Search for: All records

Most impedance-based walking controllers for powered knee–ankle prostheses use a finite state machine with dozens of user-specific parameters that require manual tuning by technical experts. These parameters are only appropriate near the task (e.g., walking speed and incline) at which they were tuned, necessitating many different parameter sets for variable-task walking. In contrast, this article presents a data-driven, phase-based controller for variable-task walking that uses continuously variable impedance control during stance and kinematic control during swing to enable biomimetic locomotion. After generating a data-driven model of variable joint impedance with convex optimization, we implement a novel task-invariant phase variable and real-time estimates of speed and incline to enable autonomous task adaptation. Experiments with above-knee amputee participants (N = 2) show that our data-driven controller 1) features highly linear phase estimates and accurate task estimates, 2) produces biomimetic kinematic and kinetic trends as task varies, leading to low errors relative to able-bodied references, and 3) produces biomimetic joint work and cadence trends as task varies. We show that the presented controller meets and often exceeds the performance of a benchmark finite state machine controller for our two participants, without requiring manual impedance tuning. 

Human-in-the-loop optimization allows for individualized device control based on measured human performance. This technique has been used to produce large reductions in energy expenditure during walking with exoskeletons but has not yet been applied to prosthetic devices. In this series of case studies, we applied human-in-the-loop optimization to the control of an active ankle-foot prosthesis used by participants with unilateral transtibial amputation. We optimized the parameters of five control architectures that captured aspects of successful exoskeletons and commercial prostheses, but none resulted in significantly lower metabolic rate than generic control. In one control architecture, we increased the exposure time per condition by a factor of five, but the optimized controller still resulted in higher metabolic rate. Finally, we optimized for self-reported comfort instead of metabolic rate, but the resulting controller was not preferred. There are several reasons why human-in-the-loop optimization may have failed for people with amputation. Control architecture is an unlikely cause given the variety of controllers tested. The lack of effect likely relates to changes in motor adaptation, learning, or objectives in people with amputation. Future work should investigate these potential causes to determine whether human-in-the-loop optimization for prostheses could be successful.