Advertisement

Kinematic trajectories while walking within the Lokomat robotic gait-orthosis

  • Joseph Hidler
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author.
    Affiliations
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Catholic University, Pangborn Hall, #104b, 620 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20064, USA

    Center for Applied Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Research (CABRR), National Rehabilitation Hospital, 102 Irving Street, NW, Washington, DC 20010, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Wessel Wisman
    Affiliations
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
    Search for articles by this author
  • Nathan Neckel
    Affiliations
    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Catholic University, Pangborn Hall, #104b, 620 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20064, USA

    Center for Applied Biomechanics and Rehabilitation Research (CABRR), National Rehabilitation Hospital, 102 Irving Street, NW, Washington, DC 20010, USA
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Background One of the most popular robot assisted rehabilitation devices used is the Lokomat. Unfortunately, not much is known about the behaviors exhibited by subjects in this device. The goal of this study was to evaluate the kinematic patterns of individuals walking inside the Lokomat compared to those demonstrated on a treadmill.
      Methods Six healthy subjects walked on a treadmill and inside the Lokomat while the motions of the subject and Lokomat were tracked. Joint angles and linear motion were determined for Lokomat and treadmill walking. We also evaluated the variability of the patterns, and the repeatability of measuring techniques.
      Findings The overall kinematics in the Lokomat are similar to those on a treadmill, however there was significantly more hip and ankle extension, and greater hip and ankle range of motion in the Lokomat (P < 0.05). Additionally, the linear movement of joints was reduced in the Lokomat. Subjects tested on repeated sessions presented consistent kinematics, demonstrating the ability to consistently setup and test subjects.
      Interpretation The reduced degrees of freedom in the Lokomat are believed to be the reason for the specific kinematic differences. We found that despite being firmly attached to the device there was still subject movement relative to the Lokomat. This led to variability in the patterns, where subjects altered their gait pattern from step to step. These results are clinically important as a variable step pattern has been shown to be a more effective gait training strategy than one which forces the same kinematic pattern in successive steps.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Cai, L., Fong, A., Otashi, C., Liang, Y.Q., Cham, J., Zhong, H., Roy, R., Edgerton, V.R., Burdick, J., 2005. Effects of consistency vs. variability in robotically controlled training of stepping in adult spinal mice. In: IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL.

        • Colombo G.
        • Joerg M.
        • Schreier R.
        • Dietz V.
        Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis.
        J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2000; 37: 693-700
        • Gordon K.E.
        • Ferris D.P.
        Learning to walk with a robotic ankle exoskeleton.
        J. Biomech. 2007; 40: 2636-2644
        • Himann J.E.
        • Cunningham D.A.
        • Rechnitzer P.A.
        • Paterson D.H.
        Age-related changes in speed of walking.
        Med. Sci. Sport. Exer. 1988; 20: 161-166
        • Hidler J.
        • Wall A.
        Changes in muscle activation patterns during robotic-assisted walking.
        Clin. Biomech. 2005; 20: 184-193
        • Hidler J.
        • Neckel N.D.
        Inverse-Dynamics Based Assessment of Gait Using a Robotic Orthosis. Paper WeC14.3.
        IEEE EMBS, New York, NY2006
        • Hornby T.G.
        • Zemon D.H.
        • Campbell D.
        Robotic-assisted, body-weight-supported treadmill training in individuals following motor incomplete spinal cord injury.
        Phys.Ther. 2005; 85: 52-66
        • Hidler J.
        • Nichols D.
        • Pelliccio M.
        • Brady K.
        Advances in the understanding and treatment of stroke impairment using robotic devices.
        Top Stroke Rehabil. 2005; 12: 21-33
        • Husemann B.
        • Müller F.
        • Krewer C.
        • Heller S.
        • Koenig E.
        Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study.
        Stroke. 2007; 38: 349-354
        • Lee S.J.
        • Hidler J.
        Biomechanics of overground vs treadmill walking in healthy individuals.
        J. Appl. Physiol. 2008; 104: 747-755
        • Mayr A.
        • Quirbach E.
        • Kofler M.
        First Experience with the “Lokomat” gait orthosis in post-acute brain-injured patients.
        Eur. J. Neurol. 2002; 9 (10, SC130a): 12-52
        • Mayr A.
        • Kofler M.
        • Quirbach E.
        • Matzak H.
        • Frohlich K.
        • Saltuari L.
        Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis.
        Neurorehabil. Neural Repair. 2007; 21: 307-314
        • Neckel N.D.
        • Hidler J.
        Method for Motion Tracking Inside the Lokomat Robotic Orthosis.
        ASB, Blacksburg, VA2006
      2. Neckel, N.D., Wisman, W., Hidler, J., 2006. Limb alignment and kinematics inside a Lokomat robotic orthosis. In: IEEE EMBS Annual Conference, New York, NY.

        • Shadmehr R.
        • Mussa-Ivaldi F.A.
        Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task.
        J. Neurosci. 1994; 14: 3208-3224
        • Wirz M.
        • Zemon D.
        • Rupp R.
        • Scheel A.
        • Colobo G.
        • Dietz V.
        • Hornby T.G.
        Effectiveness of automated locomotor training in patients with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: a multicenter trial.
        Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005; 86: 672-680