Assessment of Soft Actuators for Hand Exoskeletons: Pleated Textile Actuators and Fiber-Reinforced Silicone Actuators.

assessment fiber-reinforced hand exoskeleton soft actuators soft robotics textile actuator

Journal

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 20 04 2022
accepted: 10 06 2022
entrez: 29 7 2022
pubmed: 30 7 2022
medline: 30 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Soft robotic approaches have been trialed for rehabilitation or assistive hand exoskeletons using silicone or textile actuators because they have more tolerance for alignment with biological joints than rigid exoskeletons. Textile actuators have not been previously evaluated, and this study compares the mechanical properties of textile and silicone actuators used in hand exoskeletons. The physical dimensions, the air pressure required to achieve a full bending motion, and the forces generated at the tip of the actuator were measured and compared. The results showed that the construction method of the silicone actuators is slower than the textile actuators, but it generates better dimensional accuracy. However, the air pressure required for the actuators to generate a full bending motion is significantly lower for textile actuators, and the blocking force generated at that pressure is 35% higher in the textile actuators. There are significant differences across all variables compared, indicating that actuators constructed using pleated textile techniques have greater potential for the construction of an exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation or assistance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35903795
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.924888
pii: 924888
pmc: PMC9315265
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

924888

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Ramos, Múnera, Moazen, Wurdemann and Cifuentes.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Front Neurorobot. 2019 May 29;13:34
pubmed: 31231203
Brain. 2008 Feb;131(Pt 2):425-37
pubmed: 18156154
J Med Eng Technol. 2016;40(4):199-209
pubmed: 27007297
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 27;6:34224
pubmed: 27670953
Soft Robot. 2021 Jun;8(3):284-297
pubmed: 32589507
Soft Robot. 2021 Apr;8(2):128-143
pubmed: 32552422
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975387
pubmed: 22275591
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017 Jul;2017:1465-1470
pubmed: 28814026
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:2120-2123
pubmed: 30440822
Front Neurosci. 2017 Oct 09;11:547
pubmed: 29062267
Soft Robot. 2019 Apr;6(2):289-304
pubmed: 30874489
Soft Robot. 2020 Oct;7(5):550-563
pubmed: 32320351
Phys Ther. 2010 Apr;90(4):493-504
pubmed: 20185616
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021 Apr 1;45(2):161-169
pubmed: 33118453
Soft Robot. 2018 Oct;5(5):662-674
pubmed: 30024312

Auteurs

Orion Ramos (O)

Biomedical Engineering Department, Department of Biomedical and Electronic Engineering, Colombian School of Engineering Julio Garavito, Bogota, Colombia.

Marcela Múnera (M)

Biomedical Engineering Department, Department of Biomedical and Electronic Engineering, Colombian School of Engineering Julio Garavito, Bogota, Colombia.

Mehran Moazen (M)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Helge Wurdemann (H)

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Carlos A Cifuentes (CA)

School of Engineering, Science and Technology, Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Colombia.
Bristol Robotics Laboratory, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH