: Technological advancements have led to the development of numerous wearable robotic devices for the physical assistance and restoration of human locomotion. While many challenges remain with respect to the mechanical design of such devices, it is at least equally challenging and important to develop strategies to control them in concert with the intentions of the user.This work reviews the state-of-the-art techniques for controlling portable active lower limb prosthetic and orthotic (P/O) devices in the context of locomotive activities of daily living (ADL), and considers how these can be interfaced with the user's sensory-motor control system. This review underscores the practical challenges and opportunities associated with P/O control, which can be used to accelerate future developments in this field. Furthermore, this work provides a classification scheme for the comparison of the various control strategies.As a novel contribution, a general framework for the control of portable gait-assistance devices is proposed. This framework accounts for the physical and informatic interactions between the controller, the user, the environment, and the mechanical device itself. Such a treatment of P/Os--not as independent devices, but as actors within an ecosystem--is suggested to be necessary to structure the next generation of intelligent and multifunctional controllers.Each element of the proposed framework is discussed with respect to the role that it plays in the assistance of locomotion, along with how its states can be sensed as inputs to the controller. The reviewed controllers are shown to fit within different levels of a hierarchical scheme, which loosely resembles the structure and functionality of the nominal human central nervous system (CNS). Active and passive safety mechanisms are considered to be central aspects underlying all of P/O design and control, and are shown to be critical for regulatory approval of such devices for real-world use.The works discussed herein provide evidence that, while we are getting ever closer, significant challenges still exist for the development of controllers for portable powered P/O devices that can seamlessly integrate with the user's neuromusculoskeletal system and are practical for use in locomotive ADL.

A brain-computer interface (BCI) is a system that allows its users to control external devices with brain activity. Although the proof-of-concept was given decades ago, the reliable translation of user intent into device control commands is still a major challenge. Success requires the effective interaction of two adaptive controllers: the user's brain, which produces brain activity that encodes intent, and the BCI system, which translates that activity into device control commands. In order to facilitate this interaction, many laboratories are exploring a variety of signal analysis techniques to improve the adaptation of the BCI system to the user. In the literature, many machine learning and pattern classification algorithms have been reported to give impressive results when applied to BCI data in offline analyses. However, it is more difficult to evaluate their relative value for actual online use. BCI data competitions have been organized to provide objective formal evaluations of alternative methods. Prompted by the great interest in the first two BCI Competitions, we organized the third BCI Competition to address several of the most difficult and important analysis problems in BCI research. The paper describes the data sets that were provided to the competitors and gives an overview of the results.

Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are used in stroke rehabilitation to translate brain signals into intended movements of the paralyzed limb. However, the efficacy and mechanisms of BCI-based therapies remain unclear. Here we show that BCI coupled to functional electrical stimulation (FES) elicits significant, clinically relevant, and lasting motor recovery in chronic stroke survivors more effectively than sham FES. Such recovery is associated to quantitative signatures of functional neuroplasticity. BCI patients exhibit a significant functional recovery after the intervention, which remains 6–12 months after the end of therapy. Electroencephalography analysis pinpoints significant differences in favor of the BCI group, mainly consisting in an increase in functional connectivity between motor areas in the affected hemisphere. This increase is significantly correlated with functional improvement. Results illustrate how a BCI–FES therapy can drive significant functional recovery and purposeful plasticity thanks to contingent activation of body natural efferent and afferent pathways.

We deployed 72 sensors of 10 modalities in 15 wireless and wired networked sensor systems in the environment, in objects, and on the body to create a sensor-rich environment for the machine recognition of human activities. We acquired data from 12 subjects performing morning activities, yielding over 25 hours of sensor data. We report the number of activity occurrences observed during post-processing, and estimate that over 13000 and 14000 object and environment interactions occurred. We describe the networked sensor setup and the methodology for data acquisition, synchronization and curation. We report on the challenges and outline lessons learned and best practice for similar large scale deployments of heterogeneous networked sensor systems. We evaluate data acquisition quality for on-body and object integrated wireless sensors; there is less than 2.5% packet loss after tuning. We outline our use of the dataset to develop new sensor network self-organization principles and machine learning techniques for activity recognition in opportunistic sensor configurations. Eventually this dataset will be made public.

Brain‐computer interfaces (BCIs) can provide sensory feedback of ongoing brain oscillations, enabling stroke survivors to modulate their sensorimotor rhythms purposefully. A number of recent clinical studies indicate that repeated use of such BCIs might trigger neurological recovery and hence improvement in motor function. Here, we provide a first meta‐analysis evaluating the clinical effectiveness of BCI‐based post‐stroke motor rehabilitation. Trials were identified using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro and by inspection of references in several review articles. We selected randomized controlled trials that used BCIs for post‐stroke motor rehabilitation and provided motor impairment scores before and after the intervention. A random‐effects inverse variance method was used to calculate the summary effect size. We initially identified 524 articles and, after removing duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 473 articles. We found 26 articles corresponding to BCI clinical trials, of these, there were nine studies that involved a total of 235 post‐stroke survivors that fulfilled the inclusion criterion (randomized controlled trials that examined motor performance as an outcome measure) for the meta‐analysis. Motor improvements, mostly quantified by the upper limb Fugl‐Meyer Assessment (FMA‐UE), exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID=5.25) in six BCI studies, while such improvement was reached only in three control groups. Overall, the BCI training was associated with a standardized mean difference of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.37 to 1.20) in FMA‐UE compared to control conditions, which is in the range of medium to large summary effect size. In addition, several studies indicated BCI‐induced functional and structural neuroplasticity at a subclinical level. This suggests that BCI technology could be an effective intervention for post‐stroke upper limb rehabilitation. However, more studies with larger sample size are required to increase the reliability of these results.