Back

Validation of Dynamic Bayesian Optimization for Human-in-the-Loop Optimization of Exoskeleton Control at User-Driven Walking Speed

Kim, G.; Sergi, F.

2026-06-15 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.10.731447 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Human-in-the-loop optimization (HILO) is an established method for identifying subject-specific optimal controllers for performance augmentation. For HILO algorithms to be useful in rehabilitation, however, the optimization algorithm may need to account for how the human response changes over time in response to assistance. In this study, we tested a modified version of Bayesian optimization (BO), dynamic Bayesian optimization (DBO), in a three-parameter optimization problem that sought to identify participant-specific optimal solutions for increasing walking speed. As opposed to BO, DBO accounts for the non-stationarity of human responses. Sixteen healthy participants received bilateral hip torque pulses delivered by a hip exoskeleton. The exoskeleton torque parameters were determined using HILO with either DBO or BO. Validation iterations were introduced to objectively compare performance across optimizers at different time points of HILO. The results showed that both DBO and BO significantly increased walking speed compared to baseline. When comparing performance between DBO and BO, DBO emerged as an improvement over BO both in terms of efficacy, modeling accuracy, and personalization. DBO induced changes in walking speed relative to baseline that exceeded those induced by BO at three of the four validation iterations. DBO outperformed BO in modeling accuracy in later validation iterations. DBO personalization induced changes in walking speed that were significantly greater than those induced by previously identified assistive solutions, while this was not the case of BO. Overall, our results indicate that DBO outperformed BO due to its greater ability to account for non-stationary aspects of the human response.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.3%
2
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.7%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.7%
4
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.4%
6
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
7
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
8
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.1%
10
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.9%
11
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
15
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
16
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
17
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
19
Gait & Posture
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
20
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 33%
0.6%