Skip to main content
Fig. 7 | Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Fig. 7

From: Control strategies used in lower limb exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation after brain injury: a systematic review and analysis of clinical effectiveness

Fig. 7

Clinical comparison of the control strategies per outcome metric and acuity level of stroke. Relation between the training intensity and percentage of improvement for A acute, B–D subacute and E–I chronic stroke for the selected outcome metrics. The shape of each symbol corresponds to each of the control strategies, the color is related to the grade of evidence and the intensity of the color is associated to the number of participants of the studies included. The error bars indicate the range of values for the training intensity (horizontal lines) and range of percentage of improvement (vertical lines). The control strategies included are combinations of (i) Control aim: Assistive (A), Challenge-Based (CB); (ii) Human–Robot Synchronization: Threshold-Based (TB) and Adaptive Oscillator (AO), with metrics Ground Reaction Forces (GRF), Electromyography (EMG), and Joint Kinematics (K); (iii) Mid-Level Control: Trajectory Tracking (TT), Compliant (C), Myoelectric (M). Other acronyms: Not Available (N/A), 10 m Walk Test (10MWT), 6 min Walk Test (6MWT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Fugl–Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Timed-Up and Go (TUG)

Back to article page