Advertisement

Meccanica

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 749–761 | Cite as

Design and kinematic optimization of a novel underactuated robotic hand exoskeleton

  • Mine Sarac
  • Massimiliano Solazzi
  • Edoardo Sotgiu
  • Massimo Bergamasco
  • Antonio FrisoliEmail author
Advances in Biomechanics: from foundations to applications

Abstract

This study presents the design and the kinematic optimization of a novel, underactuated, linkage-based robotic hand exoskeleton to assist users performing grasping tasks. The device has been designed to apply only normal forces to the finger phalanges during flexion/extension of the fingers, while providing automatic adaptability for different finger sizes. Thus, the easiness of the attachment to the user’s fingers and better comfort have been ensured. The analyses of the device kinematic pose, statics and stability of grasp have been performed. These analyses have been used to optimize the link lengths of the mechanism, ensuring that a reasonable range of motion is satisfied while maximizing the force transmission on the finger joints. Finally, the usability of a prototype with multiple fingers has been tested during grasping tasks with different objects.

Keywords

Hand exoskeletons Underactuated mechanism Grasping Kinematics optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded within the project “WEARHAP WEARable HAPtics for humans and robots” of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013, Grant Agreement no. 601165 and project “CENTAURO - Robust Mobility and Dexterous Manipulation in Disaster Response by Fullbody Telepresence in a Centaur-like Robot” of the the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Programme, Grant Agreement no. 644839.

References

  1. 1.
    Kobayashi F, Ikai G, Fukui W, Nakamoto H, Kojima F (2012) Multipoint haptic device for robot hand teleoperation. In: International symposium on micro-nano mechatronics and human science (MHS), pp 304–309Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee SW, Landers K, Park H-S (2013) Biomimetic hand exotendon device (BiomHED) for functional hand rehabilitation in stroke. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), pp 1–4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brokaw E, Black I, Holley R, Lum P (2011) Hand spring operated movement enhancer (HandSOME): A portable, passive hand exoskeleton for stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 19(4):391–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aubin P, Sallum H, Walsh C, Stirling L, Correia A (2013) A pediatric robotic thumb exoskeleton for at-home rehabilitation: The isolated orthosis for thumb actuation (IOTA). In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li J, Zheng R, Zhang Y, Yao J (2011) iHandRehab: an interactive hand exoskeleton for active and passive rehabilitation. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), pp 1 – 6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hasegawa Y, Tokita J, Kamibayashi K, Sankai Y (2011) Evaluation of fingertip force accuracy in different support conditions of exoskeleton. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 680–685Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones C, Wang F, Morrison R, Sarkar N, Kamper D (2014) Design and development of the cable actuated finger exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation following stroke. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 19(1):131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iqbal J, Tsagarakis N, Caldwell D (2011) A multi-DoF robotic exoskeleton interface for hand motion assistance. In: IEEE international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society, pp. 1575–1578Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tang Z, Sugano S, Iwata H (2013) A finger exoskeleton for rehabilitation and brain image study. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taheri H, Rowe JB, Gardner D, Chan V, Gray K, Bower C, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Wolbrecht ET (2014) Design and preliminary evaluation of the FINGER rehabilitation robot: controlling challenge and quantifying finger individuation during musical computer game play. J Neuro Eng Rehabil 11(10):1–17Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chiri A, Vitiello N, Giovacchini F, Roccella S, Vecchi F, Carrozza M (2012) Mechatronic design and characterization of the index finger module of a hand exoskeleton for post-stroke rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 17(5):884–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laliberte T, Birglen L, Gosselin C (2002) Underactuation in robotic grasping hands. Mach Intell Robot Control 4(3):1–11Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ertas IH, Hocaoglu E, Patoglu V (2014) Assist on-finger: an under-actuated finger exoskeleton for robot-assisted tendon therapy. Robotica 32:1363–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birglen L, Gosselin CM (2004) Kinetostatic analysis of underactuated fingers. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 20(2):211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang J, Li J, Zhang Y, Wang S (2009) Design of an exoskeleton for index finger rehabilitation. Annual international conference in medicine and biology society (EMBC), pp 5957–5960Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leonardis D, Barsotti M, Loconsole C, Solazzi M, Troncossi M, Mazzotti C, Parenti Castelli V, Procopio C, Lamola G, Chisari C, et al. (2015). An emg-controlled robotic hand exoskeleton for bilateral rehabilitationGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mouida A, Alaa N (2011) Sensitivity analysis of TSEB model by One-Factor-At-A-Time in irrigated olive orchard. IJCSI Int J Comput Sci Issues 8(1):369–378Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mine Sarac
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Solazzi
    • 1
  • Edoardo Sotgiu
    • 1
  • Massimo Bergamasco
    • 1
  • Antonio Frisoli
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.PERCRO LabScuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations