Bilateral control of functional electrical stimulation and robotics-based telerehabilitation

  • Naji Alibeji
  • Brad E. Dicianno
  • Nitin SharmaEmail author
Regular Paper


Currently, a telerehabilitation system includes a therapist and a patient where the therapist interacts with the patient, typically via a verbal and visual communication, for assessment and supervision of rehabilitation interventions. This mechanism often fails to provide physical assistance, which is a modus operandi during physical therapy or occupational therapy. Incorporating an actuation modality such as functional electrical stimulation (FES) or a robot at the patient’s end that can be controlled by a therapist remotely to provide therapy or to assess and measure rehabilitation outcomes can significantly transform current telerehabilitation technology. In this paper, a position-synchronization controller is derived for FES-based telerehabilitation to provide physical assistance that can be controlled remotely. The newly derived controller synchronizes an FES-driven human limb with a remote physical therapist’s robotic manipulator despite constant bilateral communication delays. The control design overcomes a major stability analysis challenge: the unknown and unstructured nonlinearities in the FES-driven musculoskeletal dynamics. To address this challenge, the nonlinear muscle model was estimated through two neural network functions that approximated unstructured nonlinearities and an adaptive control law for structured nonlinearities with online update laws. A Lyapunov-based stability analysis was used to prove the globally uniformly ultimately bounded tracking performance. The performance of the state synchronization controller was validated through experiments on an able-bodied subject. Specifically, we demonstrated bilateral control of FES-elicited leg extension and a human-operated robotic manipulator. The controller was shown to effectively synchronize the system despite unknown and different delays in the forward and backward channels.


Human Operator Functional Electrical Stimulation Haptic Feedback Robotic Manipulator Communication Delay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ajoudani, A., Erfanian, A.: A neuro-sliding-mode control with adaptive modeling of uncertainty for control of movement in paralyzed limbs using functional electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56(7), 1771–1780 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alibeji, N., Kirsch, N., Farrokhi, S., Sharma, N.: Further results on predictor-based control of neuromuscular electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. (2015)Google Scholar
  3. Alibeji, N.A., Kirsch, N.A., Sethi, A., Sharma, N.: A state synchronization controller for functional electrical stimulation-based telerehabilitation. In: ASME 2014 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. V003T43A004–V003T43A004 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. Alibeji, N., Kirsch, N., Sharma, N.: Control of functional electrical stimulation in the presence of electromechanical and communication delays. In: 6th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on NER, pp. 299–302 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. Carignan, C., Krebs, H.: Telerehabilitation robotics: bright lights, big future? J. Rehabil. Res. Develop. 43, 695–710 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, M., Ge, S.S., How, B.V.E.: Robust adaptive neural network control for a class of uncertain mimo nonlinear systems with input nonlinearities. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 21(5), 796–812 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng, T., Wang, Q., Kamalapurkar, R., Dinh, H., Bellman, M., Dixon, W.: Identification-based closed-loop NMES limb tracking with amplitude-modulated control input. IEEE Trans. Cybern. (Accepted) (2015)Google Scholar
  8. Chopra, N., Spong, M., Ortega, R., Barabanov, N.: On tracking performance in bilateral teleoperation. IEEE Trans. Robot. 22(4), 861–866 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chopra, N., Spong, M., Ortega, R., Barabanov, N.: On position tracking in bilateral teleoperation. In: Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, vol. 6 (pp. 5244–5249) (2004)Google Scholar
  10. Chopra, N., Spong, M., Lozano, R.: Synchronization of bilateral teleoperators with time delay. Automatica 44(8), 2142–2148 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Chopra, N., Berestesky, P., Spong, M.: Bilateral teleoperation over unreliable communication networks. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 16(2), 304–313 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. Dixon, W.E., Behal, A., Dawson, D.M., Nagarkatti, S.: Nonlinear Control of Engineering Systems: A Lyapunov-Based Approach. Birkhäuser Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Durfee, W.K., Savard, L., Weinstein, S.: Technical feasibility of teleassessments for rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15(1), 23–29 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao, F., Zhang, L.-Q.: Altered contractile properties of the gastrocnemius muscle poststroke. J. Appl. Physiol. 105(6), 1802–1808 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Go, A.S., Mozaffarian, D., Roger, V.L., Benjamin, E.J., Berry, J.D., Blaha, M.J., Dai, S., Ford, E.S., Fox, C.S., Franco, S.: et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2014 update. Circulation 129(3) (2014)Google Scholar
  16. Gray, V., Rice, C.L., Garland, S.J.: Factors that influence muscle weakness following stroke and their clinical implications: a critical review. Physiother. Can. 64(4), 415–426 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, P., Alexander, J., Satinsky, J.: 3(7), 647–656 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. Hermann, V.H., Herzog, M., Jordan, R., Hofherr, M., Levine, P., Page, S.: Telerehabilitation and electrical stimulation: an occupation-based, client-centered stroke intervention. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 64(1), 73–81 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huijgen, B.C., Vollenbroek-Hutten, M.M., Zampolini, M., Opisso, E., Bernabeu, M., Van Nieuwenhoven, J., Ilsbroukx, S., Magni, R., Giacomozzi, C., Marcellari, V., et al.: Feasibility of a home-based telerehabilitation system compared to usual care: arm/hand function in patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury and multiple sclerosis. J. Telemed. Telecare 14(5), 249–256 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. Jezernik, S., Wassink, R.G., Keller, T.: Sliding mode closed-loop control of FES controlling the shank movement. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng 51(2), 263–272 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khalil, H.: Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall (2002)Google Scholar
  22. Kitamura, T., Sakaino, S., Tsuji, T.: Bilateral control using functional electrical stimulation. In: IECON 2015-41st Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE, pp. 002 336–002 341 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. Kowalczewski, J., Chong, S.L., Galea, M., Prochazka, A.: In-home tele-rehabilitation improves tetraplegic hand function. Neurorehab. Neural. Re. 25(5), 412–422 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B.J., van der Grond, J., Prevo, A.J.: Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34(9), 2181–2186 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, F.L., Dawson, D.M., Abdallah, C.T.: Robot manipulator control: theory and practice. CRC Press (2003)Google Scholar
  26. Li, Z., Xia, Y., Su, C.Y.: Intelligent Networked Teleoperation Control. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  27. Mayo, N.E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Coöte, R., Durcan, L., Carlton, J.: Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 83(8), 1035–1042 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nagai, M.K., Marquez-Chin, C., Popovic, M.R.: Why is functional electrical stimulation therapy capable of restoring motor function following severe injury to the central nervous system? In: Translational Neuroscience (pp. 479–498). Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  29. Peckham, P.H., Knutson, J.S.: Functional electrical stimulation for neuromuscular applications. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 7, 327–360 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Popescu, V.G., Burdea, G.C., Bouzit, M., Hentz, V.R.: A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 4(1), 45–51 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Popovic, M.R.: Masani, K., Micera, S.: Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy: Recovery of Function Following Spinal Cord Injury and Stroke (pp. 105–121). Springer London, London (2012)Google Scholar
  32. Popović, D., Stein, R., Oğuztöreli, M., Lebiedowska, M., Jonić, S.: Optimal control of walking with functional electrical stimulation: a computer simulation study. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 7(1), 69–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Pang, C.T., Nessler, J.A., Painter, C.C.: Web-based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 10(2), 102–108 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schauer, T., Negard, N.O., Previdi, F., Hunt, K.J., Fraser, M.H., Ferchland, E., Raisch, J.: Online identification and nonlinear control of the electrically stimulated quadriceps muscle. Control Eng. Pract. 13, 1207–1219 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharma, N., Bhasin, S., Wang, Q., Dixon, W.E.: Predictor-based control for an uncertain euler-lagrange system with input delay. Automatica 47(11), 2332–2342 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Sharma, N., Gregory, C., Dixon, W.E.: Predictor-based compensation for electromechanical delay during neuromuscular electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19(6), 601–611 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharma, N., Gregory, C.M., Johnson, M., Dixon, W.E.: Closed-loop neural network-based NMES control for human limb tracking. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 20(3), 712–725 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharma, N., Stegath, K., Gregory, C.M., Dixon, W.E.: Nonlinear neuromuscular electrical stimulation tracking control of a human limb. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17(6), 576–584 (2009a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharma, N., Patre, P., Gregory, C., Dixon, W.: Nonlinear control of NMES: Incorporating fatigue and calcium dynamics. In: Proceedings of ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. ASME (2009b)Google Scholar
  40. Sharma, N.: A predictor-based compensation for electromechanical delay during neuromuscular electrical stimulation-II. In: Proc. of ACC, pp. 5604–5609 (2012)Google Scholar
  41. Simonsen, D., Irani, R., Nasrollahi, K., Hansen, J., Spaich, E.G., Moeslund, T.B., Andersen, O.K.: Validation and test of a closed-loop tele-rehabilitation system based on functional electrical stimulation and computer vision for analysing facial expressions in stroke patients. In: Replace, Repair, Restore, Relieve–Bridging Clinical and Engineering Solutions in Neurorehabilitation (pp. pp. 741–750). Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  42. Winter, D.: Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  43. Zampolini, M., Todeschini, E., Guitart, M., Hermens, H., Ilsbroukx, S., Macellari, V., Magni, R., Rogante, M., Marchese, S., Vollenbroek, M., Giacomozzi, C.: Tele-rehabilitation: present and future. Ann Ist Super Sanita, vol. 44, no. 0021–2571 (Linking), pp. 125–134 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations