Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:03:40.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Design and development of a five-bar robot for research into lower extremity proprioception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Lei Cui*
Affiliation:
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Andy Isaac
Affiliation:
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Garry Allison
Affiliation:
School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: lei.cui@curtin.edu.au

Summary

Ankle inversion is a common injury of musculoskeletal system among athletes and also in the older population. Investigation into ankle inversion requires quantitative assessment of the smallest amount of height/angle change in the floor that can be perceived by human. Blocks of different thickness have been used to change floor height manually during tests. We aimed to develop an automatic apparatus that is able to provide improved height and angle resolutions for dynamic ankle proprioception. We designed and manufactured a five-bar planar robot with one coupler serving as the mobile platform. We used a stiffening rib to achieve consistent differences in deflection across the workspace of the mobile platform. The reported robot translates at the maximal speed 423 mm/s with a resolution at 0.21 mm under a maximal load of 358 kg. This robot allows for increased sensitivity, which may lead to further investigation of functional proprioceptive ability and reflect finely tuned sensory requirements for upright stance.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Barrett, D., Cobb, A. and Bentley, G., “Joint proprioception in normal, osteoarthritic and replaced knees,” J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 73−B, 5356 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Hopper, D., Allison, G., Fernandes, N., O'Sullivan, L. and Wharton, A., “Reliability of the peroneal latency in normal ankles,” Clin. Orthopaedics Relat. Res. 350, 159165 (1998).Google Scholar
3. Payne, K. A., Berg, K. and Latin, R. W., “Ankle injuries and ankle strength, flexibility, and proprioception in college basketball players,” J. Athletic Training 32, 221225 (1997).Google Scholar
4. Sale, D., Quinlan, J., Marsh, E., McComas, A. J. and Belanger, A. Y., “Influence of joint position on ankle plantarflexion in humans,” J. Appl. Physiol. 52, 16361642 (1982).Google Scholar
5. Fernandes, N., Allison, G. and Hopper, D., “Peroneal latency in normal and injured ankles at varying angles of perturbation,” Clin. Orthopaed. Relat. Res. 375, 193201 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Robbins, S., Waked, E. and Mcclaran, J., “Proprioception and stability: Foot position awareness as a function of age and footware,” Age Ageing 24, 6772 (1995).Google Scholar
7. Robbins, S., Waked, E. and Rappel, R., “Ankle taping improves proprioception before and after exercise in young men,” Br. J. Sports Med. 29, 242247 (1995).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Bernier, J. N. and Perrin, D. H., “Effect of coordination training on proprioception of the functionally unstable ankle,” J. Orthopaedic Sports Phys. Ther. 27, 264275 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Singh, N. B., Nussbaum, M. A. and Madigan, M. A., “Evaluation of circumferential pressure as an intervention to mitigate postural instability induced by localized muscle fatigue at the ankle,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 821827 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Willems, T., Witvrouw, E., Verstuyft, J., Vaes, P. and De Clercq, D., “Proprioception and muscle strength in subjects with a history of ankle sprains and chronic instability,” J. Athletic Training 37, 487493 (2002).Google Scholar
11. Ryan, L., “Mechanical stability, muscle strength and proprioception in the functionally unstable ankle,” Aust. J. Physiother. 40, 4147 (1994).Google Scholar
12. Travers, M. J., Debenham, J., Gibson, W., Campbell, A. and Allison, G. T., “Stability of lower limb minimal perceptible difference in floor height during hopping stretch-shortening cycles,” Physiol. Meas. 34, 13751386 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Gibson, W., Campbell, A. and Allison, G., “No evidence hip joint angle modulates intrinsically produced stretch reflex in human hopping,” Gait Posture 38, 10051009 (2013).Google Scholar
14. Zhang, C. and Zhang, L., “Kinematics analysis and workspace investigation of a novel 2-DOF parallel manipulator applied in vehicle driving simulator,” Robot. Comput.Integr. Manuf. 29, 113120 (2013).Google Scholar
15. Rouse, E. J., Hargrove, L. J., Peshkin, M. A. and Kuiken, T. A., “Design and Validation of a Platform Robot for Determination of Ankle Impedance during Ambulation,” Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), (2011) pp. 8179–8182.Google Scholar
16. Refshauge, K., Kilbreath, S. and Raymond, J., “The effect of recurrent ankle inversion sprain and taping on proprioception at the ankle,” Med. Sci. Sports Exercise 32, 1015 (2000).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Chong, E. and Park, F., “Movement prediction for a lower limb exoskeleton using a conditional restricted Boltzmann machine,” Robotica 35 (11), 124 (2016).Google Scholar
18. Zhang, K., Fang, Y., Fang, H. and Dai, J. S., “Geometry and constraint analysis of the three-spherical kinematic chain based parallel mechanism,” J. Mech. Robot. 2, 031014031014 (2010).Google Scholar
19. Gosselin, C. M., “The optimum design of robotic manipulators using dexterity indices,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 9, 213226 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Jones, L. A. and Hunter, I. W., “A perceptual analysis of stiffness,” Exp. Brain Res. 79 150156 (1990).Google Scholar
21. Gurari, N. and Okamura, A., “Compliance Perception Using Natural and Artificial Motion Cues,” In: Multisensory Softness, (Di Luca, M., ed.) (Springer, London, 2014) pp. 189217.Google Scholar
22. Kuschel, M., Di Luca, M., Buss, M., and Klatzky, R. L., “Combination and integration in the perception of visual-haptic compliance information,” IEEE Trans. Haptics 3, 234244 (2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Casadio, M., Pressman, A., Acosta, S., Danzinger, Z., Fishbach, A., Mussa-Ivaldi, F., Muir, K. and Tseng, H., “Body Machine Interface: Remapping Motor Skills after Spinal Cord Injury,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), IEEE, (2011) pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
24. Gosselin, C., “Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 6, 377382, (1990).Google Scholar
25. Dai, J. S. and Ding, X., “Compliance analysis of a three-legged rigidly-connected platform device,” J. Mech. Des. 128, 755764 (2005).Google Scholar
26. Ding, X. and Dai, J. S., “Characteristic equation-based dynamics analysis of vibratory bowl feeders with three spatial compliant legs,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 5, 164175 (2008).Google Scholar
27. Su, H.-J., Shi, H. and Yu, J., “A symbolic formulation for analytical compliance analysis and synthesis of flexure mechanisms,” J. Mech. Des. 134, 051009051009 (2012).Google Scholar
28. Gálvez-Zúñiga, M. A. and Aceves-López, A., “A review on compliant joint mechanisms for lower limb exoskeletons,” J. Robot. 2016, 9 (2016).Google Scholar
29. Brauner, T., Sterzing, T., Wulf, M., and Horstmann, T., “Leg stiffness: Comparison between unilateral and bilateral hopping tasks,” Hum. Movement Sci. 33, 263272 (2014).Google Scholar
30. ABB, IRB 120 For flexible and compact production (2016).Google Scholar
31. Carson MFG Inc, Eliminator Planetary (EP) Model-34EP (2015).Google Scholar
32. Rose Krieger, Roller Guide Actuator - PL/PLZ/PLZ-i (2015).Google Scholar
33. Ball, R. S., A Treatise on the Theory of Screws (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1900).Google Scholar
34. Von Mises, R., Baker, E. J. and Wohlhart, K., “Motor Calculus: A New Theoretical Device for Mechanics,” (Institute for Mechanics, University of Technology Graz, Styria, Austria, 1996).Google Scholar
35. Duffy, J., Statics and Kinematics with Applications to Robotics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007).Google Scholar
36. National Instruments, cRIO-9022: Real-Time Controller With 256 MB DRAM, 2 GB Storage (2015).Google Scholar
37. DYTRAN, Operating Guide 5340 USB Vibration Measurement System (2015).Google Scholar