Back

Can predictive simulations provide insights for personalizing assistive wearable device design?

Mahmoudi, A.; Firouzi, V.; Rinderknecht, S.; Seyfarth, A.; Sharbafi, M. A.

2026-04-01 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.03.30.715312 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Optimizing assistive wearable devices is crucial for their efficacy and user adoption, yet state-of-the-art methods like Human-in-the-Loop Optimization (HILO) and biomechanical modeling face limitations. HILO is time-consuming and often restricted to optimizing control parameters, while inverse dynamics assumes invariant kinematics, which is unreliable for adaptive human-device interaction. Predictive simulation offers a powerful alternative, enabling computational exploration of design spaces. However, existing approaches often lack systematic optimization frameworks and rigorous validation against experimental data. To address this, we developed a Design Optimization Platform that integrates predictive simulations within a two-level optimization structure for personalizing assistive device design. This paper primarily validates the platforms predictive simulations against a publicly available dataset of the passive Biarticular Thigh Exosuit (BATEX), assessing its reliability. Our findings show that the model can sufficiently predict the kinematics and major muscle activations, except for the pelvis tilt and some biarticular muscles. The key finding is that successful identification of personalized optimal BATEX stiffness parameters needs acceptable prediction of metabolic cost trends, not their precise values. Our analysis further reveals that the models accuracy in predicting Vasti muscle activation in the baseline condition is a significant indicator of its success in predicting metabolic cost trends. This demonstrates that accurate prediction of performance trends is more important for effective simulation-based design optimization than perfect biomechanical accuracy, advancing targeted and efficient assistive device development.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.1%
2
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.0%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.2%
6
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
7
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
8
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
9
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.3%
11
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.3%
13
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
14
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.1%
17
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.9%
18
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
21
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
22
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%