Ref. | Actuation (Pf/Df) | Control | Weight PAFO | Subjects | Conditions (n. sessions /repetitions) | Ul / Bl | Portable | Results on metabolic cost | Results on muscle activation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Asbeck, 2015 [22] | SEA (Pf*) | P-Bc | 10.1 kg | 5 H | training:10U-10P; test:8U-8P(x6 powered conditions, different peak passive and active moments)-8U, 34.6kg load (1sess) | Bl | yes | only in 1 condition reduced w.r.t. U (-6.4%) | / |
Cain, 2007 [35] | PAM (Pf) | P-Bc | 1.1 kg | 6 H | N (1sess), 10U-30P-15U (2sess) | Ul | no | / | SOL, LG, MG similar to U |
PMc (SOL) | 6 H | SOL, LG, MG reduced wrt U | |||||||
Galle, 2014 [45] | PAM (Pf) | P-Bc | 0.76 kg | 9 H | U and P, 15% In, every 3 min load = 5% bodyweight added until exhaustion (1sess) | Bl | no | -10% in P and U at exhaustion, but longer walking time in P w.r.t. U | / |
Galle, 2015 [19] | PAM (Pf) | P-Bc | 0.76 kg | 7 H | training: 24P 0% In; test: 15% In, 4U, 4P(x4 poweredconditions, different onset timings) (1sess) | Bl | no | bigger reduction (-12% w.r.t. U) when onset at 26% and 34% | for onset 34%: TIB increased beginning swing, VL and BIC reduced beginning stride |
Galle, 2017 [21] | PAM (Pf) | P-Bc | 0.89 kg | 14 H | training: 4N-4U-4P(x12) (1sess); tests: 2N-2U-2P(x12) (1sess); 12 powered conditions: 4 onset timings, 3 power levels | Bl | no | bigger reduction for 43% onset and middle power condition (- 21% w.r.t. U) | SOL: reduced with higher power and earlier timings; MG: reduced with higher power and later timings; TIB: increased with increase power |
Jackson, 2015 [20] | SEA (Pf) | P-Bc | 0.83 kg | 8 H | 6N-8U-8P(x7 powered conditions: 4 work conditions, 3 torque conditions) (2 sess) | Ul | no | decreased with increased net work, but increased with increasing average torque | Exo-side SOL decreased with increased torque and work; contralateral VL decreased with increased work |
Koller, 2015 [40] | PAM (Pf) | Ag-PMc (SOL) | 2.08 kg | 8 H | 10U-30P-10U (3 sess) | Bl | no | reduced throughout sessions; 3rd sess: -18% w.r.t U | 1st sess: SOL -20%, RFEM -9%, BIC -18%; 3rd sess: SOL -11%, RFEM -20%, BIC -17% w.r.t. U |
Koller, 2017 [41] | PAM (Pf) | Ag-PMc (SOL) | / | 8 H | training: 10U-30P-10U (3 sess); test: 10U-10P(Ag-PMc)-10P(P-Bc)-10P(Ag-PMc) (1sess) | Bl | no | similar reduction w.r.t. U with both controllers (-19%) | SOL: reduced 12% more in P-Bc than Ag-PMc w.r.t. U |
P-Bc | |||||||||
Koller, 2018 [42] | PAM (Pf) | Ag-PMc (SOL) | 2.08kg | 8 H | training: 10U-30P-10U (3 sess); test: 10U-10P(Ag-PMc)-10P(P-Bc)-10P(Ag-PMc) (1sess) | Bl | no | similar reduction w.r.t. U with both controllers (-19%) | SOL: reduced 19% (peak linear envelope reduced 29%) w.r.t. U; RFEM: reduced 13% (peak linear envelope reduced 39%) w.r.t. U |
P-Bc | SOL: reduced 28% (peak linear envelope reduced 38%) w.r.t. U, SOL activity in P-Bc 11% lower than in Ag-PMc; RFEM: reduced 9% (peak linear envelope reduced 35%) w.r.t. U | ||||||||
Lee, 2016 [23] | SEA (Pf*) | P-Bc | 0.89 kg | 7 H | 8U-8P (x3 powered conditions, different power levels), 23kg load (1 sess) | Bl | no | -(11%-15%) w.r.t. U | / |
Malcolm, 2013 [18] | PAM (Pf) | P-Bc | 0.67 kg | 8 H | 4U-4P(x5 powered conditions, different onset timings) (1sess) | Bl | no | bigger reduction (-17% w.r.t. U) when onset at 43% | |
Malcolm, 2017 [25] | SEA (Pf*) | P-Bc | 1 kg | 8 H | training: 8P (x4 powered conditions, different power levels) (1sess); test: 8U-8P (x4 powered conditions, different power levels) (1 sess), 23kg load | Bl | no | -(11%-15%) w.r.t. U | / |
Mooney, 2014 [47] | SEA (Pf) | P-Bc | 4 kg | 7 H | N-P, 23kg load (1 sess) | Bl | yes | reduced w.r.t. N | / |
Mooney, 2014 [48] | SEA (Pf) | P-Bc | 3.6 kg | 7 H | 10N-20P-20U-10N (1sess) | Bl | yes | -14% w.r.t. N, U | / |
Mooney, 2016 [49] | SEA (Pf) | P-Bc | 3.6 kg | 6 H | P-U-N (1sess) | Bl | yes | -14% w.r.t. N, U | / |
Quinlivan, 2017 [24] | SEA (Pf*) | P-Bc | 0.89 kg | 7 H | training: 8warm-up-5U(x2)-5P(x4 powered conditions, different peak moments) (1sess); test: 8warm-up-5U(x2)-5P(x4 powered conditions, different peak moments) (1sess); | Bl | no | decreased with increased peak ankle moment w.r.t. U | / |
Sawicki, 2008 [36] | PAM (Pf) | PMc (SOL) | 1.21 kg | 9 H | 10U-30P-15U (3 sess) | Bl | no | reduced throughout sessions; 3rd sess: -10% w.r.t U | SOL: reduced throughout sessions; 3rd sess: SOL -28%, MG: -10%, LG: -4% w.r.t. U |
Sawicki, 2009 [37] | PAM (Pf) | PMc (SOL) | 1.18 kg | 10 H | >90 min training; 7U-7P (4 walking speeds) (1sess) | Bl | no | -(10%-12%) w.r.t. U for every walking speed | SOL, MG, LG, TIB: reduced at higher speeds, no difference at lower speeds |
Sawicki, 2009 [38] | PAM (Pf) | PMc (SOL) | 1.18 kg | 9 H | >90 min training; 7U-7P (0%, 5%,10%, 15% In) (1sess) | Bl | no | -(10%-13%) w.r.t. U for every incline | SOL: -25% at 0% In, -(16%-18%) with In; LG: -24% in 0% In, -(8%-15%) with In |
VanDijk, 2017 [50] | SEA (Pf) | P-Bc | 9 kg | 7 H | 12U-12P-12N (1sess) | Bl | yes | increased w.r.t. U | / |
Zhang, 2017 [46] | SEA (Pf) | P-Bc | 0.83 kg | 1 - 11 H | N-U-64P, several conditions | Ul and Bl | no | optimized pattern changes with subjects; higher metabolic cost reduction with optimized assistance w.r.t. generalized | SOL: -36% w.r.t N, -41% w.r.t. U |