PTOtherJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Impact of elastic ankle exoskeleton stiffness on neuromechanics and energetics of human walking across multiple speeds.

Richard W Nuckols, Gregory S Sawicki

PMID 32539840

WHAT IT FOUND

At 1.50 m/s, no ankle exoskeleton stiffness reduced walking energy cost.

At slow and fast walking, 50 Nm/rad reduced cost by 4.2% and 4.7%. The device was tethered and tested in healthy adults.

Key findings

01A stiffness of 50 Nm/rad reduced net metabolic rate by 4.2% at 1.25 m/s and 4.7% at 1.75 m/s compared with no assistance; 100 Nm/rad did not reach significance.

02At 1.50 m/s, exoskeleton assistance increased metabolic cost for all stiffness conditions, and no optimal stiffness was found.

03The calculated optimal stiffness was 70 Nm/rad at 1.25 m/s and 79 Nm/rad at 1.75 m/s.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study included 11 healthy adults, so it does not show what happens in patients with gait impairment. The device was a tethered research emulator, not a portable clinical exoskeleton, and the authors state this limits claims about real-world savings. Merely putting on the tethered system increased metabolic cost by about 19%, so the small speed-specific reductions may not translate to a wearable device. The emulator behaved more like an ideal spring than a physical or biological spring, which may differ from a real passive device. Benefit was absent at 1.50 m/s, a speed close to preferred walking speed, so speed matters more than a single stiffness recommendation.

Declared interests

The supplied metadata lists NIH extramural research support. The article text does not include a competing-interests declaration.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that a portable ankle exoskeleton will reduce walking effort for patients. The benefit was only 4.2% at 1.25 m/s and 4.7% at 1.75 m/s, absent at 1.50 m/s, and the device was a tethered emulator.

Read it on PubMed →