[Abstract + References] The Identification and Control of a Finger Exoskeleton for Grasping Rehabilitation – Conference paper


This paper evaluates the efficacy of different classical control architectures in performing grasping motion. The exoskeleton system was obtained via system identification method in which the input and output data was measured by means of current sensor (ACS712) and encoder attached to a DC geared motor (SPG30e-270k). The data obtained is split with a ratio of 70:30 for estimation and validation, respectively. The transfer function of the system is evaluated by varying the number of poles and zeros that are able to fit well with validation data. The performance of the classical P, PI, PD and PID control techniques were then evaluated in its ability to track the desired trajectory. It was demonstrated from the study that the PID controller provides the least steady state error as well as a reasonably fast settling time.


  1. 1.
    Hansen, T.B., Carstensen, O.: Hand injuries in agricultural accidents. J. Hand Surg. Am. 24, 190–192 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hasegawa, Y., Mikami, Y., Watanabe, K., Firouzimehr, Z., Sankai, Y.: Wearable handling support system for paralyzed patient. In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS, pp. 741–746 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, J.F., Yang, C.J., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Dong, Y.M.: Modeling and control of a curved pneumatic muscle actuator for wearable elbow exoskeleton. Mechatronics 18, 448–457 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loureiro, R., Amirabdollahian, F., Topping, M., Driessen, B., Harwin, W.: Upper limb robot mediated stroke therapy—GENTLE/s approach. Auton. Robots. 15, 35–51 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murphy, T.H., Corbett, D.: Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 861–872 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Masiero, S., Armani, M., Rosati, G.: Upper-limb robot-assisted therapy in rehabilitation of acute stroke patients: Focused review and results of new randomized controlled trial. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 48, 355–366 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rey, G., Donnan, A., Fisher, M., Macleod, M., Davis, S.M.: Stroke. Lancet 371, 1612–1623 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basteris, A., Nijenhuis, S.M., Stienen, A.H., Buurke, J.H., Prange, G.B., Amirabdollahian, F.: Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 11, 111 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teasell, R.W., Kalra, L.: What’s new in stroke rehabilitation: back to basics. Stroke 36, 215–217 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lucas, L., Dicicco, M., Matsuoka, Y.: An EMG-controlled hand exoskeleton for natural pinching. J. Robot. Mechatron. 16, 1–7 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heo, P., Gu, G.M., Lee, S., Rhee, K., Kim, J.: Current hand exoskeleton technologies rehabilitation and assistive engineering. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 13, 807–824 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mulas, M., Folgheraiter, M., Gini, G.: An EMG-controlled exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 371–374 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wege, A., Kondak, K., Hommel, G.: Development and Control of a Hand Exoskeleton for Rehabilitation Construction of the Exoskeleton, pp. 149–157 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dicicco, M., Lucas, L., Matsuoka, Y., Engineering, M.: Comparison of control strategies for an EMG controlled orthotic exoskeleton for the hand. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1622–1627 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiri, A., Vitiello, N., Giovacchini, F., Roccella, S., Vecchi, F., Carrozza, M.C.: Mechatronic design and characterization of the index finger module of a hand exoskeleton for post-stroke rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 17, 884–894 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ljung, L., Singh, R.: Version 8 of the system identification toolbox. IFAC (2012)Google Scholar

via The Identification and Control of a Finger Exoskeleton for Grasping Rehabilitation | SpringerLink

, , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: