Table 3 Information on the compatibility of device

Foot-sole stimulation system

(Hao et al., 2013) [20]

Aluminum, nonferromagnetic plastic and nylon

Phantom-based image quality test (three conditions: powered on, powered off, absent from room; index: anatomical SNR/functional SFNR/field map mean).

Comparison of preprogrammed foot stimulation with the actual stimulation applied to the foot soles.

< 1 mm; < 1 °

Dual-drive foot-sole stimulator

(Zhang et al., 2019) [21]

Plastic, aluminum and nylon

Phantom-based image quality test (three conditions: powered on, powered off, absent from room; index: anatomical SNR/functional SFNR/field non-uniformities).

Similarity between real foot sole pressures experienced when walking and those simulated by the stimulation system.

< 1 mm

The Korvit boot system

(Kremneva et al., 2012) [22]

Plastic, rubber

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

(Labriffe et al., 2017) [23]

N.A.

N.A.

One participant was excluded

(Jeanvoine et al., 2022) [24]

N.A.

N.A.

Two participants were excluded

Foot pedal manipulandum

(Trinastic et al., 2010) [25]

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

Plantar flexion force measure apparatus

(Noble et al., 2014) [26]

PVC

N.A.

N.A.

< 3 mm

Bra.Di.P.O.

(Belforte et al., 2010) [27]

Aluminum, bronze, brass, polymer and Derlin

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

(Belforte et al., 2012) [28]

N.A.

Dynamic performance of the control circuit (e.g., comparison of experimental and theoretical results)

N.A.

Bipedal device

(Doolittle et al., 2021) [29]

A mixture of aluminum; various types of stainless steel; plastic; rubber; glass/ceramic and fluid

N.A.

Test-retest reliability of measurements (i.e., angle displacement, head motion, task-related BOLD signal during left and right foot movement)

0.10 ± 0.02 mm

Pedaling device

(Mehta et al., 2009) [31]

PVC, Delrin, phenolic, nylon and wood

Phantom-based image quality test (four conditions: Phantom, Phantom + bike, Phantom + bike + electronics, Phantom + bike + electronics + movement; index: the percent change in brightness and spatial SNR).

N.A.

1 mm

(Mehta et al., 2012) [32]

N.A.

N.A.

< 0.5 mm; < 0.5°

(Promjunyakul et al., 2015) [33]

N.A.

N.A.

< 3 mm

Torque-measuring apparatus

(Newton et al., 2008) [30]

Fiberglass, aluminum, brass, polyethylene

N.A.

Reliability of motor performance (e.g., the mean amplitude of the torques) and fMRI-derived measures of brain activity across two time points in each participant

N.A.

Pseudogait-MRCD

(Martinez et al., 2014) [34]

High molecular weight polyethylene, nonmagnetic mental and plastic

Phantom-based image quality test (four conditions: phantom alone; with the device; with the device and movement; phantom alone; index: the differences in the mean images; percent change in brightness; spatial SNR and temporal SNR)

N.A.

< 3 mm

(Martínez et al., 2016) [35]

N.A.

N.A.

< 2 mm

Cylindrical treadmill device

(Toyomura et al., 2018) [36]

Wood, brass, rubber and methacrylate

Phantom-based image quality test (four conditions: no device, with device; with rotation; no device; index: temporal SNR)

N.A.

< 3 mm

MARCOS

(Hollnagel et al., 2011) [37]

PVC, aluminum and brass

Phantom-based image quality test (three conditions: no device (1st baseline), cables connected, moving device, and no device (2nd baseline); index: temporal SNR).

N.A.

< 2 mm

(Hollnagel et al., 2013) [38]

N.A.

Benefit of the ILC in the control performance (e.g., the shift/difference between the maximum phase of the expected and measured trajectories of position or force).

< 2.5 mm

(Jaeger et al., 2014) [39]

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

(Jaeger et al., 2015) [40]

N.A.

Test-retest reliability of motor performance (i.e., knee amplitude, stepping frequency and foot force) and brain activation of the robot-aided experimental fMRI paradigm (i.e., intra-class ICC computed from the single-subject and group activation maps for five ROIs).

Eight participants were excluded

(Jaeger et al., 2016) [41]

N.A.

Performance of the robot (i.e., the variability of the delivered foot load; the congruence of the knee amplitude and stepping frequency across load levels).

N.A.

LOMS

(Takahiro et al., 2011) [42]

ABS, acrylic and nonmagnetic stainless steel

Phantom-based image quality test (e.g., signal intensity of fMRI scanning related to the distance between LOMS and head coil), functional imaging assessment (moved the lower extremities voluntarily with or without wearing LOMS) and motion capturing assessment (the angles of the hip joints in three cases).

N.A.

N.A.

(Ikeda et al., 2012) [43]

Phantom-based image quality test (e.g., signal intensity of fMRI scanning related to the distance between LOMS and head coil), functional imaging assessment (moved the lower extremities voluntarily with or without wearing LOMS) and motion capturing assessment (the angles of the hip joints in three cases).

N.A.

N.A.

(Takahiro et al., 2013) [44]

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

(Ikeda et al., 2015) [45]

Phantom-based image quality test (three tests: different distance/in or out of room/movement or not; index: spatial SNR).

N.A.

N.A.