Tensegrity crutches with compliance from a pre-stressed self-tensile module improve ground reaction force profiles, speed, effort, comfort, and perceived stability

Andrew Walski; Dobromir Dotov; Jingxian Gu; Joanna Spyra; Lyla Elsaesser; Samuel Bierner

arxiv: 2605.02710 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.RO · nlin.AO

Tensegrity crutches with compliance from a pre-stressed self-tensile module improve ground reaction force profiles, speed, effort, comfort, and perceived stability

Jingxian Gu , Joanna Spyra , Andrew Walski , Lyla Elsaesser , Samuel Bierner , Dobromir Dotov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO nlin.AO

keywords tensegritycrutchescomplianceground reaction forcemobility aidsassistive devicesrehabilitationbiomechanics

0 comments

The pith

Tensegrity crutches with a pre-stressed self-tensile module reduce peak ground reaction forces while improving speed, effort, comfort, and perceived stability compared to rigid and spring-loaded designs.

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

The paper examines whether adding controlled compliance to crutches can address the limitations of both rigid and spring-loaded versions. Rigid crutches transmit high impact forces that stress upper joints, while spring-loaded ones sometimes reduce stability and walking speed. The authors built the foot module as a pre-stressed two-cell tensegrity structure that supplies nonlinear stiffness and ground-following behavior. In mechanical tests and trials with 18 healthy adults using a knee blocker to simulate leg injury, the tensegrity crutches matched the force reduction of spring designs but preserved or improved speed and stability. Subjective ratings also favored the new design on effort, comfort, pain, and usability.

Core claim

The tensegrity crutches were an overall improvement to existing designs. Compared to rigid crutches, both the spring-loaded and tensegrity versions lowered peak loading rates during walking and turning. Unlike the spring-loaded crutches, the tensegrity version did not reduce walking speed or perceived stability. Participants rated the tensegrity crutches higher on effort, comfort, pain reduction, and usability. Mechanical testing and simulations indicate that the nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, and force feedback properties of the pre-stressed self-tensile module account for these advantages.

What carries the argument

The pre-stressed self-tensile two-cell tensegrity structure used as the terminal module, which supplies nonlinear compliance and ground-following behavior during axial loading.

If this is right

Lower peak loading rates during each step could reduce cumulative stress on wrists, elbows, and shoulders.
Preserved walking speed and perceived stability allow users to maintain functional mobility without the trade-offs seen in spring-loaded crutches.
Higher comfort and lower perceived effort may increase the likelihood that users continue employing the aids as prescribed.
The combination of compliance and stability suggests the tensegrity module can be scaled to other assistive devices that require both shock absorption and ground contact fidelity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the nonlinear properties remain advantageous outside the lab, the same module architecture could be adapted for canes or walker tips to improve force transmission in varied terrains.
Long-term field trials with patients would be required to check whether the observed short-session benefits translate into measurable reductions in secondary injury rates.
Adding simple force sensors to the tensegrity module might amplify the feedback advantages already present in the mechanical design.

Load-bearing premise

The short-term performance gains measured in healthy young adults with a temporary knee blocker will continue to hold for long-term daily use by people who actually have lower-limb impairments.

What would settle it

A follow-up study in which actual patients with lower-limb impairment use the tensegrity crutches for several weeks and show no reduction in secondary upper-body joint pain or no gain in daily walking distance compared with standard crutches would falsify the claim of overall improvement.

read the original abstract

Purpose: Six million people use crutches as mobile aids in the US. Rigid designs with no axial mobility limit sensory feedback and lead to secondary injury on the upper joints. Spring-loaded designs offer compliance but may compromise stability. We designed a biologically inspired tensegrity crutch with a compliant module aiming to achieve favorable mechanical properties. The terminal module was a pre-stressed self-tensile two-cell tensegrity structure. We compared the tensegrity crutch to commercial rigid and spring-loaded crutches in mechanical tests using axial loading, in overground straight and turning walking, and in participant experience. Methods: In human trials, healthy young adults (N=18) with no recent lower-body injury performed straight walking and turning trials at a comfortable self-selected pace. A knee blocker simulated unilateral injury of the dominant leg. After using each type of crutch, participants reported their perceived levels of effort, comfort, pain, stability, and usability. Results: Compared to the rigid design, both spring-loaded and tensegrity conditions reduced peak loading rates. The tensegrity design improved effort, comfort, pain, and usability. Spring-loaded crutches reduced perceived stability and walking speed. Conclusion: The biologically inspired tensegrity crutches were an overall improvement to existing designs. Simulations and mechanical testing suggest that nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, and force feedback are among the beneficial mechanical properties that underlie this improvement.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Tensegrity crutches cut peak loads and improve subjective comfort over rigid ones in a small trial, but the evidence is too thin for broad claims about patient use.

read the letter

The paper's main takeaway is that adding a pre-stressed two-cell tensegrity module to crutch tips gives lower peak loading rates than rigid crutches and better user ratings on effort, comfort, pain, and usability than either rigid or spring-loaded versions, at least for short walks and turns. It also avoids the stability and speed drop seen with the spring design. That combination is the practical point worth noting first. What is new is the specific choice of a self-tensile tensegrity structure with pre-stress as the compliant element, plus direct mechanical axial-load tests and human gait trials that pit it against both commercial rigid crutches and spring-loaded ones. The design draws on tensegrity robotics ideas but applies them to a daily mobility aid in a way that prior work does not appear to have done. The mechanical tests and the participant ratings after each condition are clear enough steps to check whether the nonlinear stiffness and ground-following properties actually show up in use. The paper does a reasonable job documenting that both compliant crutches reduce loading rates while only the tensegrity version improves the subjective scores without side effects on speed or stability. The simulations that point to force feedback and nonlinear behavior as the mechanism are a logical next step to explain why. The soft spots sit mainly in the human data. The study uses 18 healthy young adults with a knee blocker to simulate injury, which is a standard quick proxy but does not capture the force patterns, proprioception, or long-term adaptation of people with actual chronic lower-limb impairment. The abstract gives only summary statements with no statistical tests, effect sizes, raw curves, or exclusion criteria, so it is difficult to judge how consistent or large the differences really are. Short lab sessions also leave open whether the pre-stress level stays advantageous outside controlled conditions or over weeks of daily use. This work is for engineers and clinicians focused on assistive devices and rehabilitation robotics. A reader already thinking about compliant mechanisms or crutch redesign could pick up the tensegrity module idea and the comparison framework. It is not yet ready for clinical guidelines, but the core mechanical concept is concrete enough that a serious referee could usefully press on the statistics, the simulation details, and the generalization limits. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a biologically inspired tensegrity crutch design featuring a pre-stressed self-tensile two-cell tensegrity module to provide nonlinear compliance. It evaluates this against commercial rigid and spring-loaded crutches via axial mechanical loading tests, unspecified simulations, and human overground walking trials (straight and turning) with N=18 healthy young adults using a knee blocker to simulate unilateral lower-limb impairment. Key findings include reduced peak loading rates for both compliant designs versus rigid, plus subjective improvements in effort, comfort, pain, and usability for the tensegrity version (with spring-loaded reducing perceived stability and speed). The authors conclude that nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, and force feedback underlie the advantages.

Significance. If the mechanical advantages and user benefits are robustly confirmed, the work could inform next-generation assistive devices that reduce secondary upper-limb injuries from rigid crutches while preserving stability, addressing a common mobility aid used by millions. The multi-modal evaluation (mechanical, simulated, and perceptual) is a strength, though the short-term healthy-subject data limits immediate clinical translation.

major comments (4)

[Human trials / Results] Human trials (Methods and Results sections): Results are reported only as summary statements without raw force curves, statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA or paired t-tests with p-values and effect sizes), exclusion criteria, or data-processing details for the N=18 participants. This prevents assessment of variability, potential post-hoc selection, or robustness of claims that tensegrity improved effort/comfort/pain/usability over rigid and spring-loaded designs.
[Discussion / Conclusion] Generalization and participant population (Discussion and Conclusion): The central improvement claim rests on short-term lab data from healthy young adults with acute knee-blocker simulation. This does not address chronic adaptations, altered proprioception, or force-distribution patterns in actual patients with lower-limb impairment, nor long-term effects on secondary injury risk outside controlled conditions; the load-bearing assumption that lab gains will translate is untested.
[Introduction / Methods] Mechanical properties and simulations (Introduction and Methods): Beneficial properties (nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, force feedback) are only suggested from unspecified simulations and axial loading tests. No quantitative details (e.g., force-displacement curves, pre-stress tension levels, or model parameters) are provided to link these properties causally to the observed force-profile improvements.
[Results] Objective gait metrics (Results): Claims of improved speed for tensegrity versus spring-loaded and better stability rely on subjective ratings and self-selected pace; no objective measures (stride length, cadence, center-of-mass stability, or turning kinematics) are reported to corroborate the perceptual and speed advantages.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] Clarify the exact pre-stress tension level used in the tensegrity module and whether it was held constant across trials.
[Methods] Add participant demographics (age range, height, weight) and any power analysis for the N=18 sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We have made revisions to address the major concerns regarding data reporting, mechanical details, and study limitations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Human trials (Methods and Results sections): Results are reported only as summary statements without raw force curves, statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA or paired t-tests with p-values and effect sizes), exclusion criteria, or data-processing details for the N=18 participants. This prevents assessment of variability, potential post-hoc selection, or robustness of claims that tensegrity improved effort/comfort/pain/usability over rigid and spring-loaded designs.

Authors: We agree that additional details are necessary for reproducibility and assessment of robustness. In the revised manuscript, we have included: (1) full statistical methods (paired t-tests with p-values and effect sizes), (2) exclusion criteria (no recent lower-limb injuries or balance issues), (3) data processing pipeline (synchronization of force plates, filtering, peak rate calculation), and (4) representative raw force-time curves for each crutch type in a new figure. Variability across participants is now reported with means, SDs, and individual data overlays. revision: yes
Referee: Generalization and participant population (Discussion and Conclusion): The central improvement claim rests on short-term lab data from healthy young adults with acute knee-blocker simulation. This does not address chronic adaptations, altered proprioception, or force-distribution patterns in actual patients with lower-limb impairment, nor long-term effects on secondary injury risk outside controlled conditions; the load-bearing assumption that lab gains will translate is untested.

Authors: We acknowledge the limitations of using healthy participants with simulated impairment. The revised Discussion now includes an expanded limitations paragraph addressing the lack of data on chronic users, altered proprioception in patients, and untested long-term effects on secondary injuries. We have clarified that while the knee blocker simulates acute impairment, translation to real patients requires further validation, and we have moderated the conclusions to reflect this. revision: partial
Referee: Mechanical properties and simulations (Introduction and Methods): Beneficial properties (nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, force feedback) are only suggested from unspecified simulations and axial loading tests. No quantitative details (e.g., force-displacement curves, pre-stress tension levels, or model parameters) are provided to link these properties causally to the observed force-profile improvements.

Authors: We have revised the Methods section to provide quantitative details on the simulations and mechanical tests. This includes force-displacement curves showing the nonlinear behavior, pre-stress tension levels (specified as 40-60 N depending on configuration), and simulation model parameters (e.g., strut lengths, cable stiffness). We now explicitly link these properties to the reduced peak loading rates observed in human trials by describing how the self-tensile module provides initial compliance followed by stiffening for stability. revision: yes
Referee: Objective gait metrics (Results): Claims of improved speed for tensegrity versus spring-loaded and better stability rely on subjective ratings and self-selected pace; no objective measures (stride length, cadence, center-of-mass stability, or turning kinematics) are reported to corroborate the perceptual and speed advantages.

Authors: The walking speed was objectively measured as the average velocity during the trials, and we have now reported these values with statistical comparisons in the Results. However, detailed kinematic metrics such as stride length, cadence, and CoM stability were not recorded in this study, as the primary focus was on ground reaction forces and subjective user experience. We have added this to the limitations section and note that these would be valuable additions in future work to further support the findings. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical results stand independently of any derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports direct mechanical loading tests, overground walking trials (straight and turning) with N=18 healthy participants using a knee blocker, and post-trial subjective ratings of effort, comfort, pain, stability, and usability. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivation steps are presented that reduce to their own inputs. The conclusion attributes benefits to nonlinear stiffness, ground-following, and force feedback based on the observed data and unspecified simulations; these are not shown to be self-definitional or forced by self-citation. The central improvement claim is therefore carried by the experimental measurements themselves rather than by any circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The design relies on the unproven assumption that a pre-stressed tensegrity cell will exhibit the claimed nonlinear stiffness and ground-following behavior under real-world loading without buckling or fatigue; no independent evidence for long-term durability is supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (1)

pre-stress tension level
Chosen to achieve the desired compliance; exact value not stated in abstract but required to tune the module's force-displacement curve.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Tensegrity structures maintain stability under compression when cables are pre-tensioned
Invoked to justify the self-tensile module's behavior; standard in tensegrity literature but treated as given here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5590 in / 1401 out tokens · 104678 ms · 2026-05-08T17:57:36.177456+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost (J-cost) washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

An important property of the tensegrity module is its nonlinear stiffness profile... the stiffness started at 16.3 kN/m but accelerated with increasing force and it was 121.3 kN/m at around 1000 N.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2018.1483209 Micheletti, A., & Podio-Guidugli, P . (2022). Seventy years of tensegrities (and counting). Archive of Applied Mechanics, 92(9), 2525–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419- 022-02192-4 Mirletz, B. T., Park, I.-W., Flemons, T. E., Agogino, A. K., Quinn, R. D., & SunSpiral, V . (2014, July 15). Design and Control...

work page doi:10.1080/01691864.2018.1483209 2018
[2]

W., Hargrove, L

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.010 Whitmore, M. W., Hargrove, L. J., & Perreault, E. J. (2016). Gait Characteristics When Walking on Different Slippery Walkways. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 63(1), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2015.2497659 WHO, & Fund (UNICEF), U. N. C. (2022). Global report on assistive technology. World H...

work page doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.010 2015
[3]

Vertical Peak Loading Rate Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 3.9429*** 5.7125*** 5.5393*** 5.7059*** 5.8860*** (0.4193) (0.4456) (0.4904) (0.5113) (0.5437) Spring -2.7347*** -2.7230*** -2.7290*** -3.2485*** (0.1817) (0.1823) (0.1823) (0.3757) Tensegrity -3.0931*** -3.0505*** -3.0514*** -3.0158*** (0.1854) (0.1922) (0.1922) (0.3851) ...

work page arXiv 1922
[4]

Anteroposterior Peak Loading Rate Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 1.3762*** 1.8769*** 1.8884*** 1.9193*** 1.9339*** (0.1396) (0.1519) (0.1708) (0.1794) (0.1923) Spring -0.6916*** -0.6924*** -0.6935*** -0.7558*** (0.0683) (0.0685) (0.0686) (0.1417) Tensegrity -0.9667*** -0.9695*** -0.9696*** -0.9399*** (0.0697) (0.0723) (0.0723) (0...

work page arXiv 1923
[5]

Mediolateral Peak Loading Rate Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.9637*** 1.0006*** 0.8612*** 0.9277*** 0.9428*** (0.0824) (0.0855) (0.0967) (0.1021) (0.1101) Spring -0.0871* -0.0778 -0.0802 -0.1489 (0.0412) (0.0411) (0.0410) (0.0845) Tensegrity -0.0312 0.0029 0.0025 0.0388 (0.0420) (0.0433) (0.0432) (0.0867) Block 0.0643** 0.0625*...

work page arXiv 2093
[6]

Vertical Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.2909*** 0.2820*** 0.2948*** 0.2985*** 0.3007*** (0.0078) (0.0079) (0.0086) (0.0090) (0.0095) Spring 0.0167*** 0.0159*** 0.0158*** 0.0159** (0.0030) (0.0030) (0.0030) (0.0062) Tensegrity 0.0117*** 0.0089** 0.0089** 0.0001 (0.0031) (0.0032) (0.0032) (0.0064) Block -0.0059*** -0.0060...

work page arXiv
[7]

Anteroposterior Propulsive Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.0174*** 0.0166*** 0.0152*** 0.0134*** 0.0135*** (0.0012) (0.0013) (0.0015) (0.0015) (0.0017) Spring 0.0026*** 0.0027*** 0.0027*** 0.0025 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0013) Tensegrity -0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0013) Block 0.0006 0...

work page arXiv
[8]

Anteroposterior Braking Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.0091*** 0.0094*** 0.0099*** 0.0102*** 0.0104*** (0.0007) (0.0008) (0.0008) (0.0009) (0.0009) Spring 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 -0.0001 (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0006) Tensegrity -0.0012*** -0.0013*** -0.0013*** -0.0015* (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0006) Block -0.000...

work page
[9]

Mediolateral Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.0298*** 0.0295*** 0.0310*** 0.0322*** 0.0321*** (0.0025) (0.0025) (0.0026) (0.0027) (0.0027) Spring 0.0018** 0.0017** 0.0017** 0.0010 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0012) Tensegrity -0.0011 -0.0014* -0.0014* -0.0001 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0013) Block -0.0007* -0.0007* -0...

work page
[10]

Straight condition

Speed. Straight condition. Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Rigid (Baseline) 0.7714*** 0.7858*** 0.7102*** 0.6728*** 0.6686*** 0.6650*** (0.0387) (0.0391) (0.0403) (0.0458) (0.0463) (0.0472) Spring -0.0269** -0.0247** 0.0544 0.0545 0.0368 (0.0090) (0.0085) (0.0321) (0.0321) (0.0357) Tensegrity -0.0164 -0.0033 0.0285 0.0285 0.0582 (0.0091) (...

work page
[11]

Turning condition

Speed. Turning condition. Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Rigid (Baseline) 0.5482*** 0.5683*** 0.4919*** 0.5083*** 0.5037*** 0.5005*** (0.0196) (0.0199) (0.0276) (0.0486) (0.0489) (0.0490) Spring -0.0472*** -0.0359*** -0.0323 -0.0320 -0.0373 (0.0064) (0.0068) (0.0639) (0.0639) (0.0653) Tensegrity -0.0163* -0.0047 -0.0673 -0.0665 -0.0550 (0...

work page 2039
[12]

Borg Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 3.9925*** 3.9281*** 4.1490*** 4.1667*** (0.3080) (0.3205) (0.3200) (0.3314) Spring 0.3714* 0.3714* 0.4444* (0.1714) (0.1617) (0.2261) Tensegrity -0.1938 -0.1921 -0.3274 (0.1732) (0.1634) (0.2308) Turning -0.4645*** -0.5039* (0.1338) (0.2308) Spring*Turning -0.1503 (0.3244) Tensegrity*Turning 0.2686 (0....

work page 1938
[13]

Comfort Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 0.3906 0.0366 -0.1754 -0.1111 (0.2554) (0.2898) (0.3022) (0.3326) Spring 0.1714 0.1714 0.0556 (0.2471) (0.2418) (0.3408) Tensegrity 0.9211*** 0.9186*** 0.8411* (0.2495) (0.2442) (0.3474) Turning 0.4439* 0.3117 (0.1997) (0.3474) Spring*Turning 0.2386 (0.4890) Tensegrity*Turning 0.1589 (0.4936) AIC 35...

work page 1997
[14]

Pain Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 1.1707*** 1.3594*** 1.3706*** 1.5000*** (0.2383) (0.2502) (0.2563) (0.2673) Spring -0.0857 -0.0857 -0.2222 (0.1404) (0.1412) (0.1952) Tensegrity -0.5018*** -0.5018*** -0.7637*** (0.1419) (0.1427) (0.1993) Turning -0.0237 -0.2931 (0.1168) (0.1993) Spring*Turning 0.2810 (0.2801) Tensegrity*Turning 0.5284...

work page 1952
[15]

Perceived Stability Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 0.8137*** 0.9133*** 0.8376** 0.8333** (0.1857) (0.2474) (0.2726) (0.3179) Spring -0.6286* -0.6286* -0.5000 (0.2858) (0.2867) (0.4027) Tensegrity 0.3494 0.3479 0.2239 (0.2882) (0.2892) (0.4096) Turning 0.1575 0.1651 (0.2360) (0.4096) Spring*Turning -0.2647 (0.5779) Tensegrity*Turning 0.24...

work page
[16]

Usability Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 73.3452*** 74.0249*** 73.8554*** 72.5889*** (1.9163) (2.5376) (2.7920) (3.2261) Spring -4.6069 -4.6069 -0.9267 (2.8848) (2.9013) (4.0414) Tensegrity 2.7469 2.7429 2.7827 (2.9098) (2.9265) (4.1108) Turning 0.3507 2.9463 (2.3890) (4.1108) Spring*Turning -7.5769 (5.7989) Tensegrity*Turning -0.1663 (5...

work page

[1] [1]

https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2018.1483209 Micheletti, A., & Podio-Guidugli, P . (2022). Seventy years of tensegrities (and counting). Archive of Applied Mechanics, 92(9), 2525–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419- 022-02192-4 Mirletz, B. T., Park, I.-W., Flemons, T. E., Agogino, A. K., Quinn, R. D., & SunSpiral, V . (2014, July 15). Design and Control...

work page doi:10.1080/01691864.2018.1483209 2018

[2] [2]

W., Hargrove, L

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.010 Whitmore, M. W., Hargrove, L. J., & Perreault, E. J. (2016). Gait Characteristics When Walking on Different Slippery Walkways. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 63(1), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2015.2497659 WHO, & Fund (UNICEF), U. N. C. (2022). Global report on assistive technology. World H...

work page doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.010 2015

[3] [3]

Vertical Peak Loading Rate Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 3.9429*** 5.7125*** 5.5393*** 5.7059*** 5.8860*** (0.4193) (0.4456) (0.4904) (0.5113) (0.5437) Spring -2.7347*** -2.7230*** -2.7290*** -3.2485*** (0.1817) (0.1823) (0.1823) (0.3757) Tensegrity -3.0931*** -3.0505*** -3.0514*** -3.0158*** (0.1854) (0.1922) (0.1922) (0.3851) ...

work page arXiv 1922

[4] [4]

Anteroposterior Peak Loading Rate Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 1.3762*** 1.8769*** 1.8884*** 1.9193*** 1.9339*** (0.1396) (0.1519) (0.1708) (0.1794) (0.1923) Spring -0.6916*** -0.6924*** -0.6935*** -0.7558*** (0.0683) (0.0685) (0.0686) (0.1417) Tensegrity -0.9667*** -0.9695*** -0.9696*** -0.9399*** (0.0697) (0.0723) (0.0723) (0...

work page arXiv 1923

[5] [5]

Mediolateral Peak Loading Rate Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.9637*** 1.0006*** 0.8612*** 0.9277*** 0.9428*** (0.0824) (0.0855) (0.0967) (0.1021) (0.1101) Spring -0.0871* -0.0778 -0.0802 -0.1489 (0.0412) (0.0411) (0.0410) (0.0845) Tensegrity -0.0312 0.0029 0.0025 0.0388 (0.0420) (0.0433) (0.0432) (0.0867) Block 0.0643** 0.0625*...

work page arXiv 2093

[6] [6]

Vertical Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.2909*** 0.2820*** 0.2948*** 0.2985*** 0.3007*** (0.0078) (0.0079) (0.0086) (0.0090) (0.0095) Spring 0.0167*** 0.0159*** 0.0158*** 0.0159** (0.0030) (0.0030) (0.0030) (0.0062) Tensegrity 0.0117*** 0.0089** 0.0089** 0.0001 (0.0031) (0.0032) (0.0032) (0.0064) Block -0.0059*** -0.0060...

work page arXiv

[7] [7]

Anteroposterior Propulsive Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.0174*** 0.0166*** 0.0152*** 0.0134*** 0.0135*** (0.0012) (0.0013) (0.0015) (0.0015) (0.0017) Spring 0.0026*** 0.0027*** 0.0027*** 0.0025 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0013) Tensegrity -0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0013) Block 0.0006 0...

work page arXiv

[8] [8]

Anteroposterior Braking Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.0091*** 0.0094*** 0.0099*** 0.0102*** 0.0104*** (0.0007) (0.0008) (0.0008) (0.0009) (0.0009) Spring 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 -0.0001 (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0006) Tensegrity -0.0012*** -0.0013*** -0.0013*** -0.0015* (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0006) Block -0.000...

work page

[9] [9]

Mediolateral Impulse Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Rigid (Baseline) 0.0298*** 0.0295*** 0.0310*** 0.0322*** 0.0321*** (0.0025) (0.0025) (0.0026) (0.0027) (0.0027) Spring 0.0018** 0.0017** 0.0017** 0.0010 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0012) Tensegrity -0.0011 -0.0014* -0.0014* -0.0001 (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0006) (0.0013) Block -0.0007* -0.0007* -0...

work page

[10] [10]

Straight condition

Speed. Straight condition. Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Rigid (Baseline) 0.7714*** 0.7858*** 0.7102*** 0.6728*** 0.6686*** 0.6650*** (0.0387) (0.0391) (0.0403) (0.0458) (0.0463) (0.0472) Spring -0.0269** -0.0247** 0.0544 0.0545 0.0368 (0.0090) (0.0085) (0.0321) (0.0321) (0.0357) Tensegrity -0.0164 -0.0033 0.0285 0.0285 0.0582 (0.0091) (...

work page

[11] [11]

Turning condition

Speed. Turning condition. Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Rigid (Baseline) 0.5482*** 0.5683*** 0.4919*** 0.5083*** 0.5037*** 0.5005*** (0.0196) (0.0199) (0.0276) (0.0486) (0.0489) (0.0490) Spring -0.0472*** -0.0359*** -0.0323 -0.0320 -0.0373 (0.0064) (0.0068) (0.0639) (0.0639) (0.0653) Tensegrity -0.0163* -0.0047 -0.0673 -0.0665 -0.0550 (0...

work page 2039

[12] [12]

Borg Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 3.9925*** 3.9281*** 4.1490*** 4.1667*** (0.3080) (0.3205) (0.3200) (0.3314) Spring 0.3714* 0.3714* 0.4444* (0.1714) (0.1617) (0.2261) Tensegrity -0.1938 -0.1921 -0.3274 (0.1732) (0.1634) (0.2308) Turning -0.4645*** -0.5039* (0.1338) (0.2308) Spring*Turning -0.1503 (0.3244) Tensegrity*Turning 0.2686 (0....

work page 1938

[13] [13]

Comfort Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 0.3906 0.0366 -0.1754 -0.1111 (0.2554) (0.2898) (0.3022) (0.3326) Spring 0.1714 0.1714 0.0556 (0.2471) (0.2418) (0.3408) Tensegrity 0.9211*** 0.9186*** 0.8411* (0.2495) (0.2442) (0.3474) Turning 0.4439* 0.3117 (0.1997) (0.3474) Spring*Turning 0.2386 (0.4890) Tensegrity*Turning 0.1589 (0.4936) AIC 35...

work page 1997

[14] [14]

Pain Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 1.1707*** 1.3594*** 1.3706*** 1.5000*** (0.2383) (0.2502) (0.2563) (0.2673) Spring -0.0857 -0.0857 -0.2222 (0.1404) (0.1412) (0.1952) Tensegrity -0.5018*** -0.5018*** -0.7637*** (0.1419) (0.1427) (0.1993) Turning -0.0237 -0.2931 (0.1168) (0.1993) Spring*Turning 0.2810 (0.2801) Tensegrity*Turning 0.5284...

work page 1952

[15] [15]

Perceived Stability Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 0.8137*** 0.9133*** 0.8376** 0.8333** (0.1857) (0.2474) (0.2726) (0.3179) Spring -0.6286* -0.6286* -0.5000 (0.2858) (0.2867) (0.4027) Tensegrity 0.3494 0.3479 0.2239 (0.2882) (0.2892) (0.4096) Turning 0.1575 0.1651 (0.2360) (0.4096) Spring*Turning -0.2647 (0.5779) Tensegrity*Turning 0.24...

work page

[16] [16]

Usability Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Rigid (Baseline) 73.3452*** 74.0249*** 73.8554*** 72.5889*** (1.9163) (2.5376) (2.7920) (3.2261) Spring -4.6069 -4.6069 -0.9267 (2.8848) (2.9013) (4.0414) Tensegrity 2.7469 2.7429 2.7827 (2.9098) (2.9265) (4.1108) Turning 0.3507 2.9463 (2.3890) (4.1108) Spring*Turning -7.5769 (5.7989) Tensegrity*Turning -0.1663 (5...

work page