Jump to content

Powered exoskeleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Battle armor)
"Battlesuit" redirects here. For the board game, see Battlesuit (game).
"Exosuit" redirects here. For a brand of atmospheric diving suit, see Atmospheric diving suit.
An exhibit of the "Future Soldier" designed by the United States Army

An exoskeleton is a wearable device that augments, enables, assists, or enhances motion, posture, or physical activity through mechanical interaction with and force applied to the user’s body.[1]

Other common names for a wearable exoskeleton include exo, exo technology, assistive exoskeleton, and human augmentation exoskeleton. The term exosuit is sometimes used, but typically this refers specifically to a subset of exoskeletons composed largely of soft materials.[2] The term wearable robot is also sometimes used to refer to an exoskeleton, and this does encompass a subset of exoskeletons; however, not all exoskeletons are robotic in nature. Similarly, some but not all exoskeletons can be categorized as bionic devices.

Exoskeletons are also related to orthoses (also called orthotics). Orthoses are devices such as braces and splints that provide physical support to an injured body part, such as a hand, arm, leg, or foot. The definition of exoskeleton and definition of orthosis are partially overlapping, but there is no formal consensus and there is a bit of a gray area in terms of classifying different devices. Some orthoses, such as motorized orthoses, are generally considered to also be exoskeletons. However, simple orthoses such as back braces or splints are generally not considered to be exoskeletons. For some orthoses, experts in the field have differing opinions on whether they are exoskeletons or not.

Exoskeletons are related to, but distinct from, prostheses (also called prosthetics). Prostheses are devices that replace missing biological body parts, such as an arm or a leg. In contrast, exoskeletons assist or enhance existing biological body parts.

Wearable devices or apparel that provide small or negligible amounts of force to the user’s body are not considered to be exoskeletons. For instance, clothing and compression garments would not qualify as exoskeletons, nor would wristwatches or wearable devices that vibrate. Well-established, pre-existing categories of such as shoes or footwear are generally not considered to be exoskeletons; however, gray areas exist, and new devices may be developed that span multiple categories or are difficult to classify.

Purposes

[edit]
Steve Jurvetson with a Hybrid Assistive Limb powered exoskeleton suit, commercially available in Japan

Exoskeletons can serve various purposes related to medical, occupational, or recreational uses and are frequently categorized by their general field of use.

Medical exoskeletons

[edit]

Medical exoskeletons typically serve one or more purposes,[3] such as:

  • To assist movement or posture for a person with a physical disability or neuromotor impairment
  • To rehabilitate a person after an injury or disorder

Medical exoskeletons have been designed to support people with certain types of physical disabilities or neurological impairments including stroke, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, or limb loss.[4] These exoskeletons can target various specific purposes such as to help balance,[5] ambulation,[6] reaching,[7] grasping,[8] coordination,[9] or other functional movements.[10][11] For rehabilitation, an exoskeleton may only be used temporarily during a limited period of recovery, after which they may no longer require the device.[12] A rehabilitation exoskeleton can be designed to assist a person with movement impairment, for instance, to help stabilize movement or suppress tremors.[13] Alternatively, an exoskeleton can be designed to resist movement to enhance physical training or to help restore strength.[14] In this case, the exoskeleton is resisting the user in the near-term in order to assist them in recovering strength or capabilities in the longer-term. In either case, exoskeletons can be used to enhance the rehabilitation process by increasing the therapeutic dose (e.g., via increased repetitions or difficulty), constraining exercises to specific movements, reducing the required number of clinicians or clinician effort to provide therapy, or providing assessment of performance through on-board sensing. For assistance, an exoskeleton may be used chronically, intermittently, or only temporarily. Exoskeleton assistance can also be paired with other technologies or modalities, such as functional electrical stimulation (FES)[15] or epidural electrical stimulation (EES).[16]

Occupational exoskeletons

[edit]

Occupational exoskeletons have primarily been developed and deployed for the purpose of reducing injuries and fatigue in the workplace.[17] However, occupational exoskeletons may serve various purposes related to improving workplace safety or operations.[18] The most common purposes are:

  • To reduce injury risk, such as musculoskeletal disorders due to overexertion or prolonged postures[19][20]
  • To increase worker performance (e.g., productivity, quality, endurance) or operational efficiency[21][22][23][24]
  • To reduce worker turnover or enhance recruitment of new workers by improving worker well-being[25][26]

Military exoskeletons are often viewed as a sub-category of occupational exoskeletons. The term military exoskeleton refers to exoskeletons that are used to support military service members in performing their job duties.[27][28][29] Some military jobs are similar or identical to the equivalent civilian jobs. For example, a military mechanic or logistics worker may experience similar physical demands as a civilian mechanic or logistics worker. However, other jobs are unique to military service, for instance, for tank or artillery crewmembers. Physical demands associated with body armor and load carriage are also often elevated and unique for military relative to civilian jobs. For these reasons, some military exoskeletons have been developed to address military-specific jobs, environments, and challenges.[30][31]

Recreational exoskeletons

[edit]

Recreational exoskeletons serve the purpose of helping people to do or enjoy recreational activities, such as walking, hiking, skiing, or sports.[32][33][34] In this context, an exoskeleton may help a person to do a recreational activity for longer, to do it better, to do it with less strain, pain, or fatigue, or to do a recreational activity that they would otherwise be unable to do without the assistance and support of the exoskeleton. A common goal for recreational exoskeletons is related to healthy aging,[35] in other words, to empower people as they age and undergo natural physical decline to remain physically active and to engage in activities they enjoy. In some cases, recreational exoskeletons may be designed to resist movement to increase muscle strength training by making the movement more challenging. Recreational exoskeletons are sometimes also referred to as sports exoskeletons or consumer exoskeletons. However, some occupational and medical exoskeletons can have uses in non-professional, consumer settings so these categories can blur and some devices can fit into multiple exoskeleton categories. Recreational exoskeletons are a more nascent category (relative to medical and occupational exoskeletons) and their purpose and scope may continue to evolve over time.

Exoskeletons for other purposes

[edit]

Exoskeletons have also been designed for other purposes. There are some exoskeletons designed primarily for research or educational purposes, and these are termed research exoskeletons[36][37] and educational exoskeletons,[38] respectively. Exoskeletons for assistance or muscle training purposes in space may be termed space exoskeletons.[39] While these are somewhat similar to certain medical or occupational exoskeletons, they may not overlap completely. In some cases, a given exoskeleton may fit within multiple categories. As an emerging technology, exoskeleton categories are not rigidly defined. New categories or sub-categories of exoskeletons are gradually being added and refined over time.

Categorizing exoskeletons

[edit]
Example of how researchers have categorized exoskeletons by various characteristics[40]

Beyond categorizing based on their general purpose or field of use, there are various other ways to categorize or sub-categorize exoskeletons. Exoskeletons exist that support different body parts and tasks, and these vary widely in terms of their size, design, control, complexity, cost, structure, function, and transportability.

By body parts or tasks

[edit]

Exoskeletons have been developed to assist a wide variety of body parts and tasks[41][40], and are often categorized by these. However, unlike many Hollywood movies, real exoskeletons are not designed to do every task or to support every part of the body. In general, exoskeletons are more akin to wearable tools that are each designed to serve a specific purpose, such as to assist a subset of body parts during a subset of tasks. Thus, there are a wide variety of exoskeletons (tools) to support different types of tasks and body parts for different types of users, use cases, and environments.

There are exoskeletons that assist one or more of the following body parts: neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hands, fingers, back, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. Sometimes, rather than specify body parts, broader terms are used such as upper-body, lower-body, or full-body to describe an exoskeleton. There are exoskeletons designed to assist tasks or activities such as walking, running, jumping, standing, transitioning from sit-to-stand, ascending/descending stairs, bending, lifting, kneeling, holding tools, handling objects, maintaining posture, working overhead, carrying, gripping, balancing, throwing, and skiing. This list is not comprehensive, and new exoskeletons are continuously being developed to support new applications.

By structure

[edit]

Structure refers to whether the overall construction of an exoskeleton is more rigid (i.e., hard, stiff) or softer (i.e., flexible, compliant)[42][43][44][45]. Exoskeletons with hard frames or comprised primarily of rigid structures (e.g., metal, plastic) are generally referred to as rigid exoskeletons or traditional exoskeletons. Exoskeletons comprised primarily of soft structures (e.g., textiles, elastomers) are generally referred to as soft exoskeletons, also called exosuits, exo-suits, or soft-shell exoskeletons[46]. Soft exosuits emerged as one way to try to overcome some practical challenges associated with rigid exoskeletons being cumbersome, causing discomfort, or interfering with freedom of movement[47][48][49]. The term hybrid (soft-rigid) is occasionally used for devices that contain substantial sections comprised primarily of rigid structures and separate substantial sections comprised primarily of soft structures[50]. However, the term hybrid is typically used sparingly because, in reality, all exoskeletons are comprised of both rigid and soft components. However, for simplicity and conversational purposes, it is common to group exoskeletons into these structural categories of rigid or soft. These are colloquial categories, not formally defined.

The action category describes the type of help the exoskeleton gives the user. Active exoskeletons provide “active” aid to the user, from an external source, without the user needing to apply energy. Passive exoskeletons need the user to perform the movement to work, and merely facilitate it. Hybrid systems provide a mix of active and passive. Powered technologies are further separated into electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic actuators.[40]

The exoskeleton’s purpose is divided into "recovery" exoskeletons used for rehabilitation, and "performance" exoskeletons used for assistance. The application categories includes military use, medical use, including recovery exoskeletons, research use, and industrial use.[40]

By function (actuation)

[edit]

Function (or actuation type) refers to how an exoskeleton generates the mechanical force that it exerts on the user. While all exoskeletons assist or augment human movement, they achieve this in different ways—similar to how electric motors and gasoline-powered engines can each propel a car, but they operate (actuate) differently. Exoskeletons can be actuated through powered or passive means.[51]

Exoskeletons that generate assistive forces using an electric motor or other powered actuators (e.g., hydraulic actuators, pneumatic actuators, engines) are generally referred to as powered exoskeletons, also called active exoskeletons or motorized exoskeletons. Exoskeletons that generate assistive force using a spring, elastic material, damper, or other unpowered mechanism are generally referred to as passive exoskeletons, also called elastic exoskeletons or unpowered exoskeletons.  

Each type of exoskeleton has different pros and cons. Powered exoskeletons can provide a wider range of assistance profiles beyond spring-like behaviors,[52] which can be particularly useful for certain populations like those with paralysis[53] and for certain tasks like pushing in one direction.[54] However, powered exoskeletons have limited battery life and also tend to be heavier, more expensive,  and provide delayed assistance due to challenges associated with control and intent recognition.[55][56] Passive exoskeletons tend to be lighter, less expensive, and less restrictive to movement, and do not require recharging or refueling; however, they can only provide a subset of assistance profiles based on elastic energy storage and return.

The term quasi-passive is sometimes used to refer to a passive exoskeleton with a spring or elastic element controlled by a clutch, which allows the exoskeleton to adjust assistance levels, turn assistance from the spring on or off, or adjust the set point of the spring.[57] Some people consider quasi-passive exoskeletons to be a sub-category of passive exoskeletons, while others view quasi-passive exoskeletons as their own separate category alongside passive and powered. This exemplifies why function should really be thought of as a continuum, but for simplicity and communication purposes a small number of functional categories are often used.  

The term hybrid (powered-passive) is also occasionally used for devices that contain a subset of motorized joints and a separate subset of elastic joints. The term hybrid may also refer to devices that use powered actuation for certain motions (e.g., performing positive mechanical work) and passive mechanisms for other motions (e.g., absorbing negative work), similar to regenerative braking in cars. Regardless of the precise actuation strategy, biomechanically, all types of exoskeletons work in a similar way by generating mechanical force or torque on the user’s body in a way that reduces mechanical loading and physical demands on a user’s musculoskeletal system.

By portability

[edit]

Transportability, or portability, refers to whether an exoskeleton is attached to the environment such that it is only usable within a limited space, or whether an exoskeleton is fully transportable and moveable. Exoskeletons that can be worn and taken anywhere are referred to as portable exoskeletons, or also called untethered[58]. Exoskeletons attached or affixed to the environment are referred to as tethered, stationary, or fixed exoskeletons[58]. For instance, a tethered exoskeleton may have its actuator or power supply located off-board, such as sitting on the ground. Alternatively, the tethered connection could provide stabilization. Tethered exoskeletons are common, for instance, in the design of medical exoskeletons that are intended to be used in a clinic or hospital, and may be used in conjunction with motorized pedals or a treadmill[59][60]. Transportability is a continuum, for instance, a tethered exoskeleton may have components located on a mobile cart such that it is partially but not fully portable.

By design and control

[edit]

Exoskeletons can also be categorized by various technical aspects. One example is exoskeletons categorized by the level of assistance they provide. Some exoskeletons are only designed to provide slight assistance, while others provide, moderate, large, or full assistance for a given motion or task. A self-balancing exoskeleton[61] that moves the limbs of an individual with paralysis is an example of a device that might provide full assistance. Another example is exoskeletons categorized by their type of control input, for instance, based on manual input (e.g., via a switch, joystick, or tablet), voice input, muscle activity control, force sensing, or motion sensing[62]. Yet another example is exoskeletons categorized by their type of control strategy. Powered exoskeleton controllers may be based on torque control, position control, impedance control, or various other engineering control approaches[63].

By other characteristics

[edit]

Exoskeletons may also be categorized by other characteristics. For example, exoskeletons can be categorized by their cost. A common misconception about exoskeletons is that they are very expensive, but in reality, exoskeletons span multiple orders of magnitude due to the huge variability in the size, complexity, and purposes of different devices. Exoskeletons typically range in price from hundreds of dollars (USD) to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another examples is that exoskeletons can be categorized by their geographic availability. Exoskeleton availability varies by region, much like automobiles, where the same model or brand may not be offered worldwide. Regulatory approvals, distribution networks, and market demand all influence which exoskeletons are accessible in different regions. There are numerous other way to categorize exoskeletons, such as by weight, amount of modularity, or different areas of the user’s body that are covered by the exoskeleton.

Importance of not over-generalizing based on category alone

[edit]

One common mistake when categorizing exoskeletons is to assume that one type or subset of characteristics is inherently better or worse than another. However, there are benefits, limitations, and trade-offs associated with each of these characteristics. Knowing the device’s characteristics alone is insufficient to know whether an exoskeleton is more assistive, comfortable, or effective than another. The efficacy and suitability of a specific exoskeleton depends on many aspects of the design, as well as the user and use case. There are use cases and scenarios where different types of characteristics are more or less desirable. For the avoidance of doubt, there are exoskeletons that exist and that can effectively enhance or assist movement across the full spectrums of structures (rigid to soft), functions (powered to passive), transportability levels (portable to tethered), and other characteristics.

Design and current limitations

[edit]

Mobility aids are frequently abandoned for lack of usability.[64] Major measures of usability include whether the device reduces the energy consumed during motion, and whether it is safe to use. Some design issues faced by engineers are listed below.

Power supply

[edit]

One of the biggest problems facing engineers and designers of powered exoskeletons is the power supply.[65] This is a particular issue if the exoskeleton is intended to be worn "in the field", i.e. outside a context in which the exoskeleton can be tethered to external power sources via power cables, thus having to rely solely on onboard power supply. Battery packs would require frequent replacement or recharging,[65] and may risk explosion due to thermal runaway.[66] According to Sarcos, the company has solved some of these issues related to battery technology, particularly consumption, reducing the amount of power required to operate its Guardian XO to under 500 watts (0.67 hp) and enabling its batteries to be "hot-swapped" without powering down the unit.[67] Internal combustion engine offer high energy output, but problems include exhaust fumes, waste heat and inability to modulate power smoothly,[68] as well as the periodic need to replenish volatile fuels. Hydrogen cells have been used in some prototypes[69] but also suffer from several safety problems.[70]

Skeleton

[edit]

Early exoskeletons used inexpensive and easy-to-mold materials such as steel and aluminium alloy. However, steel is heavy and the powered exoskeleton must work harder to overcome its own weight, reducing efficiency. Aluminium alloys are lightweight, but fail through fatigue quickly.[71] Fiberglass, carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes have considerably higher strength per weight.[72] "Soft" exoskeletons that attach motors and control devices to flexible clothing are also under development.[73]

Actuators

[edit]
Pneumatic air muscle

Joint actuators also face the challenge of being lightweight, yet powerful. Technologies used include pneumatic activators,[74] hydraulic cylinders,[75] and electronic servomotors.[76] Elastic actuators are being investigated to simulate control of stiffness in human limbs and provide touch perception.[77] The air muscle, a.k.a. braided pneumatic actuator or McKibben air muscle, is also used to enhance tactile feedback.[78]

Joint flexibility

[edit]

The flexibility of human anatomy is a design issue for traditional "hard" robots. Several human joints such as the hips and shoulders are ball and socket joints, with the center of rotation inside the body. Since no two individuals are exactly alike, fully mimicking the degrees of freedom of a joint movement is not possible. Instead, the exoskeleton joint is commonly modeled as a series of hinges with one degree of freedom for each axis of rotations.[64]

Spinal flexibility is another challenge since the spine is effectively a stack of limited-motion ball joints. There is no simple combination of external single-axis hinges that can easily match the full range of motion of the human spine. Because accurate alignment is challenging, devices often include the ability to compensate for misalignment with additional degrees of freedom.[79]

Soft exoskeletons bend with the body and address some of these issues.[80]

Power control and modulation

[edit]

A successful exoskeleton should assist its user, for example by reducing the energy required to perform a task.[64] Individual variations in the nature, range and force of movements make it difficult for a standardized device to provide the appropriate amount of assistance at the right time. Algorithms to tune control parameters to automatically optimize the energy cost of walking are under development.[81][82] Direct feedback between the human nervous system and motorized prosthetics ("neuro-embodied design") has also been implemented in a few high-profile cases.[83]

Adaptation to user size variations

[edit]

Humans exhibit a wide range of physical size differences in both skeletal lengths and limb and torso girth, so exoskeletons must either be adaptable or fitted to individual users. In military applications, it may be possible to address this by requiring the user to be of an approved physical size in order to be issued an exoskeleton. Physical body size restrictions already occur in the military for jobs such as aircraft pilots, due to the problems of fitting seats and controls to very large and very small people.[84] For soft exoskeletons, this is less of a problem.[80]

Health and safety

[edit]

Exoskeletons can reduce the stress of manual labor, they may also pose dangers.[85] The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has called for research to address the potential dangers and benefits of the technology, noting potential new risk factors for workers such as lack of mobility to avoid a falling object, and potential falls due to a shift in center of gravity.[86]

As of 2018, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration has not prepared any safety standards for exoskeletons. The International Organization for Standardization published a safety standard in 2014, and ASTM International was working on standards to be released beginning in 2019.[85]

Fictional depictions

[edit]
Main article: List of films featuring powered exoskeletons

Exoskeletons have been depicted in many films, TV shows, science fiction books, and comics. However, most real-life exoskeletons differ drastically from the images and depictions in popular culture. The science fiction novel Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein (1959) is sometimes credited with introducing the concept of futuristic military armor. Other examples of fictional exoskeletons include Tony Stark's Iron Man suit, the robot exoskeleton used by Ellen Ripley to fight the Xenomorph queen in Aliens, in Warhammer 40,000 the Space Marines, among other factions, are known to use different kinds of Power Armour,[87] the Power Armor used in the Fallout video game franchise and the Exoskeleton from S.T.A.L.K.E.R.[88][89][90] In some cases, these depictions have served as inspiration for exoskeleton designers and inventors. However, popular culture depictions have also led to considerable confusion, myths, and inflated expectations within the public, since many people associate exoskeletons with the make-believe, fantasy devices they encounter in popular culture and they may not have seen or been exposed to real-life exoskeletons. A list of these popular culture references is provided in a separate article entitled List of films featuring powered exoskeletons.

History

[edit]

Late 19th century and early 20th century

[edit]

Wearable devices that fit the modern definition of an exoskeleton were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, at the time, the term exoskeleton was not common, and the exoskeleton category was not well defined. Thus, many of the exoskeleton-like, predecessor devices were called names like braces, supporters, pedometers, or apparati. These included devices to assist posture, mobility (e.g., walking, running, jumping), physical work (e.g., bending, lifting, sitting, shoveling), and various body parts (e.g., legs, back, arms). These early exoskeleton-like devices spanned a wide range of structures and functions, including rigid and soft exoskeletons, and passive (elastic) and powered (active) exoskeletons. However, from the limited historical records it appears that most of these devices were prototypes or concepts, most were not commercialized, and none achieved wide adoption.

Various exoskeleton-like devices were developed between the 1880s and 1930s to assist with prolonged bending posture and other common agricultural work tasks. These included both rigid exoskeleton-like devices[91][92][93] and soft exosuit-like devices.[94][95] Some of these devices were fully on-body devices and worked by providing assistive forces and torques in parallel with the user’s muscles, while other devices assisted by transmitting forces to the ground, for instance, during seated posture[96] or stooping.[97]

During this same period, there were also exoskeleton-like devices designed to facilitate walking, running, or other locomotor activities. These included both rigid and soft devices, as well as devices that were both passive (elastic) and powered (active). One example of an early passive rigid exoskeleton-like device was an apparatus developed around 1890 by Russian engineer Nicholas Yagin.[98] This device consisted of bow springs connected between the user’s waist and feet, and was intended to use elastic energy storage and return to assist walking, running, or jumping.[98] Yagin developed several other related inventions.[99][100][101] An example of an early powered soft exosuit-like device was an apparatus developed by United States inventor Leslie Kelley around 1917 to augment running.[102] This device consisted of a backpack-worn steam engine (powered actuator), which assisted the user by controlling and transmitting mechanical power to wires (artificial ligaments) that ran in parallel with the user’s muscles. Various other exoskeleton-like devices were developed to facilitate locomotion[103] or assist people with physical disabilities.[104][105]

Mid 20th century

[edit]

Exoskeleton-like devices continued to be developed throughout the middle of the 20th century. This marked a period of exploration into the possibilities and challenges of wearable assistive technologies for human augmentation and rehabilitation purposes. One exoskeleton prototype, called Hardiman gained notoriety due to its level of sophistication, though it was not commercialized. This period also marked the emergence of one of the first exoskeleton success stories, in the form of wearable camera stabilizers. However, this was a niche solution and there was no broader exoskeleton market at the time, so this technology largely developed and matured as its own category. Even today, camera stabilizers are generally considered their own category and not included as exoskeletons, despite fitting the definition.

In the 1960s, an exoskeleton called Hardiman was co-developed by General Electric and the US Armed Forces. This exoskeleton was powered by hydraulics and electricity and amplified the wearer's strength by a factor of 25, so that lifting 110 kilograms (240 lb) would feel like lifting 4.5 kilograms (10 lb). A feature called force feedback enabled the wearer to feel the forces and objects being manipulated. However, the Hardiman had major limitations, including its 680-kilogram (1,500 lb) weight.[106] The Hardiman was designed as a master-slave system consisting of a set of overlapping exoskeletons: the slave device (outer exoskeleton) followed the motions of the master device (inner exoskeleton), which followed the motion of the human operator.[107] The response time for the slave suit was slow, and control issues caused "violent and uncontrollable motion by the machine" when moving both legs simultaneously. Hardiman's slow walking speed of 0.76 meters per second (2.5 ft/s) further limited practical uses.[108]

During this time, various other exoskeletons were also being developed,[109] which varied widely in design and characteristics; however, these were also mostly for research and demonstration purposes. There was also exploration into development and use of exoskeletons for clinical populations. For instance, in the 1970s Yugoslavia by a team led by Prof. Miomir Vukobratović developed pneumatically powered and electronically controlled lower limb devices to assist in the rehabilitation of people with paralysis.

In the 1970s, wearable camera stabilizers were developed and popularized. These could be considered to be a type of tool-holding exoskeleton. Wearable camera stabilizers work biomechanically by redirecting some or all the weight of the camera down to the user’s trunk or waist. This load path bypasses, and thereby reduces musculoskeletal loading on, the shoulders and arms of the user. Wearable camera stabilizers could be considered one of the first exoskeleton-like devices that was widely adopted in society and within a specific industry.

Late 20th century

[edit]

Exoskeleton development continued in the 1980s and 1990s, with various devices developed and futuristic concepts conceived. But most exoskeletons of this era were still not commercialized products, rather they were evolving testbeds and exploratory prototypes. Rigid and powered exoskeletons were a major focus during this period, as was the exploration of advanced robotic and control capabilities. A couple notable and representative exoskeletons of this period are summarized below.

In the 1980s, Los Alamos National Laboratory engineers proposed a futuristic exoskeleton called Pitman, a powered exoskeleton suit of armor for military infantry. The design included brain-scanning sensors in the helmet, but was considered too complex and impractical. It was never built. Another 1980s exoskeleton was the Lifesuit,[110] which was a robotic rehabilitation device to help people with paralysis to perform therapy exercises intended to help them regain mobility and learn to walk. Dozens of Lifesuit prototypes were built over the course of multiple decades, highlighting the iterative and evolving nature of exoskeleton technology during this period. Lifesuit was initially tethered but later developed into a portable exoskeleton, which the inventor (an individual with paralysis) used to walk in public road races. However, the inventor also recounted being injured (lacerated) by one of the prototypes during an experimental walking trial.[110] This incident highlights the importance of safety, which was a major focus of exoskeleton design and validation testing over the following decades.

Many other exoskeletons were conceived and developed during this era,[111] leveraging the technological advances of the time to move forward the engineering and technical aspects of exoskeletons. However, real-world and widespread use of exoskeletons were still decades away at the turn of the century. Many of the challenges related to user experience, usability, comfort, and implementation in the real-world were not yet priorities and had still not yet been addressed. These became key focus areas for improvement and advancement in the 21st century.

Early 21st century

[edit]

From 2000 to the early 2020’s, the focus of the exoskeleton field shifted and expanded, and there were major advances in the design, implementation, and adoption of exoskeletons. However, amongst the general public, there still continues to be many myths and misconceptions about modern exoskeletons—in part due to how exoskeletons have been portrayed in film and science fiction literature.

During the early 21st century, the focus on robotic, full-body, human augmentation exoskeletons that drastically alter human performance diminished, and there was a growing trend toward designing smaller, simpler exoskeletons to serve as wearable tools for specific uses and needs.

Between 2000 and 2020, there were several high-profile, full-body (or full-lower-body) powered exoskeletons developed to try to significantly increase human strength and performance. These included devices like TALOS, SARCOS,[112] BLEEX, and HULC. Despite some impressive technical capabilities, these devices had a number of major limitations related to bulk, cost, complexity, usability, intent recognition, control, and movement interference.[113] Ultimately, none of these exoskeletons were commercialized. However, several powered medical exoskeletons for people who were paralyzed or with other mobility impairments were successfully developed and commercialized (e.g., Rewalk, Vanderbilt exoskeleton), with the first devices receiving FDA approval in 2014.[114]

Most modern exoskeletons (i.e., devices from about 2020 and onward) are smaller, simpler, and more practical than their predecessors, and differ greatly from most people’s preconceptions about exoskeletons. The design focus of exoskeletons during this era was no longer on maximizing power, strength, augmentation, or futuristic capabilities, but instead on solving specific problems, being comfortable and practical to use, and increasing user adoption.[18][115][116][117] This reflected a general recognition and converging evidence within the field that if exoskeletons were going to become more widely adopted, then aspects like comfort, ease of use, cost, simplicity, and practicality were going to be as important, or more important, than aspects like technical specifications, assistance levels, or futuristic capabilities.

In many ways, the modern exoskeleton field has deviated from Hollywood narratives and fantasy depictions of exoskeletons, and moved in a different direction.[118] The vast majority of modern exoskeletons are more like wearable tools than like super suits or Hollywood exoskeletons (e.g., Iron Man, Edge of Tomorrow).

These wearable tools offer certain benefits but only for limited or specific use cases. For instance, if a person has calf muscle weakness after a stroke, then they might benefit from using an ankle exoskeleton. If a person works overhead on a manufacturing assembly line, then they might benefit from using a shoulder exoskeleton. If a person does material handling in a warehouse or distribution center, they might benefit from using a back exoskeleton.

Most exoskeletons are not intended to be worn all-day, every-day, but instead to be used (like most other tools) for specific purposes and during a subset of tasks or activities. Therefore, most modern exoskeleton are designed to support a specific area of the body or subset of tasks, not to augment the entire body or to enhance all movements or activities.

There have been several key exoskeleton trends during the early 21st century. Powered exoskeletons became light enough and affordable enough to be usable for some medical, industrial, and recreational purposes. Medical exoskeletons demonstrated sufficient safety to obtain regulatory approval (e.g., FDA approval[114]) and sufficient benefits to receive medical reimbursement for specific uses.[119][120] Passive exoskeletons grew in popularity due to being lighter, more affordable, and less complicated than powered exoskeletons.[121] Soft exoskeletons grew in popularity due to being lighter, less bulky, and less restrictive than rigid exoskeletons.[122][123] There was a heightened focus on how to best implement exoskeletons in society, by considering aspects like device fitting, training, educating stakeholders, social acceptance, maintenance, cleaning, financials, and change management.[124][125] Real-world exoskeleton usage grew significantly, particularly in medical and occupational settings, from negligible usage around 2000 to an estimated hundreds of thousands of exoskeletons now being used globally in the mid-2020s,[126] with the expectation that exoskeleton usage will grow into the millions in the 2030s.[126]

In the early 21st century, research on exoskeletons grew significantly[41] and established the scientific and clinical foundations related to safety, benefits, and efficacy. Universities and medical centers around the world played a pivotal role in the foundational research and development, followed by a trend towards more large-scale and long-term studies on exoskeletons in industry, clinics, and daily life.[127] There is now considerable academic and industry research along with scientific and longitudinal evidence underlying exoskeleton impacts on rehabilitation, performance enhancement, and injury risk reduction.[128][129]

The early 21 century has also witnessed the emergence of new exoskeleton categories, for instance, recreational, research, and educational exoskeletons. Although some of these devices have been conceptualized for a long time, they only recently began entering the commercial market. Recreational exoskeleton concepts, for instance, date back to at least the 1800s, but did not become commercially available until the early 21st century. In the late 2010s, skiing exoskeleton products emerged to help people enjoy skiing for a longer period or with less strain on their knees. In the early 2020’s, exoskeleton products to assist walking, running, or hiking also began to emerge. Some recreational exoskeletons are sold directly to consumers, whereas others are sold to businesses such as ski lodges or hiking parks, then provided as a rental option to visitors. As of early 2025, many of these recreational exoskeletons to assist ambulation are still at the pre-product stage or are products that just recently launched into the commercial market.

As of 2025, there are over 100 exoskeleton products on the market, which range widely in terms of size, complexity, cost, and other characteristics. However, as some new products enter the market and others exit the market or are replaced by newer models, it is challenging to track the precise number of exoskeleton products available. These different exoskeletons are developed and manufactured by dozens of different companies around the globe, which range from start-ups to established companies. There is also a growing network of companies that specialize in distributing, reselling, or implementing exoskeletons.

Most modern exoskeletons are for either occupational or medical applications. Modern medical exoskeletons serve a variety of assistive and rehabilitative uses and have regulatory approvals and insurance reimbursement codes in various countries. Modern occupational exoskeletons exist for legs, backs, arms, hands, and necks. There is longitudinal and converging evidence that, for certain jobs, occupational exoskeletons can reduce workplace musculoskeletal disorders and enhance worker performance and productivity.[22][23][24] However, as of 2025, exoskeletons are still considered an emerging technology in the workplace.[130] Occupational exoskeletons are either implemented as a wearable workplace tool or as an ergonomic control to supplement traditional ergonomic programs or interventions. As with any emerging technology, exoskeletons have witnessed a combination of successes and failures in the early 21st century. However, overall, the exoskeleton market is experiencing robust growth and exoskeletons are gradually becoming more common in society.

  • Some exoskeleton models

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Lowe, Brian D.; Billotte, William G.; Peterson, Donald R. (2019). "ASTM F48 Formation and Standards for Industrial Exoskeletons and Exosuits". IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 7 (3–4): 230–236. doi:10.1080/24725838.2019.1579769. ISSN 2472-5846. PMC 6604650. PMID 31276081.
  2. ^ Ali, Athar; Fontanari, Vigilio; Schmoelz, Werner; Agrawal, Sunil K. (2021-11-02). "Systematic Review of Back-Support Exoskeletons and Soft Robotic Suits". Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 9. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.765257. ISSN 2296-4185. PMC 8603112. PMID 34805118.
  3. ^ Siviy, Christopher; Baker, Lauren M.; Quinlivan, Brendan T.; Porciuncula, Franchino; Swaminathan, Krithika; Awad, Louis N.; Walsh, Conor J. (April 2023). "Opportunities and challenges in the development of exoskeletons for locomotor assistance". Nature Biomedical Engineering. 7 (4): 456–472. doi:10.1038/s41551-022-00984-1. ISSN 2157-846X. PMC 11536595. PMID 36550303.
  4. ^ Plaza, Alberto; Hernandez, Mar; Puyuelo, Gonzalo; Garces, Elena; Garcia, Elena (2023). "Lower-Limb Medical and Rehabilitation Exoskeletons: A Review of the Current Designs". IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering. 16: 278–291. doi:10.1109/RBME.2021.3078001. ISSN 1941-1189. PMID 33961563.
  5. ^ Zhang, Ting; Tran, Minh; Huang, He (February 2018). "Design and Experimental Verification of Hip Exoskeleton With Balance Capacities for Walking Assistance". IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics. 23 (1): 274–285. doi:10.1109/TMECH.2018.2790358. ISSN 1941-014X.
  6. ^ Murray, Spencer A.; Ha, Kevin H.; Hartigan, Clare; Goldfarb, Michael (May 2015). "An assistive control approach for a lower-limb exoskeleton to facilitate recovery of walking following stroke". IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering: A Publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 23 (3): 441–449. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2346193. ISSN 1558-0210. PMID 25134084.
  7. ^ Frisoli, Antonio; Procopio, Caterina; Chisari, Carmelo; Creatini, Ilaria; Bonfiglio, Luca; Bergamasco, Massimo; Rossi, Bruno; Carboncini, Maria Chiara (2012-06-09). "Positive effects of robotic exoskeleton training of upper limb reaching movements after stroke". Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 9 (1): 36. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-9-36. ISSN 1743-0003. PMC 3443436. PMID 22681653.
  8. ^ Bützer, Tobias; Lambercy, Olivier; Arata, Jumpei; Gassert, Roger (April 2021). "Fully Wearable Actuated Soft Exoskeleton for Grasping Assistance in Everyday Activities". Soft Robotics. 8 (2): 128–143. Bibcode:2021SoftR...8..128B. doi:10.1089/soro.2019.0135. ISSN 2169-5180. PMID 32552422.
  9. ^ Proietti, Tommaso; Guigon, Emmanuel; Roby-Brami, Agnès; Jarrassé, Nathanaël (2017-06-12). "Modifying upper-limb inter-joint coordination in healthy subjects by training with a robotic exoskeleton". Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 14 (1): 55. doi:10.1186/s12984-017-0254-x. ISSN 1743-0003. PMC 5469138. PMID 28606179.
  10. ^ Lajeunesse, Veronique; and Michaud, François (2016-10-02). "Exoskeletons' design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury". Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 11 (7): 535–547. doi:10.3109/17483107.2015.1080766. ISSN 1748-3107. PMID 26340538. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Randazzo, Luca; Iturrate, Iñaki; Perdikis, Serafeim; Millán, J. d. R. (January 2018). "mano: A Wearable Hand Exoskeleton for Activities of Daily Living and Neurorehabilitation". IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 3 (1): 500–507. doi:10.1109/LRA.2017.2771329. ISSN 2377-3766.
  12. ^ Murray, Spencer A.; Ha, Kevin H.; Hartigan, Clare; Goldfarb, Michael (May 2015). "An Assistive Control Approach for a Lower-Limb Exoskeleton to Facilitate Recovery of Walking Following Stroke". IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 23 (3): 441–449. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2346193. ISSN 1558-0210. PMID 25134084.
  13. ^ Rocon, E.; Belda-Lois, J. M.; Ruiz, A. F.; Manto, M.; Moreno, J. C.; Pons, J. L. (September 2007). "Design and Validation of a Rehabilitation Robotic Exoskeleton for Tremor Assessment and Suppression". IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 15 (3): 367–378. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2007.903917. hdl:10261/24774. ISSN 1558-0210. PMID 17894269.
  14. ^ Stienen, Arno H. A.; Hekman, Edsko E. G.; Prange, Gerdienke B.; Jannink, Michiel J. A.; Aalsma, Arthur M. M.; van der Helm, Frans C. T.; van der Kooij, Herman (2009-08-31). "Dampace: Design of an Exoskeleton for Force-Coordination Training in Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation". Journal of Medical Devices. 3 (31003). doi:10.1115/1.3191727. ISSN 1932-6181.
  15. ^ Ha, Kevin H.; Murray, Spencer A.; Goldfarb, Michael (April 2016). "An Approach for the Cooperative Control of FES With a Powered Exoskeleton During Level Walking for Persons With Paraplegia". IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering: A Publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 24 (4): 455–466. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2421052. ISSN 1558-0210. PMID 25915961.
  16. ^ Benabid, Alim Louis; Costecalde, Thomas; Eliseyev, Andrey; Charvet, Guillaume; Verney, Alexandre; Karakas, Serpil; Foerster, Michael; Lambert, Aurélien; Morinière, Boris; Abroug, Neil; Schaeffer, Marie-Caroline; Moly, Alexandre; Sauter-Starace, Fabien; Ratel, David; Moro, Cecile (2019-12-01). "An exoskeleton controlled by an epidural wireless brain–machine interface in a tetraplegic patient: a proof-of-concept demonstration". The Lancet Neurology. 18 (12): 1112–1122. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30321-7. ISSN 1474-4422. PMID 31587955.
  17. ^ "Occupational exoskeletons: wearable robotic devices and preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace of the future | Safety and health at work EU-OSHA". osha.europa.eu. Retrieved 2025-04-07.
  18. ^ a b Crea, Simona; Beckerle, Philipp; Looze, Michiel De; Pauw, Kevin De; Grazi, Lorenzo; Kermavnar, Tjaša; Masood, Jawad; O’Sullivan, Leonard W.; Pacifico, Ilaria; Rodriguez-Guerrero, Carlos; Vitiello, Nicola; Ristić-Durrant, Danijela; Veneman, Jan (January 2021). "Occupational exoskeletons: A roadmap toward large-scale adoption. Methodology and challenges of bringing exoskeletons to workplaces". Wearable Technologies. 2: e11. doi:10.1017/wtc.2021.11. ISSN 2631-7176. PMC 10936259. PMID 38486625.
  19. ^ Kim, Sunwook; Nussbaum, Maury A.; Smets, Marty (March 2022). "Usability, User Acceptance, and Health Outcomes of Arm-Support Exoskeleton Use in Automotive Assembly: An 18-month Field Study". Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 64 (3): 202. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000002438. hdl:10919/112583. ISSN 1076-2752. PMID 34873132.
  20. ^ Zelik, Karl E.; Nurse, Cameron A.; Schall, Mark C.; Sesek, Richard F.; Marino, Matthew C.; Gallagher, Sean (2022-02-01). "An ergonomic assessment tool for evaluating the effect of back exoskeletons on injury risk". Applied Ergonomics. 99: 103619. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103619. ISSN 0003-6870. PMC 9827614. PMID 34740072.
  21. ^ Fournier, Daniel E.; Yung, Marcus; Somasundram, Kumara G.; Du, Bronson B.; Rezvani, Sara; Yazdani, Amin (2023-06-27). "Quality, productivity, and economic implications of exoskeletons for occupational use: A systematic review". PLOS ONE. 18 (6): e0287742. Bibcode:2023PLoSO..1887742F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287742. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 10298758. PMID 37368889.
  22. ^ a b Ratke, Emma J.; McMaster, Hannah; Vellucci, Chris L.; Larson, Dennis J.; Holmes, Michael W. R.; Beaudette, Shawn M. (2025-03-01). "Ability of a passive back support exoskeleton to mitigate fatigue related adaptations in a complex repetitive lifting task". Journal of Biomechanics. 181: 112553. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112553. ISSN 0021-9290. PMID 39893933.
  23. ^ a b Rodzak, K. M.; Slaughter, P. R.; Wolf, D. N.; Ice, C. C.; Fine, S. J.; Zelik, K. E. (January 2024). "Can back exosuits simultaneously increase lifting endurance and reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk?". Wearable Technologies. 5: e17. doi:10.1017/wtc.2024.8. ISSN 2631-7176. PMC 11729484. PMID 39811480.
  24. ^ a b Butler, Terry; Gillette, Jason (2019-01-01). "Exoskeletons: Used as PPE for Injury Prevention". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. ^ Schwerha, Diana J.; McNamara, Nathan; Nussbaum, Maury A.; Kim, Sunwook (2021-03-01). "Adoption potential of occupational exoskeletons in diverse enterprises engaged in manufacturing tasks". International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 82: 103103. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103103. ISSN 0169-8141.
  26. ^ Elprama, Shirley A.; Vanderborght, Bram; Jacobs, An (2022-04-01). "An industrial exoskeleton user acceptance framework based on a literature review of empirical studies". Applied Ergonomics. 100: 103615. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103615. ISSN 0003-6870. PMID 34847372.
  27. ^ Proud, Jasmine K.; Lai, Daniel T. H.; Mudie, Kurt L.; Carstairs, Greg L.; Billing, Daniel C.; Garofolini, Alessandro; Begg, Rezaul K. (May 2022). "Exoskeleton Application to Military Manual Handling Tasks". Human Factors. 64 (3): 527–554. doi:10.1177/0018720820957467. ISSN 1547-8181. PMID 33203237.
  28. ^ Crowell, Harrison P.; and Boynton, Angela C. (2019-10-02). "Design, Evaluation, and Research Challenges Relevant to Exoskeletons and Exosuits: A 26-Year Perspective From the U.S. Army Research Laboratory". IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 7 (3–4): 199–212. doi:10.1080/24725838.2018.1563571. ISSN 2472-5838. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ Mudie, Kurt L.; Boynton, Angela C.; Karakolis, Thomas; O'Donovan, Meghan P.; Kanagaki, Gregory B.; Crowell, Harrison P.; Begg, Rezaul K.; LaFiandra, Michael E.; Billing, Daniel C. (November 2018). "Consensus paper on testing and evaluation of military exoskeletons for the dismounted combatant". Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 21 (11): 1154–1161. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2018.05.016. ISSN 1878-1861. PMID 30318056.
  30. ^ Martin, W. Brandon; Boehler, Alexander; Hollander, Kevin W.; Kinney, Darren; Hitt, Joseph K.; Kudva, Jay; Sugar, Thomas G. (January 2022). "Development and testing of the aerial porter exoskeleton". Wearable Technologies. 3: e1. doi:10.1017/wtc.2021.18. ISSN 2631-7176. PMC 10936400. PMID 38486913.
  31. ^ Slaughter, P. R.; Rodzak, K. M.; Fine, S. J.; Ice, C. C.; Wolf, D. N.; Zelik, K. E. (January 2023). "Evaluation of U.S. Army Soldiers wearing a back exosuit during a field training exercise". Wearable Technologies. 4: e20. doi:10.1017/wtc.2023.16. ISSN 2631-7176. PMC 10936316. PMID 38487775.
  32. ^ Witte, Kirby A.; Fiers, Pieter; Sheets-Singer, Alison L.; Collins, Steven H. (2020-03-25). "Improving the energy economy of human running with powered and unpowered ankle exoskeleton assistance". Science Robotics. 5 (40): eaay9108. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aay9108. PMID 33022600.
  33. ^ Kim, Jinsoo; Lee, Giuk; Heimgartner, Roman; Arumukhom Revi, Dheepak; Karavas, Nikos; Nathanson, Danielle; Galiana, Ignacio; Eckert-Erdheim, Asa; Murphy, Patrick; Perry, David; Menard, Nicolas; Choe, Dabin Kim; Malcolm, Philippe; Walsh, Conor J. (2019-08-16). "Reducing the metabolic rate of walking and running with a versatile, portable exosuit". Science. 365 (6454): 668–672. Bibcode:2019Sci...365..668K. doi:10.1126/science.aav7536. PMID 31416958.
  34. ^ "Episciences". mbj.episciences.org. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  35. ^ Lakmazaheri, Ava; Song, Seungmoon; Vuong, Brian B.; Biskner, Blake; Kado, Deborah M.; Collins, Steven H. (2024-01-02). "Optimizing exoskeleton assistance to improve walking speed and energy economy for older adults". Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 21 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01287-5. ISSN 1743-0003. PMC 10763092. PMID 38167151.
  36. ^ Bryan, Gwendolyn M; Franks, Patrick W; Klein, Stefan C; Peuchen, Robert J; Collins, Steven H (2021-04-01). "A hip–knee–ankle exoskeleton emulator for studying gait assistance". The International Journal of Robotics Research. 40 (4–5): 722–746. doi:10.1177/0278364920961452. ISSN 0278-3649.
  37. ^ Witte, Kirby Ann; Collins, Steven H. (2020-01-01), Rosen, Jacob; Ferguson, Peter Walker (eds.), "Chapter 13 - Design of Lower-Limb Exoskeletons and Emulator Systems", Wearable Robotics, Academic Press, pp. 251–274, ISBN 978-0-12-814659-0, retrieved 2025-04-08
  38. ^ Al-Tashi, Mohammed; Lennartson, Bengt; Ortiz-Catalan, Max; Just, Fabian (2024-05-01). "Classroom-ready open-source educational exoskeleton for biomedical and control engineering". At - Automatisierungstechnik. 72 (5): 460–475. doi:10.1515/auto-2023-0208. ISSN 2196-677X.
  39. ^ Böcker, Jonas; Zange, Jochen; Siedel, Torsten; Fau, Guillaume; Langner, Sebastian; Krueger, Thomas; Rittweger, Jörn (2025). "ATHLETIC: An exoskeleton countermeasure exercise device for resistive and plyometric training in deep-space missions". Experimental Physiology. n/a (n/a). doi:10.1113/EP092263. ISSN 1469-445X. PMID 40112219.
  40. ^ a b c d de la Tejera, Javier A.; Bustamante-Bello, Rogelio; Ramirez-Mendoza, Ricardo A.; Izquierdo-Reyes, Javier (24 December 2020). "Systematic Review of Exoskeletons towards a General Categorization Model Proposal". Applied Sciences. 11 (1): 76. doi:10.3390/app11010076. hdl:1721.1/131309. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  41. ^ a b Al-Khiami, M. I.; Lindhard, S. M.; Wandahl, S. (2024). "Charting the Exoskeleton Industry: 12th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Organisation". IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1389 (1). doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1389/1/012014. ISSN 1755-1307.
  42. ^ Chiaradia, Domenico; Xiloyannis, Michele; Solazzi, Massimiliano; Masia, Lorenzo; Frisoli, Antonio (2020-01-01), Rosen, Jacob; Ferguson, Peter Walker (eds.), "Chapter 4 - Rigid Versus Soft Exoskeletons: Interaction Strategies for Upper Limb Assistive Technology", Wearable Robotics, Academic Press, pp. 67–90, ISBN 978-0-12-814659-0, retrieved 2025-04-08
  43. ^ Raghuraman, Rahul Narasimhan; and Srinivasan, Divya (2024-11-01). "Age and gender differences in the perception and use of soft vs. rigid exoskeletons for manual material handling". Ergonomics. 67 (11): 1453–1470. doi:10.1080/00140139.2024.2338268. ISSN 0014-0139. PMID 38613461. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. ^ Schwartz, Mathilde; Theurel, Jean; Desbrosses, Kévin (2021-07-29). "Effectiveness of Soft versus Rigid Back-Support Exoskeletons during a Lifting Task". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18 (15): 8062. doi:10.3390/ijerph18158062. ISSN 1660-4601. PMC 8345799. PMID 34360352.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  45. ^ Bermejo-García, Javier; Romero-Sánchez, Francisco; Agujetas, Rafael; Sánchez, Francisco Javier Alonso (2024-08-01). "Exoskeletons vs. exosuits: A comparative analysis using biological-based computer simulation". Computers in Biology and Medicine. 178: 108752. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108752. ISSN 0010-4825.
  46. ^ "Soft Exosuits". Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  47. ^ Asbeck, Alan T.; De Rossi, Stefano M.M.; Holt, Kenneth G.; Walsh, Conor J. (2015-05-01). "A biologically inspired soft exosuit for walking assistance". The International Journal of Robotics Research. 34 (6): 744–762. doi:10.1177/0278364914562476. ISSN 0278-3649.
  48. ^ Lamers, Erik P.; Yang, Aaron J.; Zelik, Karl E. (2018-08). "Feasibility of a Biomechanically-Assistive Garment to Reduce Low Back Loading During Leaning and Lifting". IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering. 65 (8): 1674–1680. doi:10.1109/TBME.2017.2761455. ISSN 1558-2531. PMC 8820216. PMID 28991732. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  49. ^ Vallée, Alexandre (2024-03-05). "Exoskeleton technology in nursing practice: assessing effectiveness, usability, and impact on nurses' quality of work life, a narrative review". BMC Nursing. 23 (1): 156. doi:10.1186/s12912-024-01821-3. ISSN 1472-6955. PMC 10913291. PMID 38443892.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  50. ^ Achilli, Gabriele Maria; Amici, Cinzia; Dragusanu, Mihai; Gobbo, Massimiliano; Logozzo, Silvia; Malvezzi, Monica; Tiboni, Monica; Valigi, Maria Cristina (2023). "Soft, Rigid, and Hybrid Robotic Exoskeletons for Hand Rehabilitation: Roadmap with Impairment-Oriented Rationale for Devices Design and Selection". doi:10.3390/app132011287. ISSN 2076-3417. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  51. ^ Admin. "An Exciting Future For Exoskeletons". www.abiresearch.com. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  52. ^ Moya-Esteban, Alejandro; Refai, Mohamed Irfan; Sridar, Saivimal; Kooij, Herman van der; Sartori, Massimo (2025-01). "Soft back exosuit controlled by neuro-mechanical modeling provides adaptive assistance while lifting unknown loads and reduces lumbosacral compression forces". Wearable Technologies. 6: e9. doi:10.1017/wtc.2025.3. ISSN 2631-7176. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  53. ^ Moriarty, Brian; Jacob, Thomas; Sadlowski, Max; Fowler, Michael; Rowan, Colten; Chavarria, Joseph; Avramis, Ioannis; Rizkalla, James (2025-07). "The use of exoskeleton robotic training on lower extremity function in spinal cord injuries: A systematic review". Journal of Orthopaedics. 65: 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2024.10.036. ISSN 0972-978X. PMC 11656084. PMID 39713557. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  54. ^ Martin, W. Brandon; Boehler, Alexander; Hollander, Kevin W.; Kinney, Darren; Hitt, Joseph K.; Kudva, Jay; Sugar, Thomas G. (2022-01). "Development and testing of the aerial porter exoskeleton". Wearable Technologies. 3: e1. doi:10.1017/wtc.2021.18. ISSN 2631-7176. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  55. ^ Carvalho, Simão P.; Figueiredo, Joana; Cerqueira, João J.; Santos, Cristina P. (2025-03-19). "Locomotion mode prediction in real-life walking with and without ankle–foot exoskeleton assistance". Applied Intelligence. 55 (6): 546. doi:10.1007/s10489-025-06416-2. ISSN 1573-7497.
  56. ^ Chung, Jinwon; Quirk, D. Adam; Applegate, Megan; Rouleau, Michael; Degenhardt, Nathalie; Galiana, Ignacio; Dalton, Diane; Awad, Louis N.; Walsh, Conor J. (2024-02-23). "Lightweight active back exosuit reduces muscular effort during an hour-long order picking task". Communications Engineering. 3 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1038/s44172-024-00180-w. ISSN 2731-3395.
  57. ^ Wang, Jinlu; Wu, Qingcong; Zou, Yiqi; Zhu, Yanghui; Wang, Hongtao; Wu, Hongtao (2025-02). "Design and Experimental Verification of a Quasi-Passive Variable Stiffness Ankle Exoskeleton for Human Walking Assistance". IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 10 (2): 1856–1863. doi:10.1109/LRA.2025.3526450. ISSN 2377-3766. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  58. ^ a b Sawicki, Gregory S.; Beck, Owen N.; Kang, Inseung; Young, Aaron J. (2020-02-19). "The exoskeleton expansion: improving walking and running economy". Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 17 (1): 25. doi:10.1186/s12984-020-00663-9. ISSN 1743-0003. PMC 7029455. PMID 32075669.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  59. ^ Calafiore, Dario; Negrini, Francesco; Tottoli, Nicola; Ferraro, Francesco; Ozyemisci-Taskiran, Ozden; de Sire, Alessandro (2022-02). "Efficacy of robotic exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke : a systematic review". European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 58 (1): 1–8. doi:10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06846-5. ISSN 1973-9095. PMC 9980569. PMID 34247470. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  60. ^ Shi, Di; Zhang, Wuxiang; Zhang, Wei; Ding, Xilun (2019-08-30). "A Review on Lower Limb Rehabilitation Exoskeleton Robots". Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 32 (1): 74. doi:10.1186/s10033-019-0389-8. ISSN 2192-8258.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  61. ^ Tian, Dingkui; Li, Wentao; Li, Jinke; Li, Feng; Chen, Ziqiang; He, Yong; Sun, Jianquan; Wu, Xinyu (2024). "Self-Balancing Exoskeleton Robots Designed to Facilitate Multiple Rehabilitation Training Movements". IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 32: 293–303. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3348985. ISSN 1558-0210.
  62. ^ Tiboni, Monica; Borboni, Alberto; Vérité, Fabien; Bregoli, Chiara; Amici, Cinzia (2022-01-24). "Sensors and Actuation Technologies in Exoskeletons: A Review". Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 22 (3): 884. doi:10.3390/s22030884. ISSN 1424-8220. PMC 8839165. PMID 35161629.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  63. ^ Sun, Yuanxi; Tang, Yuntao; Zheng, Jia; Dong, Dianbiao; Chen, Xiaohong; Bai, Long (2022-01-01). "From sensing to control of lower limb exoskeleton: a systematic review". Annual Reviews in Control. 53: 83–96. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2022.04.003. ISSN 1367-5788.
  64. ^ a b c Näf, Matthias B.; Junius, Karen; Rossini, Marco; Rodriguez-Guerrero, Carlos; Vanderborght, Bram; Lefeber, Dirk (September 1, 2018). "Misalignment Compensation for Full Human-Exoskeleton Kinematic Compatibility: State of the Art and Evaluation". Applied Mechanics Reviews. 70 (5): 050802. Bibcode:2018ApMRv..70e0802N. doi:10.1115/1.4042523. ISSN 0003-6900.
  65. ^ a b Meeting the Energy Needs of Future Warriors. National Academies Press. 31 August 2004. p. 40. ISBN 9780309165761. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
  66. ^ Liebscher, Alysha; Gayman, Gary (December 26, 2018). "Preventing Thermal Runaway in Electric Vehicle Batteries". Machine Design. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  67. ^ Freedberg, Sydney J Jr. (March 18, 2019). "SOCOM Tests Sarcos Exoskeleton (No, It Isn't 'Iron Man')". Breaking Defense. Retrieved March 10, 2021.
  68. ^ Yellow Magpie (May 1, 2013). "Exoskeleton Suit Problems That Need To Be Overcome". Yellow Magpie. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  69. ^ Kantola, Kevin (January 26, 2010). "HULC Robotic Exoskeleton Powered by Hydrogen Fuel Cell". Hydrogen Cars Now. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  70. ^ "Hydrogen Storage Challenges". Energy.gov. Retrieved July 7, 2019.
  71. ^ Frumento, Christopher; Messier, Ethan; Montero, Victor (2010-03-02). "History and Future of Rehabilitation Robotics" (PDF). Worchetser Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  72. ^ Kerns, Jeff (January 8, 2015). "The Rise of the Exoskeletons". Machine Design. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  73. ^ Heater, Brian (July 18, 2017). "ReWalk Robotics shows off a soft exosuit designed to bring mobility to stroke patients". TechCrunch. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  74. ^ Ackerman, Evan (March 6, 2018). "Roam Robotics Announces $2500 Soft Exoskeleton For Skiers and Snowboarders". IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  75. ^ "Military exoskeletons uncovered: Ironman suits a concrete possibility". Army Technology. January 29, 2012. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  76. ^ Ferris, Daniel P.; Schlink, Bryan R.; Young, Aaron J. (2019-01-01), "Robotics: Exoskeletons", in Narayan, Roger (ed.), Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, Elsevier, pp. 645–651, ISBN 9780128051443
  77. ^ Siegel, R. P. (April 8, 2019). "Robotic Fingers Are Learning How to Feel". Design News. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  78. ^ "Glove powered by soft robotics to interact with virtual reality environments". ScienceDaily. May 30, 2017. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  79. ^ Näf, Matthias B.; Koopman, Axel S.; Baltrusch, Saskia; Rodriguez-Guerrero, Carlos; Vanderborght, Bram; Lefeber, Dirk (June 21, 2018). "Passive Back Support Exoskeleton Improves Range of Motion Using Flexible Beams". Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 5: 72. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00072. ISSN 2296-9144. PMC 7805753. PMID 33500951.
  80. ^ a b Davis, Steve (June 26, 2016). "Forget Iron Man: skintight suits are the future of robotic exoskeletons". The Conversation. Retrieved July 7, 2019.
  81. ^ Collins, Steve (June 22, 2017). "Exoskeletons Don't Come One-Size-Fits-All ... Yet". Wired. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  82. ^ Arbor, Ann (June 5, 2019). "Open-source bionic leg: First-of-its-kind platform aims to rapidly advance prosthetics". University of Michigan News. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  83. ^ Wakefield, Jane (July 8, 2018). "Exoskeletons promise superhuman powers". BBC. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  84. ^ Cote, David O.; Schopper, Aaron W. (1984-07-01). "Anthropometric Cockpit Compatibility Assessment of US Army Aircraft for Large and Small Personnel Wearing a Cold Weather, Armored Vest, Chemical Defense Protective Clothing Configuration" (PDF). Defense Technical Information Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 2, 2016. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  85. ^ a b Ferguson, Alan (September 23, 2018). "Exoskeletons and injury prevention". Safety+Health Magazine. Retrieved October 19, 2018.
  86. ^ Zingman, Alissa; Earnest, G. Scott; Lowe, Brian D.; Branche, Christine M. (June 15, 2017). "Exoskeletons in Construction: Will they reduce or create hazards?". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved July 8, 2017.
  87. ^ Gonzalez, Oscar (2019-09-25). "Fallout Power Armor helmet recalled due to mold". CNET. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  88. ^ Liptak, Andrew (December 10, 2017). "18 suits of power armor from science fiction you don't want to meet on the battlefield". The Verge.
  89. ^ Matulef, Jeffrey (2016-01-23). "Fallout 4 14.5 inch power armour figurine costs £279". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  90. ^ Machkovech, Sam (2018-11-13). "We unbox the $200 'power armor' Fallout 76 version so you don't have to". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2020-10-30.
  91. ^ US443113A, "Spring body-brace", issued 1890-12-23 
  92. ^ US1202851A, Kelly, Robert Emmett, "Back-brace", issued 1916-10-31 
  93. ^ US703477A, Russell, Manning W., "Body-brace", issued 1902-07-01 
  94. ^ US401223A, "Brace for back and legs", issued 1889-04-09 
  95. ^ US406663A, "Gardener s and cotton-picker s brace", issued 1889-07-09 
  96. ^ US759809A, Farley, John C., "Cotton, berry, or vegetable picking or dairy stool", issued 1904-05-10 
  97. ^ US1417250A, Emmett, Kelly Robert, "Back brace", issued 1922-05-23 
  98. ^ a b US420179A, "Apparatus for facilitating walking", issued 1890-01-28 
  99. ^ US440684A, "Apparatus for facilitating walking", issued 1890-11-18 
  100. ^ US420178A, "running", issued 1890-01-28 
  101. ^ US406328A, "Peters", issued 1889-07-02 
  102. ^ US1308675A, Kelley, Leslie C., "Pedomotor", issued 1919-07-01 
  103. ^ US337146A, Gluecksmann, Joseph, "Spring shoe", issued 1886-03-02 
  104. ^ US1043648A, Weaver, Edgar Stanley, "Invalid's body-support", issued 1912-11-05 
  105. ^ US44499A, "Improvement in limb-supporters", issued 1864-10-04 
  106. ^ "Final Report On Hardiman I Prototype For Machine Augmentation Of Human Strength And Endurance" (PDF). Defense Technical Information Center. August 30, 1971. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 6, 2019. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  107. ^ Kazerooni, H.; Chu, Andrew; Steger, Ryan (2007-01-01). "That Which Does Not Stabilize, Will Only Make Us Stronger". The International Journal of Robotics Research. 26 (1): 75–89. doi:10.1177/0278364907074472. ISSN 0278-3649.
  108. ^ Bellis, Mary. "Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2016-02-20.
  109. ^ US3449769A, Mizen, Neil J., "Powered exoskeletal apparatus for amplifying human strength in response to normal body movements", issued 1969-06-17 
  110. ^ a b Reed, Monty K (October 2014). "LIFESUIT Exoskeleton Gives the Gift of Walking so They Shall Walk". IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC 2014): 382–385. doi:10.1109/GHTC.2014.6970309. ISBN 978-1-4799-7193-0.
  111. ^ "Development of Exoskeletons and Applications on Rehabilitation - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  112. ^ Kim, Sunwook; Srinivasan, Divya; Nussbaum, Maury A.; Leonessa, Alexander (2021). "Human Gait During Level Walking With an Occupational Whole-Body Powered Exoskeleton: Not Yet a Walk in the Park". IEEE Access. 9: 47901–47911. Bibcode:2021IEEEA...947901K. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068836. ISSN 2169-3536.
  113. ^ Keller, Jared (2021-07-11). "The inside story behind the Pentagon's ill-fated quest for a real-life 'Iron Man' suit". Task & Purpose. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  114. ^ a b "Robotic exoskeleton, now FDA-approved, continues to be studied at Bronx VA". www.research.va.gov. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  115. ^ Pinelli, Erika; Zinno, Raffaele; Barone, Giuseppe; Bragonzoni, Laura (August 2024). "Barriers and facilitators to exoskeleton use in persons with spinal cord injury: a systematic review". Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology. 19 (6): 2355–2363. doi:10.1080/17483107.2023.2287153. hdl:11585/950825. ISSN 1748-3115. PMID 38009458.
  116. ^ Behjati Ashtiani, Mohamad; Morris, Wallace; Ojelade, Aanuoluwapo; Kim, Sunwook; Akinwande, Feyisayo; Barr, Alan; Harris-Adamson, Carisa; Akanmu, Abiola; Nussbaum, Maury A. (2025-05-01). "Understanding the drivers of and barriers to adopting passive back- and arm-support exoskeletons in construction: Results from interviews and short-term field testing". International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 107: 103732. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2025.103732. ISSN 0169-8141.
  117. ^ Mahmud, Dilruba; Bennett, Sean T.; Zhu, Zhenhua; Adamczyk, Peter G.; Wehner, Michael; Veeramani, Dharmaraj; Dai, Fei (2022-12-18). "Identifying Facilitators, Barriers, and Potential Solutions of Adopting Exoskeletons and Exosuits in Construction Workplaces". Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 22 (24): 9987. Bibcode:2022Senso..22.9987M. doi:10.3390/s22249987. ISSN 1424-8220. PMC 9785667. PMID 36560355.
  118. ^ Kozinc, Žiga; Zelik, Karl E. (2025-01-17). "Exoskeletons: Enhancing the Future of Physical Work". Frontiers for Young Minds. 12. doi:10.3389/frym.2024.1385574. ISSN 2296-6846.
  119. ^ "Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Home Health Prospective Payment System Final Rule (CMS-1780-F) | CMS". www.cms.gov. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  120. ^ "CMS Issued Proposed Rule that Defines Powered Orthoses and Exoskeletons as "Braces" | AOPA – AMERICAN ORTHOTIC & PROSTHETIC ASSOCIATION". www.aopanet.org. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  121. ^ Admin. "An Exciting Future For Exoskeletons". www.abiresearch.com. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  122. ^ Morris, Leah; Diteesawat, Richard S.; Rahman, Nahian; Turton, Ailie; Cramp, Mary; Rossiter, Jonathan (2023-01-30). "The-state-of-the-art of soft robotics to assist mobility: a review of physiotherapist and patient identified limitations of current lower-limb exoskeletons and the potential soft-robotic solutions". Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. 20 (1): 18. doi:10.1186/s12984-022-01122-3. ISSN 1743-0003. PMC 9885398. PMID 36717869.
  123. ^ CRE-MSD UW (2022-11-16). Exoskeleton Conference (2022): Keynote. Retrieved 2025-04-08 – via YouTube.
  124. ^ Madhav, Kuber, Pranav; Ehsan, Rashedi (September 2024). "Training and Familiarization with Industrial Exoskeletons: A Review of Considerations, Protocols, and Approaches for Effective Implementation". Biomimetics. 9 (9). doi:10.3390/biomimetic (inactive 8 April 2025). ISSN 2313-7673. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of April 2025 (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  125. ^ Elprama, Shirley A.; Vanderborght, Bram; Jacobs, An (2022-04-01). "An industrial exoskeleton user acceptance framework based on a literature review of empirical studies". Applied Ergonomics. 100: 103615. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103615. ISSN 0003-6870. PMID 34847372.
  126. ^ a b Interreg, North Sea Region Exskallerate, European Union. (2023) Exoskeletons: Future exoskeleton technology: application by 2030. https://northsearegion.eu/media/24407/exskallerate_foresight-1.pdf
  127. ^ Barbieri, Maria (2023-10-11). "Report: Emerging Technologies for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD)". Safetytech Accelerator. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  128. ^ Abery, Philip; and Hing, Wayne (2025). "The role of lower limb exoskeletons in rehabilitation: a scoping review". Physical Therapy Reviews. 0: 1–19. doi:10.1080/10833196.2025.2465937. ISSN 1083-3196. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  129. ^ Cathro, Ella (2024-11-20). "Report: Tackling MSD in Industrial Sectors with Emerging Tech". Safetytech Accelerator. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
  130. ^ "Emerging Technologies for the Prevention of MSDs Report - National Safety Council". www.nsc.org. Retrieved 2025-04-08.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powered_exoskeleton&oldid=1284580346"