Back

More isn't always better: Too much exoskeleton torque can disrupt balance

Han Kim, J.; Rastogi, R.; Martino, G.; Beck, O. N.; Shepherd, M. K.; Sawicki, G. S.; Ting, L. H.; Jakubowski, K. L.

2026-06-03 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.02.729541 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Wearable exoskeletons are a promising tool for augmenting balance and reducing fall risk. Recent work suggests that active ankle exoskeletons need to act faster than the human to improve reactive balance control. However, the magnitude of exoskeleton torque that is best for improving reactive balance remains unknown. Drawing from the optimal torque for minimizing metabolic expenditure, we hypothesized that reactive balance would improve with increased exoskeleton torque. Participants wearing bilateral ankle exoskeletons were instructed to maintain standing balance during 15cm backward support-surface perturbations. Three exoskeleton plantarflexion torque conditions were tested: NO (Off), LOW (15Nm), or HIGH (30Nm). LOW torque improved balance performance compared to NO torque (p<0.001), with a 7{+/-}3% decrease in peak center of mass (CoM) displacement. Although HIGH torque caused a 9{+/-}11% decrease in peak CoM displacement compared to NO torque (p=0.12), it was not significant due to high intersubject variability. Whereas LOW torque decreased peak CoM displacement in all (range: -0.2 to -1.6cm), HIGH torque only decreased it in some (range = 1.2 to -2.6cm). The change in CoM displacement from LOW to HIGH torque was associated with balance ability, quantified by the narrowing beam test (R2=0.29, p=0.06), while this relationship didnt meet conventional statistical significance, likely due to the small sample size, it suggests that higher levels of exoskeleton torque may hinder balance performance in individuals with better balance ability. Taken together, more exoskeleton torque is not always better for balance, highlighting a potential need to personalize exoskeleton torque for balance augmentation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
2
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.0%
5
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.5%
8
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
13
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
15
npj Microgravity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
Human Movement Science
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
17
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
18
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Journal of Applied Physiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%