perturbation as well as to spatio temporal parameters of gait.

Keywords: Balance; Balance assessment robot; Overground walking; Pelvic manipulator; Pelvis perturbations; Rehabilitation robotics.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
BAR - mechanical design and the actual system. Left: Detailed mechanical design of balance assessment robot. Mobile platform (MP): 1 - mobile platform frame, 2 - castor wheels, 3 - drive motors, 4 - batteries, 5 - bumper, 6 - control unit (Beckhoff PLC CX5020, Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG). Pelvis manipulator (PM): 7 - universal joint, 8 - vertical rod, 9 - spherical joint, 10 - pair of angularly displaced force sensors, 11 - pelvis element (PE), 12 - pelvis brace (PB), 13 - servo motor (Beckhoff AM122-F020, Beckhoff Automation GmbH & Co. KG), 14 - linear bearing (CASM-40-BS-0300AA-000, SKF Actuation Systems). Right: the actual system
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pelvis DoFs. Schematic representation of available DoFs in pelvis when walking within BAR. From left to right: actuated forward(above)/backward(below) displacement, actuated left(above)/right(below) displacement, actuated CW(above)/CCW(below) rotation, passive anterior(above)/posterior(below) tilt, passive up (above)/down(below) obliquity, passive down(above)/up(below) displacement
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kinematic framework of BAR. Schematic representation of selected locations on BAS that were used to develop kinematic model of BAR
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Perturbation directions. Schematic representation of perturbation directions with respect to human body
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Perturbation to left direction. Left - pelvis movement and interaction forces/moment associated with actuated DoF in transversal plane for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for single typical subject was averaged across five single responses. Right - graphical illustration of foot placement at left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at −50, 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for a group of subjects was generated from averaged group step lengths and step widths and time-aligned at the onset of perturbation at 0 %
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Stepping responses. Step length, step width and step time responses in unperturbed walking and after selected perturbations in transversal plane. Step length and step width responses correspond to distances between anterior and posterior ankle marker at the time of left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes. Step time responses correspond to time intervals between consecutive foot off and foot strike of the same leg, i.e. left step times (approximately from −50 to 0 %, from 50 to 100 % and from 150 to 200 %) or right step times (approximately from 0 to 50 %, from 100 to 150 % and from 200 to 250 %) feet respectively
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Perturbation to right direction. Left - pelvis movement and interaction forces/moment associated with actuated DoF in transversal plane for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for single typical subject was averaged across five single responses. Right - graphical illustration of foot placement at left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at −50, 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for a group of subjects was generated from averaged group step lengths and step widths and time-aligned at the onset of perturbation at 0 %
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Perturbation to forward direction. Left - pelvis movement and interaction forces/moment associated with actuated DoF in transversal plane for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for single typical subject was averaged across five single responses. Right - graphical illustration of foot placement at left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at −50, 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for a group of subjects was generated from averaged group step lengths and step widths and time-aligned at the onset of perturbation at 0 %
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Perturbation to backward direction. Left - pelvis movement and interaction forces/moment associated with actuated DoF in transversal plane for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for single typical subject was averaged across five single responses. Right - graphical illustration of foot placement at left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at −50, 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for a group of subjects was generated from averaged group step lengths and step widths and time-aligned at the onset of perturbation at 0 %
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Perturbation to clockwise direction. Left - pelvis movement and interaction forces/moment associated with actuated DoF in transversal plane for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for single typical subject was averaged across five single responses. Right - graphical illustration of foot placement at left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at −50, 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for a group of subjects was generated from averaged group step lengths and step widths and time-aligned at the onset of perturbation at 0 %
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
Perturbation to counter clockwise direction. Left - pelvis movement and interaction forces/moment associated with actuated DoF in transversal plane for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for single typical subject was averaged across five single responses. Right - graphical illustration of foot placement at left (approximately at 0, 100 and 200 %) and right (approximately at −50, 50, 150 and 250 %) foot strikes for unperturbed and perturbed walking over selected observation interval for a group of subjects was generated from averaged group step lengths and step widths and time-aligned at the onset of perturbation at 0 %

References

    1. Winter DA. The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Gait: Normal, elderly and Pathological. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press; 1998.
    1. Blicher JU, Nielsen JF. Cortical and spinal excitability changes after robotic gait training in healthy participants. Neurorehab Neural Re. 2009;23:143–9. doi: 10.1177/1545968308317973.
    1. Classen J, Liepert J, Wise SP, Hallet M. Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol. 1998;79:1117–23.
    1. Schabruna SM, Riddingb MC, Chipchasea LS. An update on brain plasticity for physical therapists. Physiother Pract Res. 2013;34:1–8.
    1. Woollacott MH, Tang PF. Balance control during walking in the older adult: research and its implications. Phys Ther. 1997;77:646–60.
    1. Tang PF, Woolacott MH, Chong RK. Control of reactive balance adjustments in perturbed human walking: roles of proximal and distal muscle activity. Exp Brain Res. 1998;119:141–52. doi: 10.1007/s002210050327.
    1. Marigold DS, Bethune AJ, Patla AE. The role of the swing limb and arms in the reactive recovery response to an unexpected slip during locomotion. J Neurophysiol. 2005;89:1727–37. doi: 10.1152/jn.00683.2002.
    1. Schillings AM, Wezel BMH, van Mulder T, Duysens J. Muscular responses and movement strategies during stumbling over obstacles. J Neurophysiol. 2000;83:2093–102.
    1. Pijnappels M, Bobbert MF, Van Dieen JH. Emg modulation in anticipation of a possible trip during walking in young and older adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2006;16:137–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.06.011.
    1. Schillings AM, Mulder T, Duysens J. Stumbling over obstacles in older adults compared to young adults. J Neurophysiol. 2005;94:1158–68. doi: 10.1152/jn.00396.2004.
    1. Ferber R, Osternig LR, Woollacott MH, Wasielewski NJ, Lee JH. Reactive balance adjustments to unexpected perturbations during human walking. Gait Posture. 2002;16:238–48. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00010-3.
    1. Bhatt T, Wang TY, Yang F, Pai YC. Adaptation and generalization to opposing perturbations in walking. Neuroscience. 2013;246:435–50. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.04.013.
    1. Pai YC, Bhatt T, Wang E, Espy D, Pavol MJ. Inoculation against falls: rapid adaptation by young and older adults to slips during daily activities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:452–9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.032.
    1. Bieryla KA, Madigan ML. Proof of concept for perturbation-based balance training in older adults at a high risk for falls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:841–3. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.12.004.
    1. Shapiro A, Melzer I. Balance perturbation system to improve balance compensatory responses during walking in old persons. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010;7:1–6. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-7-32.
    1. Wang TY, Bhatt T, Yang F, Pai YC. Adaptive control reduces trip-induced forward gait instability among young adults. J Biomech. 2012;45:1169–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.02.001.
    1. Shinya M, Fujii S, Oda S. Corrective postural responses evoked by completely unexpected loss of ground support during human walking. Gait Posture. 2009;29:483–7. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.11.009.
    1. Hof AL, Vermerris SM, Gjaltema WA. Balance responses to lateral perturbations in human treadmill walking. J Exp Biol. 2010;213:2655–64. doi: 10.1242/jeb.042572.
    1. Hof AL, Duysens J. Responses of human hip abductor muscles to lateral balance perturbations during walking. Exp Brain Res. 2013;230:301–10. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3655-5.
    1. Ichinose WE, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Aoyagi D, Lin JT, Ngai K, Edgerton RV, Harkema SJ, Bobrow JE. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS: 17-21 September 2003. Cancun, Mexico: IEEE Xplore; 2003. A robotic device for measuring and controlling pelvic motion during locomotor rehabilitation.
    1. Pietrusinski M, Cajigas I, Mizikacioglu Y, Goldsmith M, Bonato P, Mavroidis C. Proceedings of IEEE Haptics Symposium: 25-26 March 2010. Waltham, MA, USA: IEEE Xplore; 2010. Gait rehabilitation therapy using robot generated force fields applied at the pelvis.
    1. Vashista V, Jin X, Agrawal SK. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA): May 31 - June 7 2014. Honk Kong: IEEE Xplore; 2014. Active tethered pelvic assist device (a-tpad) to study force adaptation in human walking.
    1. Perry J, Garrett M, Gronley JK, Mulroy SJ. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–9. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982.
    1. Hak L, Houdijk H, Steenbrink F, Mert A, van der Wurff P, Beek PJ, van DieËn JH. Speeding up or slowing down?: Gait adaptations to preserve gait stability in response to balance perturbations. Gait Posture. 2012;36:260–4. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.03.005.
    1. Aaslund MK, Moe-Nilssen R. Treadmill walking with body weight support effect of treadmill, harness and body weight support systems. Gait Posture. 2008;28:303–8. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.01.011.
    1. Alton F, Baldey L, Caplan S, Morrissey MC. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill walking. Clin Biomech. 1998;13:434–40. doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(98)00012-6.
    1. Riley P, Paolini G, Della Croce U, Paylo KW, Kerrigan DC. A kinematic and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill walking in healthy subjects. Gait Posture. 2007;26:17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.07.003.
    1. Lee JS, Hidler J. Biomechanics of overground vs. treadmill walking in healthy individuals. J Appl Physiol. 2008;104:747–55. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01380.2006.
    1. Glaister BC, Bernantz GC, Klute GK, Orendurff MS. Video task analysis of turning during activities of daily living. Gait Posture. 2007;25:289–94. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.04.003.
    1. Orendurff MS, Segal AD, Berge JS, Flick KC, Spanier D, Klute GK. The kinematics and kinetics of turning: limb asymmetries associated with walking a circular path. Gait Posture. 2006;23:106–11. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.12.008.
    1. Ventura JD, Klute GK, Neptune RR. Individual muscle contributions to circular turning mechanics. J Biomech. 2015;48:1067–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.01.026.
    1. Courtine G, Schieppati M. Human walking along a curved path. II. Gait features and EMG patterns. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;18:191–205. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02737.x.
    1. Veneman JF, Menger J, van Asseldonk EH, van der Helm FC, van der Kooij H. Fixating the pelvis in the horizontal plane affects gait characteristics. Gait Posture. 2008;28:157–63. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.11.008.
    1. King DL, Zatsiorsky VM. Periods of extreme ankle displacement during one-legged standing. Gait Posture. 2002;15:172–9. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00189-8.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever