Kinematic Comparison of Gait Rehabilitation with Exoskeleton and End-Effector Devices

  • Byung-Woo Ko
  • Won-Kyung SongEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB, volume 16)


Recently, various gait rehabilitation robots have been used as therapy in clinical fields for stroke, spinal cord injuries, and several neurological disorders. We investigated the kinematic differences with joint trajectories of two types of gait rehabilitation robots, i.e., exoskeleton and end-effector devices. Furthermore, we compared the end-effector device’s stair climbing and descending motions to actual motions. The exoskeleton device shows larger hip and knee angle than the end-effector device during gait. However, exoskeleton ankle joint was restricted in dorsiflexed position. The end-effector device’s stair climbing motion was similar to actual stair motion, although there was a delayed and lower maximum flexion. Compared with the actual motion, the stair descending motion had a lower maximum flexion angle for both hip and knee joints in the end-effector device. In addition, the end-effector device’s ankle trajectory was aligned with the dorsiflexion angle, while descending to the bottom stair.


Plantar Flexion Joint Trajectory Gait Rehabilitation Gait Motion Maximum Flexion Angle 
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. 1.
    Díaz, I., Gil, J.J., Sánchez, E.: Lower-limb robotic rehabilitation: literature review and challenges. J. Robot., 1–11 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sale, P., Franceschini, M., Waldner, A., Hesse, S.: Use of the robot assisted gait therapy in rehabilitation of patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med., 111–121 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veneman, J.F., Kruidhof, R., Hekman, E.E.G.: Design and evaluation of the LOPES exoskeleton robot for interactive gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., 379–386 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehrholz, J., Pohl, M.: Electromechanical-assisted gait training after stroke: a systematic review comparing end-effector and exoskeleton devices. J. Rehabil. Med., 193–199 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hesse, S., Waldner, A., Tomelleri, C.: Innovative gait robot for the repetitive practice of floor walking and stair climbing up and down in stroke patients. J. Rehabil. Med. (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hidler, J., Wisman, W., Neckel, N.: Kinematic trajectories while walking within the Lokomat robotic gait-orthosis. Clin. Biomech., 1251–1259 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hesse, S., Waldner, A., Tomelleri, C.: Innovative gait robot for the repetitive practice of floor walking and stair climbing up and down in stroke patients. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 7 (30) (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winter, D.A.: The Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esquenazi, A., Talaty, M., Packel, A.: The ReWalk powered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 911–921 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heo, W.H., Kim, E., Park, H., Jung, J.-Y.: A gait phase classifier using a recurrent neural network. J. Inst. Control Robot. Syst., 518–523 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute, National Rehabilitation CenterGangbuk-gu, SeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations