pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.17425 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-19 · 💻 cs.RO

The Impact of Gait Pattern Personalization on the Perception of Rigid Robotic Guidance: A Pilot User Experience Evaluation

Beatrice Luciani , Katherine Lin Poggensee , Heike Vallery , Alex van den Berg , Severin David Woernle , Mostafa Mogharabi , Stefano Dalla Gasperina , Laura Marchal-Crespo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords exoskeletongait personalizationuser experiencerobotic guidanceadaptationkinematicsinteraction forcestreadmill
0
0 comments X

The pith

Personalizing gait patterns in exoskeletons shows minimal short-term influence on user comfort or naturalness compared to adaptation effects.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether tailoring hip, knee, and pelvis trajectories to individual users improves perception of rigid robotic guidance in a treadmill exoskeleton. Ten unimpaired participants walked under three conditions—personalized patterns predicted from speed and body data, averaged standard patterns, and random database selections—with ratings collected after each. No significant differences appeared in enjoyment, comfort, or naturalness across patterns despite accurate execution, while later trials received higher comfort and naturalness scores. Interaction forces rose only for the random condition. The results indicate that short-term adaptation to the device outweighs personalization benefits.

Core claim

Enforcing personalized gait kinematics derived from a data-driven model of hip, knee, and pelvis trajectories based on walking speed, anthropometrics, and demographics produced no measurable advantage in subjective ratings over standard averaged patterns or random selections. All patterns were tracked with high accuracy, yet only presentation order significantly improved comfort and naturalness ratings, pointing to dominant adaptation. Knee interaction forces differed solely between random and standard conditions.

What carries the argument

The data-driven personalization framework that generates individual hip, knee, and pelvis trajectories from speed, anthropometric, and demographic inputs, deployed in a within-subject comparison against averaged and random patterns.

Load-bearing premise

Short-term subjective ratings from ten unimpaired participants in a single session accurately reflect the value of personalization for real users with impairments over longer periods.

What would settle it

A follow-up study with impaired users across multiple sessions that finds sustained higher comfort or naturalness ratings for personalized patterns would falsify the minimal short-term influence claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.17425 by Alex van den Berg, Beatrice Luciani, Heike Vallery, Katherine Lin Poggensee, Laura Marchal-Crespo, Mostafa Mogharabi, Severin David Woernle, Stefano Dalla Gasperina.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The new exoskeleton with a user secured, featuring an active body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top view of the right leg’s closed-chain mechanism with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: a) located at the distal end of the shafts of the hip pris [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exemplary right leg trajectories of a participant are displayed at walking speed levels 1, 2, and 3, together with their extracted key events. These [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Exoskeletons modulate human movement across diverse applications, from performance augmentation to daily-life assistance. These systems often enforce specific kinematic patterns to mitigate injury risks and motivate users to keep moving despite diminished capacity. However, little is known about users' perception of such robot-imposed guidance, especially when personalized to the uniqueness of individual human walk. Given the usually substantial computational cost for personalization, understanding its subjective impact is essential to justify its implementation over standard patterns. Ten unimpaired participants completed a within-subject experiment in a multi-planar treadmill-based exoskeleton that enforced three different gait patterns: personalized, standard, and a randomly selected pattern from a publicly available database. Personalization was achieved using a data-driven framework that predicts hip, knee, and pelvis trajectories from walking speed, anthropometric, and demographic data. The standard pattern was obtained by averaging gait patterns from the aforementioned database. After each condition, participants rated enjoyment, comfort, and perceived naturalness. Knee joint interaction forces were also recorded. Subjective ratings revealed no significant differences among patterns, despite all trajectories being executed with high accuracy. However, gait patterns experienced last were rated as significantly more comfortable and natural, indicating adaptation to the system. Higher interaction forces were observed only for the random vs. standard pattern. Personalizing gait kinematics had minimal short-term influence on user experience relative to the dominant effect of adaptation to the exoskeleton. These findings highlight the importance of integrating subjective feedback and accounting for user adaptation when designing personalized robot controllers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a within-subject pilot study with 10 unimpaired participants walking in a multi-planar treadmill exoskeleton under three conditions: a data-driven personalized gait pattern (predicted from speed, anthropometrics, and demographics), a standard pattern (database average), and a randomly selected database pattern. Subjective ratings of enjoyment, comfort, and naturalness showed no significant differences across patterns, but the last-experienced condition was rated significantly more comfortable and natural. Knee interaction forces were higher for the random versus standard pattern. The central claim is that personalization exerts minimal short-term influence on user experience relative to adaptation to the exoskeleton.

Significance. If the null result on personalization holds under better-powered conditions, the finding would be significant for exoskeleton controller design: it suggests that the computational overhead of personalization may not be justified by short-term perceptual gains in unimpaired users and emphasizes the need to incorporate adaptation periods when evaluating rigid guidance. The work supplies direct empirical data on user perception and force measurements that can inform future studies in robotic assistance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract/Results] Abstract and Results: The claim of 'no significant differences among patterns' is presented without exact p-values, effect sizes, or power analysis. With n=10 and a within-subject design that includes order effects, this omission directly weakens the interpretability of the null result on personalization, which is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: The interpretation that personalization has 'minimal short-term influence' rests on unimpaired participants in a single session; the manuscript does not address how the null finding might change for users with actual gait impairments (where baseline kinematics deviate further from the database average) or after multi-session exposure once adaptation saturates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: Provide more detail on the exact counterbalancing of condition order and the statistical tests (including any corrections) used for the subjective ratings and force data.
  2. [Results] Results: Clarify how 'high accuracy' of trajectory execution was quantified (e.g., RMSE values or similar metrics) rather than stating it qualitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive assessment of our pilot study. We have addressed the concerns by enhancing the statistical reporting in the Abstract and Results and by expanding the Discussion to better contextualize the scope and limitations of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract/Results] Abstract and Results: The claim of 'no significant differences among patterns' is presented without exact p-values, effect sizes, or power analysis. With n=10 and a within-subject design that includes order effects, this omission directly weakens the interpretability of the null result on personalization, which is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that more detailed statistical reporting will improve interpretability. In the revised manuscript, we will report the exact p-values from the Friedman tests on subjective ratings, include effect sizes (e.g., Kendall's W), and add a post-hoc power analysis based on the observed data for the within-subject design. This will better frame the null result on personalization while highlighting the significant order effect, which supports our conclusion that adaptation dominates short-term perception. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion: The interpretation that personalization has 'minimal short-term influence' rests on unimpaired participants in a single session; the manuscript does not address how the null finding might change for users with actual gait impairments (where baseline kinematics deviate further from the database average) or after multi-session exposure once adaptation saturates.

    Authors: We acknowledge this scope limitation of the pilot study. The revised Discussion will explicitly note that results are from unimpaired users in a single session and discuss how personalization might produce larger perceptual benefits for users with gait impairments due to greater kinematic deviations from database averages. We will also call for future multi-session experiments to evaluate effects after adaptation plateaus, thereby tempering our claims appropriately. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical user study with direct ratings and no derivations

full rationale

The paper reports a within-subject pilot experiment measuring subjective ratings (enjoyment, comfort, naturalness) and interaction forces from 10 unimpaired participants across three gait conditions (personalized, standard, random). The central claim—that personalization has minimal short-term influence relative to adaptation—rests entirely on these direct experimental outcomes and statistical comparisons, with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to inputs by construction. The data-driven personalization method is applied as an input but is not derived or justified within the paper via self-citation chains or ansatzes; the evaluation itself is independent and self-contained against the collected participant data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study is empirical and contains no mathematical derivations, free parameters, or invented physical entities. It relies on standard assumptions from human-robot interaction research.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Subjective Likert-style ratings reliably capture perceived comfort, enjoyment, and naturalness of gait.
    The paper uses these ratings as primary outcome measures without additional validation.
  • domain assumption A single short session is sufficient to detect differences in user experience attributable to gait personalization.
    The design assumes short-term exposure generalizes to longer-term use.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5607 in / 1241 out tokens · 20661 ms · 2026-05-16T21:08:39.926420+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Effects of robotic gait training after stroke: A meta-analysis,

    G. Moucheboeuf, R. Griffier, D. Gasq, B. Glize, L. Bouyer, P. Dehail, and H. Cassoudesalle, “Effects of robotic gait training after stroke: A meta-analysis,”Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 63, pp. 518–534, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis,

    G. Colombo, M. Joerg, R. Schreier, and V. Dietz, “Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis,”Journal of rehabilitation research and development, vol. 37, no. 6, p. 693–700, 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Recent developments and challenges of lower extremity exoskeletons,

    B. Chen, H. Ma, L. Y. Qin, F. Gao, K. M. Chan, S. W. Law, L. Qin, and W. H. Liao, “Recent developments and challenges of lower extremity exoskeletons,”Journal of Orthopaedic Translation, vol. 5, pp. 26–37, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Marchal-Crespo and R

    L. Marchal-Crespo and R. Riener,Technology of the Robotic Gait Orthosis Lokomat. Springer, 2022, pp. 665–681

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    LOPES II - design and evaluation of an admittance controlled gait training robot with shadow-leg approach,

    J. Meuleman, E. V. Asseldonk, G. V. Oort, H. Rietman, and H. V. D. Kooij, “LOPES II - design and evaluation of an admittance controlled gait training robot with shadow-leg approach,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 352–363, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Randomized, crossover clin- ical trial on the safety, feasibility, and usability of the ABLE exoskeleton: A comparative study with knee-ankle-foot orthoses,

    A. Rodr ´ıguez-Fern´andez, J. Lobo-Prat, M. Tolr `a-Campany`a, F. P ´erez- Ca˜nabate, J. Font-Llagunes, and L. Cano, “Randomized, crossover clin- ical trial on the safety, feasibility, and usability of the ABLE exoskeleton: A comparative study with knee-ankle-foot orthoses,”PLOS One, vol. 20, no. 5, p. e0318039, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Biomechanical differences between able-bodied and spinal cord injured individuals walking in an overground robotic exoskeleton,

    S. C. Hayes, M. White, C. R. J. Wilcox, H. S. F. White, and N. Vanicek, “Biomechanical differences between able-bodied and spinal cord injured individuals walking in an overground robotic exoskeleton,”PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 1, p. e0262915, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Learning gait models with varying walking speeds,

    C. Zou, R. Huang, H. Cheng, and J. Qiu, “Learning gait models with varying walking speeds,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 183–190, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Gait patterns gener- ation based on basis functions interpolation for the TWIN lower-limb exoskeleton,

    C. Vassallo, S. De Giuseppe, C. Piezzo, S. Maludrottu, G. Cerruti, M. L. D’ Angelo, E. Gruppioni, C. Marchese, S. Castellano, E. Guanziroli, F. Molteni, M. Laffranchi, and L. De Michieli, “Gait patterns gener- ation based on basis functions interpolation for the TWIN lower-limb exoskeleton,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ...

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Control strategies used in lower limb ex- oskeletons for gait rehabilitation after brain injury: a systematic review and analysis of clinical effectiveness,

    J. de Miguel-Fern ´andez, J. Lobo-Prat, E. Prinsen, J. M. Font-Llagunes, and L. Marchal-Crespo, “Control strategies used in lower limb ex- oskeletons for gait rehabilitation after brain injury: a systematic review and analysis of clinical effectiveness,”Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 23, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Review of control strate- gies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury,

    L. Marchal-Crespo and D. J. Reinkensmeyer, “Review of control strate- gies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 6, p. 20, 2009

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Towards personalized immersive virtual reality neurorehabil- itation: a human-centered design,

    S. Cucinella, J. de Winter, E. Grauwmeijer, M. Evers, and L. Marchal- Crespo, “Towards personalized immersive virtual reality neurorehabil- itation: a human-centered design,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 22, p. 7, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    R. A. Schmidt and C. A. Wrisberg,Motor Learning and Performance: A Situation-Based Learning Approach, 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    The FreeD module for the Lokomat facilitates a physiological movement pattern in healthy people – a proof of concept study,

    T. Aurich-Schuler, A. Gut, and R. Labruy `ere, “The FreeD module for the Lokomat facilitates a physiological movement pattern in healthy people – a proof of concept study,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 26, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Design of an exoskeleton ankle robot for robot-assisted gait training of stroke patients,

    L.-F. Yeung, C. Ockenfeld, M.-K. Pang, H.-W. Wai, O.-Y. Soo, S.-W. Li, and K.-Y. Tong, “Design of an exoskeleton ankle robot for robot-assisted gait training of stroke patients,” in2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 2017, pp. 211–215

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Feasibility of manual teach-and-replay and continuous impedance shaping for robotic locomotor training following spinal cord injury,

    J. L. Emken, S. J. Harkema, J. A. Beres-Jones, C. K. Ferreira, and D. J. Reinkensmeyer, “Feasibility of manual teach-and-replay and continuous impedance shaping for robotic locomotor training following spinal cord injury,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 322–334, 2008

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Identification of humans using gait,

    A. Kale, A. Sundaresan, A. Rajagopalan, N. Cuntoor, A. Roy- Chowdhury, V. Kruger, and R. Chellappa, “Identification of humans using gait,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1163–1173, 2004

    work page 2004

  18. [18]

    Individualized gait pattern generation for sharing lower limb exoskeleton robot,

    X. Wu, D.-X. Liu, M. Liu, C. Chen, and H. Guo, “Individualized gait pattern generation for sharing lower limb exoskeleton robot,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1459–1470, 2018

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Personalized gait trajectory generation based on anthropometric features using Random Forest,

    S. Ren, W. Wang, Z. G. Hou, B. Chen, X. Liang, J. Wang, and L. Peng, “Personalized gait trajectory generation based on anthropometric features using Random Forest,”Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 15 597–15 608, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Prediction methods to account for the effect of gait speed on lower limb angular kinematics,

    M. Hanlon and R. Anderson, “Prediction methods to account for the effect of gait speed on lower limb angular kinematics,”Gait & Posture, vol. 24, pp. 280–287, 2006

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Haptic training: Which types facilitate (re)learning of which motor task and for whom? answers by a review,

    E. Basalp, P. Wolf, and L. Marchal-Crespo, “Haptic training: Which types facilitate (re)learning of which motor task and for whom? answers by a review,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 722–739, 2021. 12

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    A unilateral robotic knee exoskeleton to assess the role of natural gait assistance in hemiparetic patients,

    J. Lora-Millan, F. S ´anchez-Cuesta, J. P. Romero Mu ˜noz, J. Moreno, and E. Rocon, “A unilateral robotic knee exoskeleton to assess the role of natural gait assistance in hemiparetic patients,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 109, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Locomotion mode prediction in real-life walking with and without ankle–foot ex- oskeleton assistance,

    S. Carvalho, J. Figueiredo, J. Cerqueira, and C. Santos, “Locomotion mode prediction in real-life walking with and without ankle–foot ex- oskeleton assistance,”Applied Intelligence, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1–19, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    GPR and SPSO-CG based gait pattern generation for subject-specific training,

    W. Wang, W. Shi, S. Ren, Z. G. Hou, X. Liang, J. Wang, and L. Peng, “GPR and SPSO-CG based gait pattern generation for subject-specific training,”Science China Information Sciences, vol. 64, p. 189204, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    An optimized- LSTM and RGB-D sensor-based human gait trajectory generator for bipedal robot walking,

    S. K. Challa, A. Kumar, V. B. Semwal, and N. Dua, “An optimized- LSTM and RGB-D sensor-based human gait trajectory generator for bipedal robot walking,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 24, pp. 24 352–24 363, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Complementary limb motion estimation for the control of ac- tive knee prostheses,

    H. Vallery, R. Burgkart, C. Hartmann, J. Mitternacht, R. Riener, and M. Buss, “Complementary limb motion estimation for the control of ac- tive knee prostheses,”Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 45–51, 2011

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Reinforcement learning impedance control of a robotic prosthesis to coordinate with human intact knee motion,

    R. Wu, M. Li, Z. Yao, W. Liu, J. Si, and H. Huang, “Reinforcement learning impedance control of a robotic prosthesis to coordinate with human intact knee motion,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7014–7020, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    A unilateral robotic knee exoskeleton to assess the role of natural gait assistance in hemiparetic patients,

    J. S. Lora-Millan, F. J. Sanchez-Cuesta, J. P. Romero, J. C. Moreno, and E. Rocon, “A unilateral robotic knee exoskeleton to assess the role of natural gait assistance in hemiparetic patients,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 19, p. 109, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Dynamic walking planning for gait rehabilitation robot,

    Z. Feng, J. Qian, Y. Zhang, L. Shen, Z. Zhang, and Q. Wang, “Dynamic walking planning for gait rehabilitation robot,”2nd International Con- ference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, iCBBE 2008, pp. 1280–1283, 2008

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Gait pattern generation for a power-assist device of paraplegic gait,

    T. Kagawa and Y. Uno, “Gait pattern generation for a power-assist device of paraplegic gait,”RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 633– 638, 2009

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Rapid predictive simulations with complex musculoskeletal models suggest that diverse healthy and pathological human gaits can emerge from similar control strategies,

    A. Falisse, G. Serrancol ´ı, C. L. Dembia, J. Gillis, I. Jonkers, and F. D. Groote, “Rapid predictive simulations with complex musculoskeletal models suggest that diverse healthy and pathological human gaits can emerge from similar control strategies,”Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 16, p. 20190402, 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    A three-dimensional whole-body model to predict human walking on level ground,

    D. Hu, D. Howard, and L. Ren, “A three-dimensional whole-body model to predict human walking on level ground,”Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, vol. 21, pp. 1919–1933, 2022

    work page 1919

  33. [33]

    Speed-dependent reference joint trajectory generation for robotic gait support,

    B. Koopman, E. van Asseldonk, and H. van der Kooij, “Speed-dependent reference joint trajectory generation for robotic gait support,”Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1447–1458, 2014

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    G ´eron,Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn and Ten- sorFlow: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques to Build Intelligent Systems, 2nd ed

    A. G ´eron,Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn and Ten- sorFlow: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques to Build Intelligent Systems, 2nd ed. O’Reilly, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Effects of individualized gait rehabilitation robotics for gait training on hemiplegic patients: Before-after study in the same person,

    Z. Guo, J. Ye, S. Zhang, L. Xu, G. Chen, X. Guan, Y. Li, and Z. Zhang, “Effects of individualized gait rehabilitation robotics for gait training on hemiplegic patients: Before-after study in the same person,”Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 15, p. 817446, 2022

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    A lower limb exoskeleton research platform to investigate human-robot interaction,

    V. Bartenbach, D. Wyss, D. Seuret, and R. Riener, “A lower limb exoskeleton research platform to investigate human-robot interaction,” IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 600–605, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning,

    G. Wulf and R. Lewthwaite, “Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1382– 1414, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    A review on human comfort factors, measurements, and improvements in human–robot collaboration,

    Y. Yan and Y. Jia, “A review on human comfort factors, measurements, and improvements in human–robot collaboration,”Sensors, vol. 22, p. 7431, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Intrinsic motivation inventory (imi)

    Center For Self-Determination Theory. Intrinsic motivation inventory (imi). Accessed on 2023-12-08. [Online]. Available: https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Motivational strategies used by health care professionals in stroke survivors in rehabilitation: a scoping review of experimental studies,

    J. Belo Fernandes, S. Fernandes, J. Domingos, C. Castro, A. Rom ˜ao, S. Gra´ udo, G. Rosa, T. Franco, A. Ferreira, C. Chambino, B. Ferreira, S. Courela, M. Ferreira, I. Silva, V. Tiago, M. Morais, J. Casal, S. Pereira, and C. Godinho, “Motivational strategies used by health care professionals in stroke survivors in rehabilitation: a scoping review of expe...

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Comfort-centered design of a lightweight and backdrivable knee exoskeleton,

    J. Wang, X. Li, T.-H. Huang, S. Yu, Y. Li, T. Chen, A. Carriero, M. Oh-Park, and H. Su, “Comfort-centered design of a lightweight and backdrivable knee exoskeleton,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 4265–4272, 2018

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Learning and transfer of com- plex motor skills in virtual reality: A perspective review,

    D. Levac, M. Huber, and D. Sternad, “Learning and transfer of com- plex motor skills in virtual reality: A perspective review,”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 121, 2019

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Specificity and variability of practice,

    C. H. Shea and R. M. Kohl, “Specificity and variability of practice,” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 169–177, 1990. [44]Technical Data Lokomat®Pro, Hocoma AG, Industriestrasse 4, CH- 8604 Volketswil, Switzerland, 2023, device Version 6.3. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.hocoma.com/solutions/lokomat/techincal-data-sheet/

    work page 1990

  44. [44]

    Enabling balance training in robot-assisted gait rehabilitation,

    D. Wyss, “Enabling balance training in robot-assisted gait rehabilitation,” Doctoral Thesis, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2019

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    A multidimensional compliant decoupled actuator (MUCDA) for pelvic support during gait,

    D. Wyss, A. Pennycott, V. Bartenbach, R. Riener, and H. Vallery, “A multidimensional compliant decoupled actuator (MUCDA) for pelvic support during gait,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 164–174, 2018

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    A body weight support system extension to control lateral forces: Realization and validation,

    D. Wyss, V. Bartenbach, A. Pennycott, R. Riener, and H. Vallery, “A body weight support system extension to control lateral forces: Realization and validation,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2014, pp. 328–332

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Joint angle parameters in gait: Reference data for normal subjects, 10-79 years of age,

    T. Oberg, A. Karsznia, and K. Oberg, “Joint angle parameters in gait: Reference data for normal subjects, 10-79 years of age,”Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 31, pp. 199–213, 1994

    work page 1994

  48. [48]

    A public dataset of overground and treadmill walking kinematics and kinetics in healthy individuals,

    C. A. Fukuchi, R. K. Fukuchi, and M. Duarte, “A public dataset of overground and treadmill walking kinematics and kinetics in healthy individuals,”PeerJ, vol. 6, p. e4640, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Investigating walking speed variability of young adults in the real world,

    L. Baroudi, X. Yan, M. W. Newman, K. Barton, S. M. Cain, and K. A. Shorter, “Investigating walking speed variability of young adults in the real world,”Gait & Posture, vol. 98, pp. 69–77, 2022

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Lower limb kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data from young healthy humans during walking at controlled speeds,

    L. Moreira, J. Figueiredo, P. Fonseca, J. P. Vilas-Boas, and C. Santos, “Lower limb kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data from young healthy humans during walking at controlled speeds,”Scientific Data, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 103, 2021

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Gait dynamics, fractals and falls: Finding meaning in the stride-to-stride fluctuations of human walking,

    J. M. Hausdorff, “Gait dynamics, fractals and falls: Finding meaning in the stride-to-stride fluctuations of human walking,”Human Movement Science, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 555–589, 2007

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    Reliability and minimum detectable change of temporal-spatial, kinematic, and dynamic stability measures during perturbed gait,

    C. A. R ´abago, J. B. Dingwell, and J. M. Wilken, “Reliability and minimum detectable change of temporal-spatial, kinematic, and dynamic stability measures during perturbed gait,”PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 11, p. e0142083, 2015

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Variability of gait patterns during uncon- strained walking assesed by satellite positioning (GPS),

    P. Terrier and Y. Schutz, “Variability of gait patterns during uncon- strained walking assesed by satellite positioning (GPS),”European journal of applied physiology, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 554–561, 2003

    work page 2003

  54. [54]

    Gait variability while walking with three different speeds,

    H. Yu, J. Riskowski, R. Brower, and T. Sarkodie-Gyan, “Gait variability while walking with three different speeds,” in2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2009, pp. 823–827

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: Is there a connection?

    N. Stergiou and L. M. Decker, “Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: Is there a connection?”Human Movement Science, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 869–888, 2011, eWOMS 2009: The European Workshop on Movement Science

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    Gait variability in people with neurological disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis,

    Y. Moon, J. Sung, R. An, M. E. Hernandez, and J. J. Sosnoff, “Gait variability in people with neurological disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis,”Human Movement Science, vol. 47, pp. 197–208, 2016

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    On human-in-the-loop optimization of human–robot interaction,

    P. Slade, C. Atkeson, J. M. Donelan, H. Houdijk, K. A. Ingraham, M. Kim, K. Kong, K. L. Poggensee, R. Riener, M. Steinert, J. Zhang, and S. H. Collins, “On human-in-the-loop optimization of human–robot interaction,”Nature, vol. 633, pp. 779–788, 2024

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Walking with a robotic exoskeleton does not mimic natural gait: A within-subjects study,

    C. Swank, S. Wang-Price, F. Gao, and S. Almutairi, “Walking with a robotic exoskeleton does not mimic natural gait: A within-subjects study,”JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol, vol. 6, no. 1, p. e11023, 2019

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    The role of user preference in the customized control of robotic exoskeletons,

    K. A. Ingraham, C. D. Remy, and E. J. Rouse, “The role of user preference in the customized control of robotic exoskeletons,”Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 64, p. eabj3487, 2022

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Variability in inter-joint coordination during walking of elderly adults and its association with clinical balance measures,

    S.-L. Chiu and L.-S. Chou, “Variability in inter-joint coordination during walking of elderly adults and its association with clinical balance measures,”Clinical biomechanics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 454–458, 2013

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    How adaptation, training, and cus- tomization contribute to benefits from exoskeleton assistance,

    K. L. Poggensee and S. H. Collins, “How adaptation, training, and cus- tomization contribute to benefits from exoskeleton assistance,”Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 58, p. eabf1078, 2021

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Time course of motor learning during human-in-the-loop optimization of a prosthetic foot,

    T. Tankink, J. M. Hijmans, R. Carloni, and H. Houdijk, “Time course of motor learning during human-in-the-loop optimization of a prosthetic foot,”Human Movement Science, vol. 104, p. 103418, 2025

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Learning to walk with a robotic ankle exoskeleton,

    K. E. Gordon and D. P. Ferris, “Learning to walk with a robotic ankle exoskeleton,”Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2636–2644, 2007

    work page 2007

  64. [64]

    Average height by country,

    Data Pandas, “Average height by country,” https://www.datapandas.org/ ranking/average-height-by-country, Accessed 13.10.25

    work page