Human-like Robotic Controllers for Enhanced Motor Learning
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-80
SponsorShirley Ryan AbilityLab
About this trial
The purpose of this study is to develop a new paradigm to understand how humans physically interact with each other at a single and at multiple joints, with multiple contact points, so as to synthesize robot controllers that can exhibit human-like behavior when interacting with humans (e.g., exoskeleton) or other co-robots. The investigators will develop models for a single joint robot (i.e. at the ankle joint) that can vary its haptic behavioral interactions at variable impedances, and replicate in a multi-joint robot (i.e. at the ankle, knee, and hip joints). The investigators will collect data from healthy participants and clinical populations to create a controller based on our models to implement in the robots. Then, the investigators will test our models via the robots to investigate the mechanisms underlying enhanced motor learning during different human-human haptic interaction behaviors (i.e. collaboration, competition, and cooperation. This study will be carried out in healthy participants, participants post-stroke, and participants with spinal cord injury (SCI).
Eligibility criteria
This trial accepts healthy volunteersQualifiers
Age from 18 to 80 years
No history of a brain and/or skull lesion
Normal hearing and vision, can be corrected
Able to understand and give informed consent
Disqualifiers
Weight over 220 lbs
Pregnancy (ruled out by pregnancy questionnaire)
Current presence of wounds or pressure ulcers
Multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease or other neurodegenerative disorder, severe dementia, brain injury, spinal cord injury, or cancer of the central nervous system
Trial design
Design model
Parallel
Treatments tested in this trial
Behavioral Interaction Conditions
BehavioralThe participants will be single-blinded and complete a tracking task as either: solo task, collaboration task (both participants work on a common task synchronously to achieve a goal; this is a summative effort to achieve the goal), competition task (each participant has to achieve a goal at the expense of his or her partner, therefore maximizing effort or error of the partner in reaching the goal), or cooperation task (an asymmetric partnership with an active partner and a passive partner working towards a goal).
Haptic Impedance Level
DeviceThe subjects will complete their task at 3 impedance levels: high (a virtual stiffness 160-200 N/m and damping 0\~10 Nm/s; this will be a stiff connection in which the subjects feel like they are connected via rigid links and each subject will perceive the other partner's movement directly), medium (a virtual stiffness 100-140 N/m and damping 0\~10 Nm/s; this will be a spring like-connection in which the subjects feel like they are connected with a spring and each subject will perceive the other partner with a force that is proportional to the trajectory difference of the two participants), and soft (a virtual stiffness 40-80 N/m and damping 0\~10 Nm/s; this will be a spring like connection in which the subjects feel like they are connected with a loose spring and each subject will perceive the other partner with a force that is proportional to the trajectory difference of the two subjects, however, this force will be smaller than that of the medium impedance).
Skill Level of Partner
BehavioralThere will be two skill levels: novice (a participant who has no prior experience with the trajectory tracking experiment; in testing with the clinical populations, the investigators will assign this condition to the clinical participant) and expert (a participant who is experienced with the trajectory tracking experiment and who can achieve a tracking error \[difference of the desired trajectory and actual trajectory\] below a certain threshold; in testing with the clinical population, the investigators will assign this condition to the therapist). Participants will start experimentation paired as novice-novice, and at the end of the session may be invited to continue additional sessions to be paired as the expert in a novice-expert dyad.
Robot Controller Showcase
DeviceThe subjects will complete 10 training sessions per assistive robot for the researchers to observe motor learning and functional outcomes.
Treatment groups
764 Participants
are divided into 4 treatment groupsGroup A: Healthy Participants Ankle Robot (M1)Experimental treatment 3 interventions
Group B: Healthy Participants Bilateral Lower Limb Exoskeleton (H3/X2)Experimental treatment 3 interventions
Group C: Clinical Populations Ankle Robot (M1)Experimental treatment 4 interventions
Group D: Clinical Populations Bilateral Lower Limb Exoskeleton (H3/X2)Experimental treatment 4 interventions
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Change in lower limb motor control.
Lower limb motor control will be assessed through analysis of tracking movements to a target trajectory. If the tracking error decreases, this corresponds to motor control improvement.
Time frame
Motor control will be measured all 10 sessions through study completion, an average of 12 weeks.2
Change in motor output from surface EMG of lower limb muscles
For Experiment A and B with M1: the surface EMG activation patterns of the gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior muscles will be collected. For Experiment A and B with H3/X2, the surface EMG of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, tensor fasciae latae, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemius medialis, soleus, and tibialis anterior muscles will be collected.
Time frame
Change of motor output at baseline, midpoint of intervention after 10 training sessions with assistive robot, and endpoint after 10 additional training sessions with the other assistive robot through participant completion, an average of 5 months.Secondary outcomes
1
Change in 6 minute walking test.
Physical function test measuring the total distance walked in a span of six minutes will be assessed. A shorter time indicates improvement.
Time frame
Change of ambulation distance at baseline, midpoint of intervention after 10 training sessions with assistive robot, and endpoint after 10 additional training sessions with the other assistive robot through participant completion, an average of 5 months.2
Change in 10 meter walking test.
Physical function test measuring the walking speed in a span of 10 meters will be assessed. A shorter time indicates improvement in walking speed.
Time frame
Change of ambulation distance at baseline, midpoint of intervention after 10 training sessions with assistive robot, and endpoint after 10 additional training sessions with the other assistive robot through participant completion, an average of 5 months.3
Change in Modified Ashworth Scale.
Spasticity of lower extremity muscles will be assessed using the Modified Ashworth Scale. The minimum score of 0 means no increase in spasticity and the maximum score of 4 means the body part is rigid in flexion or extension. A lower score indicates a better outcome.
Time frame
Change in score at baseline, midpoint of intervention after 10 training sessions with assistive robot, and endpoint after 10 additional training sessions with the other assistive robot through participant completion, an average of 5 months.4
Change in BERG balance scale (BBS)
Static and dynamic sitting and standing balance will be assessed using the BERG balance scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 56, and a higher score indicates better balance and decreased fall risk.
Time frame
Change of score at baseline, midpoint of intervention after 10 training sessions with assistive robot, and endpoint after 10 additional training sessions with the other assistive robot through participant completion, an average of 5 months.Sponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Shirley Ryan AbilityLab
Lead sponsor
U.S. National Science Foundation
Collaborator
Source ClinicalTrials.gov