This article describes a novel approach to the control of a powered knee prosthesis where the control system provides passive behavior for most activities and then provides powered assistance only for those activities that require them. The control approach presented here is based on the categorization of knee joint function during activities into four behaviors: resistive stance behavior, active stance behavior, ballistic swing, and non-ballistic swing. The approach is further premised on the assumption that healthy non-perturbed swing-phase is characterized by a ballistic swing motion, and therefore, a replacement of that function should be similarly ballistic. The control system utilizes a six-state finite-state machine, where each state provides different constitutive behaviors (concomitant with the four aforementioned knee behaviors) which are appropriate for a range of activities. Transitions between states and torque control within states is controlled by user motion, such that the control system provides, to the extent possible, knee torque behavior as a reaction to user motion, including for powered behaviors. The control system is demonstrated on a novel device that provides a sufficiently low impedance to enable a strictly passive ballistic swing-phase, while also providing sufficiently high torque to offer powered stance-phase knee-extension during activities such as step-over stair ascent. Experiments employing the knee and control system on an individual with transfemoral amputation are presented that compare the functionality of the power-supplemented nominally passive system with that of a conventional passive microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis.

Current laboratory-based setups (optical marker cameras + force plates) for human motion measurement require participants to stay in a constrained capture region which forbids rich movement types. This study established a fully wearable system, based on commercially available sensors (inertial measurement units + pressure insoles), that can measure both kinematic and kinetic motion data simultaneously and support wireless frame-by-frame streaming. In addition, its capability and accuracy were tested against a conventional laboratory-based setup. An experiment was conducted, with 9 participants wearing the wearable measurement system and performing 13 daily motion activities, from slow walking to fast running, together with vertical jump, squat, lunge, and single-leg landing, inside the capture space of the laboratory-based motion capture system. The recorded sensor data were post-processed to obtain joint angles, ground reaction forces (GRFs), and joint torques (via multi-body inverse dynamics). Compared to the laboratory-based system, the established wearable measurement system can measure accurate information of all lower limb joint angles (Pearson’s r = 0.929), vertical GRFs (Pearson’s r = 0.954), and ankle joint torques (Pearson’s r = 0.917). Center of pressure (CoP) in the anterior–posterior direction and knee joint torques were fairly matched (Pearson’s r = 0.683 and 0.612, respectively). Calculated hip joint torques and measured medial–lateral CoP did not match with the laboratory-based system (Pearson’s r = 0.21 and 0.47, respectively). Furthermore, both raw and processed datasets are openly accessible (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6457662). Documentation, data processing codes, and guidelines to establish the real-time wearable kinetic measurement system are also shared (https://github.com/HuaweiWang/WearableMeasurementSystem).

This study presents a new wearable insole pressure sensor (IPS), composed of fabric coated in a carbon nanotube-based composite thin film, and validates its use for quantifying ground reaction forces (GRFs) during human walking. Healthy young adults (n = 7) walked on a treadmill at three different speeds while data were recorded simultaneously from the IPS and a force plate (FP). The IPS was compared against the FP by evaluating differences between the two instruments under two different assessments: (1) comparing the two peak forces at weight acceptance and push-off (2PK) and (2) comparing the absolute maximum (MAX) of each gait cycle. Agreement between the two systems was evaluated using the Bland–Altman method. For the 2PK assessment, the group mean of differences (MoD) was −1.3 ± 4.3% body weight (BW) and the distance between the MoD and the limits of agreement (2S) was 25.4 ± 11.1% BW. For the MAX assessment, the average MoD across subjects was 1.9 ± 3.0% BW, and 2S was 15.8 ± 9.3% BW. The results of this study show that this sensor technology can be used to obtain accurate measurements of peak walking forces with a basic calibration and consequently open new opportunities to monitor GRF outside of the laboratory.