Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This experiment demonstrates reliable joint dynamics assessment in healthy individuals using velocity perturbations, suggesting improved measurement strategies.
Robotic systems assess joint dynamics objectively by perturbing the limb and estimating properties such as impedance. Position perturbations constrain the limb to a target trajectory, reducing variability in task execution but obstructing voluntary motion. Force perturbations allow voluntary movement but elicit orientation-dependent responses, increasing the number of trials needed for accurate estimates. To overcome these limitations, we combined the flexibility of admittance control with the repeatability of position perturbations. A minimum-jerk trajectory ensures smooth transitions. The experiment with six healthy participants was performed to demonstrate the reliability, accuracy and smoothness of applying such perturbations during voluntary movement. Reliability was the proportion of perturbations that reached the target velocity within one millisecond of the acceleration time window. Accuracy was measured as the RMSE between the target and measured velocity during the constant velocity. Smoothness was assessed as perceivability: the fraction of trials in which participants correctly detected a perturbation. The controller allows continuous voluntary movement, switching only during perturbations to impose a precise, specified perturbation. All perturbations reached the target velocity within one millisecond of the acceleration time window; thus, the method is reliable. Under the most demanding condition- an increase to 200 deg/s in 0.01 s-the RMSE between target and measured velocity was 1.1 deg/s (0.55%), indicating a high accuracy. Specially designed perturbations had a perceivability accuracy of 22.1%, indicating smooth transitions between control modes. Together, these results indicate a promising approach for assessing joint dynamics during voluntary elbow movement, enabling assessment during activities of daily living.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zanten et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: