Factors Affecting Adoption of Wearable and Soft Robotics: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Benjamin Wee Keong Ang
,
Chen-Hua Yeow
,
Jeong Hoon Lim

The advent of soft robotics has changed the landscape of wearable technologies. Soft robots are highly compliant and malleable, thus ensuring safe human-machine interactions. A wide variety of actuation mechanisms have been studied and adopted into a multitude of soft wearables for use in clinical practice, such as assistive devices and rehabilitation modalities. Much research effort has been put into improving their technical performance and establishing the ideal indications for which rigid exoskeletons would play a limited role.

  • wearable robot
  • soft exoskeleton
  • exosuit

1. Introduction

The sole reason for the existence of robots is to assist humans. They are commonly found in industrial settings where automation has replaced manual and repetitive labor. Recent technological trends, however, show robots getting ever closer in the way they interact with humans; this is also the case for modern wearables. Wearable technology generally refers to electronic systems that can be worn by humans. They come in various forms, from a simple wristwatch [1] to sophisticated smart clothing with embedded sensors that record and transmit physiological data [2][3][4]. Advancements in wearable technologies have primarily been motivated by therapeutic needs from the beginning of 20th century until now [4][5]. Modern consumer wearables are equipped with various sensors that aid in precise diagnostics and personalized treatment [6][7][8][9]. Consequently, consumer wearables in the workplace can also give employers an idea of workers’ general well-being by providing feedback on stress levels [10][11][12].
Aside from consumer wearables, rigid-type exoskeletons also seek to enhance the physical performance of healthy individuals. Laborious work requires strength and endurance on a day-to-day basis, but human muscles can easily become fatigued. Exoskeletons increase human fatigue limits by delivering augmentative forces through their rigid frame in the form of bionic limbs. For instance, to aid workers who walk long distances regularly, these wearables reduce metabolic cost by assisting with lower limb mobility [13][14][15][16]. Other rigid-type exoskeletons provide additional force or torque to reduce the muscular effort needed to complete manual work, thereby improving workers’ endurance and productivity [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Their use has been widely explored beyond the laboratory environment, specifically in industrial [21], rehabilitative [22], and military [23] applications.
More recently, the arrival of soft robotics has changed the outlook for wearable technologies. As opposed to classical robots with a rigid frame, the term “soft robots” describes the use of soft materials in a system possessing multiple degrees of freedom (DOFs) [24]. Soft robots are generally bioinspired in their designs, and their maneuvering mechanisms mimic those of an octopus [25][26], a fish [27][28], a manta ray [29], plants [30][31], geckos [32][33][34], and human hands [35][36]. Their high deformation states guarantee safe human-machine interactions, and the overall weight of a soft exoskeleton is typically lower than that of its rigid counterpart. However, as they are lightweight, soft actuators unfortunately have a poor payload [37]. Therefore, efforts are continually being made to improve the payload-to-weight ratio [37][38][39]. Unlike rigid-type wearables, soft exoskeletons are not well-equipped to provide augmentative forces but have been particularly useful in rehabilitation applications [40][41] that supplement the user’s strength.
Over the last decade, there have been remarkable technical advancements in actuation mechanisms and their applications to soft wearables for clinical practice, including rehabilitation modalities and assistive devices. The extensive research on material, design, bespoke sensing, and manufacturing has prompted better performance of soft robotics, which has brought forth unique functionality to address the shortcomings of rigid exoskeletons. However, almost all studies and reviews have represented the perspective of service providers in the robotics ecosystem. Given that there are few studies investigating the user experience, it would be an opportune time to examine the factors affecting user adoption of soft wearables.

2. Intrinsic Factors

2.1. Design Challenges

Firstly, the wearable has to be easy for a user to don and doff. In tendon-based wearables, since the wire routing has to be precise, multiple straps and anchor points are needed to keep the tendon sheaths in place. Pneumatic and hydraulic actuators, on the other hand, can be imprecisely placed on the wearable. Nonetheless, none of these wearables enable users to wear the device independently; healthy individuals generally have no problem doing so, but impaired users will require assistance. Moreover, the benefits in muscular or metabolic activity of healthy individuals are rather minuscule considering the hassle needed to put on an assistive wearable, achieving a reduction of 15% at best [42][43], with many others below 10% only [38][44][45][46][47][48]. If more assistance is needed, external structures should be introduced to reroute the tendon above the skin so that the effective moment arm applied over a joint can be increased. An alternative is to use a stronger motor to generate greater tension in the cables. Either way, the wearable will get bulkier and require design changes to allow users to don it independently.
Secondly, the wearable needs to be portable. Wearability and portability are two distinct features. The wearable component may be low-profile, lightweight, and easy to don, but the control system may not be portable. For example, some cable-driven wearables have the motor located externally [49][50], with the control system being wheeled around the user. Pneumatic- and hydraulic-based wearables also need to be tethered to a compressor or a tank, which limits their portability and applicability to rehabilitative settings. Unless the entire package can be made smaller and lighter, users will be less willing to use the device on a daily basis, as they will have difficulty transporting it while carrying out their daily tasks [51].
Thirdly, the wearable should be practical for its intended use while not interfering with other daily activities. Despite the remarkable experimental results in a controlled environment, some reported questionable outcomes in real-life situations. For instance, Shi et al. [52] developed a cable-driven wearable that assists knee motion and has a unique energy harvesting function during walking. However, the cadence is limited to a maximum of 2 km/h and may not cater to the average person’s walking speed. In another work, Hennig et al. [53] developed an assistive hand exoskeleton with an intuitive EMG control scheme that had an activation accuracy of 94.8%. However, the hand closure was slow at 1.2 s, making it more suitable for rehabilitative training instead of assisting with activities of daily living (ADLs). Schmidt et al. [54] devised a cable-driven suit that reduces up to 30% of muscular activity in the hips and knees during sit-to-stand transitions. Unfortunately, the suit was heavy, with two actuator units each weighing 1 kg on each leg, making other ADLs strenuous. Similarly, Zhang et al. [55] developed a vacuum-actuated rotary actuator that assists knee flexion during walking, but the wearable was bulky and hindered activities such as sitting at a desk for an extended period of time. In light of the given examples, although the actuation mechanism is sound and the experimental results are affirmative in terms of assisting strenuous tasks, the caveats in the design would render the wearable impractical for real-life usage.

2.2. Availability of Materials

Cable-driven wearables are made from off-the-shelf metal wires and electric motors. Similarly, SMA-based wearables are fabricated using commercially available SMA wires. Other types of soft wearables, however, are made of unusual materials. Pneumatically- and hydraulically-driven, PVC-based wearables primarily consist of elastomeric actuators that mimic living tissues. These elastomers are blended with other polymers in precise ratios so that their stiffness can be adjusted. In some cases, composite materials are used to adjust stiffness. For instance, Polygerinos et al. [56] described their work on a hand-wearable that used an elastomeric tubular construct reinforced with anisotropic fibers to program motions such as bending, extending, extending-twisting, and bending-twisting.
The fabrication process is multiphasic and requires manual winding of the fiber around a cured elastomer. Such manual processes make it difficult to manufacture soft actuators at scale, as they are labor-intensive and costly. Furthermore, substitutes for elastomers may not be commercially available. In the event that the substitute does exist, its material properties and mechanical behavior would be different from those created manually in the laboratory, compromising the performance of the wearable. Moreover, should the soft wearable be embedded with sensors [44][57][58][59][60], the challenge in material selection and the complexity of manufacturing would increase accordingly. That said, it is paramount that materials used to fabricate soft wearables be obtainable on the market. If commercial equivalents are unavailable or specially treated materials are indispensable to preserve the niche functions, the materials have to make economic sense [61]. Otherwise, the soft wearable may be inadequate for mass production and lose its marketability. Furthermore, the difficulty in procuring these basic materials may complicate the replacement and maintenance of the parts.
3D printing has emerged as a viable option to fabricate complex elastomers. Yeow’s research group has done much work on developing 3D printed soft actuators integrated into hand [62], wrist [63] and elbow [64] soft wearables. The filaments used are commercially available, ranging from 60 A to 85 A in Shore hardness. Fabrication is automated, and since the actuators are identical to one another, performance is more consistent than if they were handmade. However, even though the actuator design remains unchanged, printing settings tend to vary among consumer-grade printers. Although an industrial-grade 3D printer would provide more accurate and reliable calibration, it may not be available to most laboratories. Material choices are also limited, with the softest material available at 60 A shore hardness. Some soft wearables are silicone-based and possess much lower shore hardness, making them more capable due to their larger strain response. As such, more commercial 3D printing mechanisms and filament options need to be established before they can be adopted as a mainstream option for fabricating diverse elastomer-based wearables.

2.3. Durability

To date, few studies have been conducted to investigate the durability of soft wearables and their actuators. Technically, cable-driven wearables are as durable as their motors, whose actuation cycles are rated in the millions. However, other failure modes. such as wear and tear of the textile and anchor points, have yet to be considered and investigated [65]. A couple of studies have shown that elastomeric actuators are prone to fatigue due to the large stress and strain applied cyclically [66][67]. In the case of SMA-based wearables, rapid heating and cooling in an electric field can result in rapid breakdown of the wires. While failure modes and methods to extend the longevity of SMA wires have been reported [68][69], durability studies of SMA-based wearables should be carried out more extensively [70][71][72].
Soft wearables are structurally vulnerable compared with rigid ones, so regular maintenance is needed to maintain their performance. The frequency of maintenance and replacement needs to be optimized to keep operational costs low. Aside from using more durable materials, fatigue optimization should be done during the design process to ensure the longevity of these actuators [73]. Results from fatigue studies and durability tests can provide useful information on how to preempt system failure and reduce operational downtime.

2.4. Modeling and Control

Efficient control of soft wearables is vital in operation because it directly affects user-machine interaction. Basic control schemes include the use of buttons [74][75], a smartphone [76], or a joystick [77] to conduct preprogrammed actions. Such control methodologies are mostly unintuitive and require a free hand to operate. These soft wearables are therefore more suited for rehabilitative applications than assistive ones that prioritize task efficiency. Rehabilitative exercises can be carried out repetitively without the constraints of time and portability under these touch-based controls. These preprogrammed actions are simple and have a predetermined path, which does not require the precise modeling of a soft actuator.
More intuitive and complex control algorithms involve event-driven torque compensation or intent detection. For example, Cao et al. [44] recently presented a hardware circuit design that utilizes sensor fusion to allow the wearable to decipher motion intention and perform power-assisted control in a lower limb exoskeleton. The control system uses a combination of EMG sensors, inertial measurement units mounted on the lower limb, and force-resistive sensors embedded in the insoles to detect gait phases. Power delivery is efficient with a 1% delay time. Similarly, Natali et al. [57] used embedded force sensors in the insoles of an exosuit, XoSoft, to detect gait phases and assist hip and knee movements simultaneously. The resultant assistance was approximately 10% for hip actuation and 9% for knee actuation.
Upper-limb rehabilitation can also be improved by involving EMG sensors for intent detection during mirror therapy [60][78][79]. One comparative study [80] showed that, by using a neural network-based strategy, a difference of more than 50% in torque compensation could be observed as opposed to several other control methods. Therefore, applying forces inappropriately will cause premature muscular contraction that eventually leads to increased metabolic expenditure. That said, further research should be directed towards determining the most effective control strategy for a particular soft wearable.
However, difficulty arises due to the nonlinear behavior of elastomeric actuators, which is hard to model. Precise control along the actuator’s continuum may not be achievable in the control of these wearables. Researchers thus simplify their control by using one input to drive multiple DOFs in one or more joints [51][56][60][62][63][75][79][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. In addition to modeling the behavior of the wearable, it should be underscored that human tissues are highly deformable and the interface needs to better conform to the skin [94] to better correlate with the motion of the body.

2.5. Artificial Intelligence Augmentation

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a hot research topic in recent years. It is a broad term that generally refers to the ability of a machine or computer to perform tasks that require human intelligence. Based on the results of this systematic review, AI capabilities are scarcely embedded in software wearables. Most of the contemporary software wearables are not equipped with the appropriate sensors, computing power for AI augmentation, or intuitive control algorithms. Some effort has been made towards developing soft sensors, but none has been actively applied to a soft wearable with the aim of imbuing it with AI capabilities. In an article by Wang et al. [95], several prevalent sensors (i.e., resistive, piezoresistive, capacitive, optical, magnetic, and inductive sensors) have been shown to be promising for inventing sensorized soft robots. Despite such developments in soft robotics proprioception, it is recognized that not much work is being done on interpreting the data from these sensing systems. Advanced algorithms and new frameworks are needed to interpret the raw data collected and construct sensible information.
The importance of AI augmentation is obvious when discussing the ability to conduct data analysis for performance tracking. These tracking data are helpful for collecting clinical feedback and informatics firsthand. More advanced algorithms may make it feasible for the wearable to adjust the workout intensity according to a patient’s progress, thus allowing for a bespoke training regimen to accelerate the patient’s functional recovery. Secondly, at the forefront of assistive wearables, AI can reflect the state and monitor the performance of the actuators [96]. Repair and maintenance can then be prompted automatically upon detecting a malfunction.
It is noteworthy that the few soft wearables programmed with algorithms [74][80][97][98][99] are not portable, as they often require a tether to an external computing source. Given that portability of the overall system is one of the technical challenges of AI augmentation of soft wearables, wireless data processing should be taken into account.

3. Extrinsic Factors

3.1. Standardized Evaluation Criteria

After the soft actuators have been fabricated and integrated into wearables, they undergo a series of experiments and tests to demonstrate their actual performance. One metric involves assessing the ability of the soft wearable to replicate or assist natural biomechanical motions. To evaluate this, a kinematic analysis of joint movements is commonly conducted. Another method involves estimating or measuring the assistive torque and force outputs from the wearable. However, none of the reviewed articles cover a comprehensive list of experiments; some have been done while others have been arbitrarily omitted. For instance, a study by Otálora et al. [100] used only gait timings to assess the biomechanics of lower limb motion but did not evaluate gait patterns or the assistive torque rendered by the use of the wearable. On the other hand, Natali et al. [101] not only tracked the joint angle throughout a gait cycle but also recorded joint moments. Another widely accepted metric for assessing a soft wearable involves measuring muscular or metabolic activity, which was used as the primary indicator in the evaluation of the wearable [42][100]. Various research groups have used these values to claim superiority over one another. As mentioned earlier, researchers have reported reductions of up to 15% in metabolic or muscular activity [38][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] by applying their soft wearables.
However, the discrepancy in sample size, demographics of human subjects, experimental protocols, and metrics for assessment may render these claims fallible. An important metric, net metabolic savings, is rarely reported. For example, emphasis is placed on the difference in metabolic activity between the powered-on state and the powered-off state when a wearable is already worn during an exercise session. Since wearing a soft wearable and keeping it on would inevitably raise metabolic activity, net metabolic activity should be calculated without wearing the device as well. Asbeck et al. [38] found that users carrying their backpack-sized control system, which weighed a total of 10.1 kg, experienced an increase in metabolism from 16% to 17.5%. Additional steps were needed thereafter to optimize the weight distribution of the system on the body, eventually attaining an average metabolic reduction of 6.4%.
A reduction in metabolic or muscular activity undoubtedly implies effective assistive force provided by a soft wearable. Nevertheless, the distinction has not yet been made between the two, and studies have arbitrarily chosen one over the other to gauge the performance of a soft wearable. Chen et al. [102] measured both metabolic and muscular activity to substantiate the effectiveness of their wearables in assisting hip flexion and claimed that it lowered metabolic consumption by 11.52% when walking on the treadmill at 5 km per hour. Other studies excluded these tests entirely in their evaluation of the wearables [56][71][87][88]. As there is currently no testing methodology that can be used universally, academia and industry should come to an agreement to ensure fair assessments and comparisons of soft wearable technologies.

3.2. Public Perception

The adoption rate of any technology is greatly influenced by public perception. This ultimately drives demand for a product. The same rule applies to soft wearables, which are a relatively novel technology. Despite its recent emergence, little effort has been made thus far to improve the public’s perception of soft wearables. To this end, some recommendations can be made as follows:

Improving Perceived Utility

Although the experimental results described in these works are commendable, the values reported are irrelevant to the user. These have to be translated into tangible and economic benefits in terms of saved man-hours, reduced risk when completing strenuous tasks [103], and positive clinical evaluation [104], for example. As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, the current assessment of assistive soft wearables is discrete and specific to an intended use. Moreover, most studies have been conducted at the proof-of-concept stage thus far, which may not provide strong evidence to change clinical practice. Undeniably, the paucity of high-profile large-scale clinical trials adopting universal evaluation standards has hampered building confidence in device performance and clinical benefits.
Additionally, more thought should be put into the design to integrate the wearable into daily life without hindering movement, as user-centric design approaches can foster the adoption of soft wearables [105]. Moreover, global sentiment towards AI augmentation remains largely positive. An effort to incorporate smart sensors is therefore required, despite the technical challenges. When developed and used responsibly, such technologies will appear futuristic and have the potential to make a significant impact on society [106].

Increasing Ease of Use

With the bulkiness of some soft wearable designs, it is noteworthy that little feedback has been collected regarding comfort and ease of use. Only a few studies have been done regarding optimization of the interface to improve comfort, alleviate unnecessary stresses on the body [107], and reinforce functionality [108][109]. In some wearable designs, there is a trade-off between functionality and comfort, and a balance should be sought. More work needs to be done on pneumatic and hydraulic systems, in particular, to upgrade the portability of control systems by reducing their size and the weight of the power source [110].

Improving Aesthetics

Although the façade of a soft wearable may seem unessential to its adoption, social acceptance is an important aspect of consumer behavior [111]. The aesthetic elements of soft wearables have to reflect psychological and social factors [112]—wearable soft robots need to be unnoticeable and unobtrusive when worn [113]. Especially for disabled individuals, successful adoption of an assistive wearable requires them to explore the meaning of these devices in their daily lives, tailor their expectations of the technology, weigh the social costs, and adapt to their disability [114]. Therefore, if these requirements are not met, users are more likely to discard the device, regardless of its technical capabilities.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/s23063263

References

  1. Guler, S.D.; Gannon, M.; Sicchio, K. (Eds.) A Brief History of Wearables. In Crafting Wearables: Blending Technology with Fashion; Apress: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 3–10.
  2. Luczak, T.; Burch, R.; Lewis, E.; Chander, H.; Ball, J. State-of-the-art review of athletic wearable technology: What 113 strength and conditioning coaches and athletic trainers from the USA said about technology in sports. Int. J. Sport. Sci. Coach. 2020, 15, 26–40.
  3. Ometov, A.; Shubina, V.; Klus, L.; Skibińska, J.; Saafi, S.; Pascacio, P.; Flueratoru, L.; Gaibor, D.Q.; Chukhno, N.; Chukhno, O.; et al. A Survey on Wearable Technology: History, State-of-the-Art and Current Challenges. Comput. Netw. 2021, 193, 108074.
  4. Izmailova, E.S.; Wagner, J.A.; Perakslis, E.D. Wearable Devices in Clinical Trials: Hype and Hypothesis. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 104, 42–52.
  5. Binkley, P.F. Predicting the potential of wearable technology. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 2003, 22, 23–27.
  6. Iqbal, S.M.A.; Mahgoub, I.; Du, E.; Leavitt, M.A.; Asghar, W. Advances in healthcare wearable devices. NPJ Flex. Electron. 2021, 5, 9.
  7. Dunn, J.; Runge, R.; Snyder, M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Pers. Med. 2018, 15, 429–448.
  8. Chakrabarti, S.; Biswas, N.; Jones, L.D.; Kesari, S.; Ashili, S. Smart Consumer Wearables as Digital Diagnostic Tools: A Review. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2110.
  9. Cotter, G.; Moshkovitz, Y.; Kaluski, E.; Cohen, A.J.; Miller, H.; Goor, D.; Vered, Z. Accurate, noninvasive continuous monitoring of cardiac output by whole-body electrical bioimpedance. Chest 2004, 125, 1431–1440.
  10. Muaremi, A.; Arnrich, B.; Tröster, G. Towards Measuring Stress with Smartphones and Wearable Devices during Workday and Sleep. BioNanoScience 2013, 3, 172–183.
  11. Lavallière, M.; Burstein, A.A.; Arezes, P.; Coughlin, J.F. Tackling the challenges of an aging workforce with the use of wearable technologies and the quantified-self. Dyna 2016, 83, 38–43.
  12. Zenonos, A.; Khan, A.; Kalogridis, G.; Vatsikas, S.; Lewis, T.; Sooriyabandara, M. HealthyOffice: Mood Recognition at Work Using Smartphones and Wearable Sensors. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (PerCom Workshops), Sydney, Australia, 14–18 March 2016.
  13. Malcolm, P.; Derave, W.; Galle, S.; De Clercq, D. A simple exoskeleton that assists plantarflexion can reduce the metabolic cost of human walking. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56137.
  14. Pratt, J.E.; Krupp, B.T.; Morse, C.J.; Collins, S.H. The RoboKnee: An Exoskeleton for Enhancing Strength and Endurance during Walking. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA, USA, 26 April–1 May 2004.
  15. Sankai, Y. HAL: Hybrid Assistive Limb Based on Cybernics. In Robotics Research. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics; Kaneko, M., Nakamura, Y., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 66, pp. 25–34.
  16. Fontana, M.; Vertechy, R.; Marcheschi, S.; Salsedo, F.; Bergamasco, M. The Body Extender: A Full-Body Exoskeleton for the Transport and Handling of Heavy Loads. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2014, 21, 34–44.
  17. Kazerooni, H.; Steger, R.; Huang, L. Hybrid Control of the Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX). Int. J. Robot. Res. 2006, 25, 561–573.
  18. Hessinger, M.; Pingsmann, M.; Perry, J.C.; Werthschützky, R.; Kupnik, M. Hybrid Position/Force Control of an Upper-Limb Exoskeleton for Assisted Drilling. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017.
  19. Park, S.; Kim, S.; Sim, K.; Piao, J.; Han, R.; Kim, S.; Koo, S. Development of suits for upper-body movement-assistive wearable robots for industrial workers. Text. Res. J. 2022, 92, 3261–3276.
  20. Rosen, J.; Brand, M.; Fuchs, M.B.; Arcan, M. A myosignal-based powered exoskeleton system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Hum. 2001, 31, 210–222.
  21. Pinho, J.P.; Taira, C.; Parik-Americano, P.; Suplino, L.O.; Bartholomeu, V.P.; Hartmann, V.N.; Umemura, G.S.; Forner-Cordero, A. A Comparison between Three Commercially Available Exoskeletons in the Automotive Industry: An Electromyographic Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), New York, NY, USA, 29 November–1 December 2020.
  22. Mukherjee, B.; Dey, S.K.; Pradhan, B.B. The recent trends and inspections about powered exoskeletons. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 377, 012222.
  23. Jia-Yong, Z.; Ye, L.I.U.; Xin-Min, M.O.; Chong-Wei, H.A.N.; Xiao-Jing, M.; Qiang, L.I.; Yue-Jin, W.; Ang, Z. A preliminary study of the military applications and future of individual exoskeletons. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1507, 102044.
  24. Alici, G. Softer is Harder: What Differentiates Soft Robotics from Hard Robotics? MRS Adv. 2018, 3, 1557–1568.
  25. Xie, Z.; Domel, A.G.; An, N.; Green, C.; Gong, Z.; Wang, T.; Knubben, E.M.; Weaver, J.C.; Bertoldi, K.; Wen, L. Octopus Arm-Inspired Tapered Soft Actuators with Suckers for Improved Grasping. Soft Robot. 2020, 7, 639–648.
  26. Wehner, M.; Truby, R.L.; Fitzgerald, D.J.; Mosadegh, B.; Whitesides, G.M.; Lewis, J.A.; Wood, R.J. An integrated design and fabrication strategy for entirely soft, autonomous robots. Nature 2016, 536, 451–455.
  27. Marchese, A.D.; Onal, C.D.; Rus, D. Autonomous Soft Robotic Fish Capable of Escape Maneuvers Using Fluidic Elastomer Actuators. Soft Robot. 2014, 1, 75–87.
  28. Van den Berg, S.C.; Scharff, R.B.N.; Rusák, Z.; Wu, J. OpenFish: Biomimetic design of a soft robotic fish for high speed locomotion. HardwareX 2022, 12, e00320.
  29. Sun, Y.; Feng, H.; Liang, X.; Goh, A.J.Y.; Qi, P.; Li, M.; Ang Jr, M.H.; Yeow, R.C.H. Powerful 2D Soft Morphing Actuator Propels Giant Manta Ray Robot. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2022, 4, 2200186.
  30. Wang, W.; Li, C.; Cho, M.; Ahn, S.-H. Soft Tendril-Inspired Grippers: Shape Morphing of Programmable Polymer–Paper Bilayer Composites. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 10419–10427.
  31. Wang, Y.; Gupta, U.; Parulekar, N.; Zhu, J. A soft gripper of fast speed and low energy consumption. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2019, 62, 31–38.
  32. Seibel, A.; Yıldız, M.; Zorlubaş, A.B. A Gecko-Inspired Soft Passive Gripper. Biomimetics 2020, 5, 12.
  33. Tian, H.; Li, X.; Shao, J.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Liu, H. Gecko-Effect Inspired Soft Gripper with High and Switchable Adhesion for Rough Surfaces. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 6, 1900875.
  34. Tian, H.; Liu, H.; Shao, J.; Li, S.; Li, X.; Chen, X. An electrically active gecko-effect soft gripper under a low voltage by mimicking gecko’s adhesive structures and toe muscles. Soft Matter 2020, 16, 5599–5608.
  35. Kim, H.-I.; Han, M.-W.; Song, S.-H.; Ahn, S.-H. Soft morphing hand driven by SMA tendon wire. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 105, 138–148.
  36. Deimel, R.; Brock, O. A novel type of compliant and underactuated robotic hand for dexterous grasping. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2015, 35, 161–185.
  37. Abdelhafiz, M.H.; Spaich, E.G.; Dosen, S.; Lotte, N.S.A. Bio-Inspired Tendon Driven Mechanism for Simultaneous Finger Joints Flexion Using a Soft Hand Exoskeleton. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Toronto, ON, Canada, 24–28 June 2019.
  38. Asbeck, A.T.; De Rossi, S.M.M.; Holt, K.G.; Walsh, C.J. A biologically inspired soft exosuit for walking assistance. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2015, 34, 744–762.
  39. Li, H.; Yao, J.; Wei, C.; Zhou, P.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, Y. An untethered soft robotic gripper with high payload-to-weight ratio. Mech. Mach. Theory 2021, 158, 104226.
  40. Li, S.; Stampfli, J.J.; Xu, H.J.; Malkin, E.; Diaz, E.V.; Rus, D.; Wood, R.J. A Vacuum-Driven Origami “Magic-Ball” Soft Gripper. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, QC, Canada, 20–24 May 2019.
  41. Su, Y.; Fang, Z.; Zhu, W.; Sun, X.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, H.; Tang, K.; Huang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, Z. A High-Payload Proprioceptive Hybrid Robotic Gripper with Soft Origamic Actuators. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 3003–3010.
  42. Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; Lu, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z. A Novel Soft Exosuit Based on Biomechanical Analysis for Assisting Lower Extremity. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on E-health Networking, Application & Services (HEALTHCOM), Shenzhen, China, 1–2 March 2021.
  43. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chen, C.; Fang, T.; Sun, R.; Li, Y. A Lightweight Soft Exoskeleton in Lower Limb Assistance. In Proceedings of the 2020 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), Shanghai, China, 6–8 November 2020.
  44. Cao, W.; Ma, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, J.; Wu, X. Hardware Circuits Design and Performance Evaluation of a Soft Lower Limb Exoskeleton. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 2022, 16, 384–394.
  45. Firouzi, V.; Davoodi, A.; Bahrami, F.; Sharbafi, M.A. From a biological template model to gait assistance with an exosuit. Bioinspiration Biomim. 2021, 16, 066024.
  46. Lee, H.; Kim, S.H.; Park, H.S. A Fully Soft and Passive Assistive Device to Lower the Metabolic Cost of Sit-to-Stand. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 966.
  47. Barazesh, H.; Ahmad Sharbafi, M. A biarticular passive exosuit to support balance control can reduce metabolic cost of walking. Bioinspiration Biomim. 2020, 15, 036009.
  48. Jin, S.; Guo, S.; Hashimoto, K.; Xiong, X.; Yamamoto, M. A Soft Wearable Robotic Suit for Ankle and Hip Assistance: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 July 2018.
  49. Yang, X.; Huang, T.H.; Hu, H.; Yu, S.; Zhang, S.; Zhou, X.; Carriero, A.; Yue, G.; Su, H. Spine-Inspired Continuum Soft Exoskeleton for Stoop Lifting Assistance. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2019, 4, 4547–4554.
  50. Bae, J.; Rossi, S.M.M.D.; Donnell, K.O.; Hendron, K.L.; Awad, L.N.; Santos, T.R.T.D.; Araujo, V.L.D.; Ding, Y.; Holt, K.G.; Ellis, T.D.; et al. A Soft Exosuit for Patients with Stroke: Feasibility Study with a Mobile Off-Board Actuation Unit. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Singapore, 11–14 August 2015.
  51. Cappello, L.; Meyer, J.T.; Galloway, K.C.; Peisner, J.D.; Granberry, R.; Wagner, D.A.; Engelhardt, S.; Paganoni, S.; Walsh, C.J. Assisting hand function after spinal cord injury with a fabric-based soft robotic glove. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2018, 15, 59.
  52. Shi, Y.; Guo, M.; Zhong, H.; Ji, X.; Xia, D.; Luo, X.; Yang, Y. Kinetic Walking Energy Harvester Design for a Wearable Bowden Cable-Actuated Exoskeleton Robot. Micromachines 2022, 13, 571.
  53. Hennig, R.; Gantenbein, J.; Dittli, J.; Chen, H.; Lacour, S.P.; Lambercy, O.; Gassert, R. Development and Evaluation of a Sensor Glove to Detect Grasp Intention for a Wearable Robotic Hand Exoskeleton. In Proceedings of the 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), New York, NY, USA, 29 November–1 December 2020.
  54. Schmidt, K.; Duarte, J.E.; Grimmer, M.; Sancho-Puchades, A.; Wei, H.; Easthope, C.S.; Riener, R. The Myosuit: Bi-articular Anti-gravity Exosuit That Reduces Hip Extensor Activity in Sitting Transfers. Front. Neurorobotics 2017, 11, 57.
  55. Zhang, L.; Huang, Q.; Cai, K.; Wang, Z.; Wang, W.; Liu, J. A Wearable Soft Knee Exoskeleton Using Vacuum-Actuated Rotary Actuator. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 61311–61326.
  56. Polygerinos, P.; Wang, Z.; Galloway, K.C.; Wood, R.J.; Walsh, C.J. Soft robotic glove for combined assistance and at-home rehabilitation. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2015, 73, 135–143.
  57. Di Natali, C.; Poliero, T.; Sposito, M.; Graf, E.; Bauer, C.; Pauli, C.; Bottenberg, E.; De Eyto, A.; O’Sullivan, L.; Hidalgo, A.F.; et al. Design and Evaluation of a Soft Assistive Lower Limb Exoskeleton. Robotica 2019, 37, 2014–2034.
  58. Panizzolo, F.A.; Galiana, I.; Asbeck, A.T.; Siviy, C.; Schmidt, K.; Holt, K.G.; Walsh, C.J. A biologically-inspired multi-joint soft exosuit that can reduce the energy cost of loaded walking. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2016, 13, 43.
  59. Sridar, S.; Qiao, Z.; Rascon, A.; Biemond, A.; Beltran, A.; Maruyama, T.; Kwasnica, C.; Polygerinos, P.; Zhang, W. Evaluating Immediate Benefits of Assisting Knee Extension with a Soft Inflatable Exosuit. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2020, 2, 216–225.
  60. Wang, B.; Takahashi, N.; Koike, H. Sensor Glove Implemented with Artificial Muscle Set for Hand Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference Ahs’20, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 16–17 March 2020.
  61. Amend, J.; Cheng, N.; Fakhouri, S.; Culley, B. Soft Robotics Commercialization: Jamming Grippers from Research to Product. Soft Robot. 2016, 3, 213–222.
  62. Ang, B.W.K.; Yeow, C.H. Print-It-Yourself (PIY) Glove: A Fully 3D Printed Soft Robotic Hand Rehabilitative and Assistive Exoskeleton for Stroke Patients. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017.
  63. Ang, B.W.K.; Yeow, C.H. Design and Characterization of a 3D Printed Soft Robotic Wrist Sleeve with 2 DoF for Stroke Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 14–18 April 2019.
  64. Ang, B.W.K.; Yeow, C.H. Design and Modeling of a High Force Soft Actuator for Assisted Elbow Flexion. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2020, 5, 3731–3736.
  65. Jeong, U.; Kim, K.; Kim, S.-H.; Choi, H.; Youn, B.D.; Cho, K.-J. Reliability analysis of a tendon-driven actuation for soft robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2020, 40, 494–511.
  66. Yap, H.K.; Ng, H.Y.; Yeow, C.-H. High-Force Soft Printable Pneumatics for Soft Robotic Applications. Soft Robot. 2016, 3, 144–158.
  67. Wang, Z.; Torigoe, Y.; Hirai, S. A Prestressed Soft Gripper: Design, Modeling, Fabrication, and Tests for Food Handling. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2017, 2, 1909–1916.
  68. Hashemi, Y.M.; Kadkhodaei, M.; Mohammadzadeh, M.R. Fatigue analysis of shape memory alloy helical springs. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2019, 161–162, 105059.
  69. Karhu, M.; Lindroos, T. Long-term behaviour of binary Ti–49.7Ni (at.%) SMA actuators—The fatigue lives and evolution of strains on thermal cycling. Smart Mater. Struct. 2010, 19, 115019.
  70. Kim, C.; Kim, G.; Lee, Y.; Lee, G.; Han, S.; Kang, D.; Koo, S.H.; Koh, J.-S. Shape memory alloy actuator-embedded smart clothes for ankle assistance. Smart Mater. Struct. 2020, 29, 055003.
  71. Copaci, D.; Cano, E.; Moreno, L.; Blanco, D. New Design of a Soft Robotics Wearable Elbow Exoskeleton Based on Shape Memory Alloy Wire Actuators. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2017, 2017, 1605101.
  72. Villoslada, A.; Flores, A.; Copaci, D.; Blanco, D.; Moreno, L. High-displacement flexible Shape Memory Alloy actuator for soft wearable robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2015, 73, 91–101.
  73. Miron, G.; Plante, J.-S. Design Principles for Improved Fatigue Life of High-Strain Pneumatic Artificial Muscles. Soft Robot. 2016, 3, 177–185.
  74. Kang, B.B.; Choi, H.; Lee, H.; Cho, K.-J. Exo-Glove Poly II: A Polymer-Based Soft Wearable Robot for the Hand with a Tendon-Driven Actuation System. Soft Robot. 2018, 6, 214–227.
  75. Yap, H.K.; Khin, P.M.; Koh, T.H.; Sun, Y.; Liang, X.; Lim, J.H.; Yeow, C.H. A Fully Fabric-Based Bidirectional Soft Robotic Glove for Assistance and Rehabilitation of Hand Impaired Patients. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2017, 2, 1383–1390.
  76. Noronha, B.; Ng, C.Y.; Little, K.; Xiloyannis, M.; Kuah, C.W.K.; Wee, S.K.; Kulkarni, S.R.; Masia, L.; Chua, K.S.G.; Accoto, D. Soft, Lightweight Wearable Robots to Support the Upper Limb in Activities of Daily Living: A Feasibility Study on Chronic Stroke Patients. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2022, 30, 1401–1411.
  77. Ismail, R.; Ariyanto, M.; Hidayat, T.; Setiawan, J.D. Design of Fabric-Based Soft Robotic Glove for Hand Function Assistance. In Proceedings of the 2019 6th International Conference on Information Technology, Computer and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE), Semarang, Indonesia, 26–27 September 2019.
  78. Fulton, P.V.; Löhlein, S.; Paredes-Acuña, N.; Berberich, N.; Cheng, G. Wrist Exoskeleton Design for Pronation and Supination using Mirrored Movement Control. In Proceedings of the 2021 20th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6–10 December 2021.
  79. Gobee, S.; Durairajah, V.; Mugilan, G. Design and Development of Upper Limb Soft Exoskeleton for Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Innovation in Biomedical Engineering and Life Sciences, Penang, Malaysia, 10–13 December 2017.
  80. Wu, Q.; Chen, B.; Wu, H. Neural-network-enhanced torque estimation control of a soft wearable exoskeleton for elbow assistance. Mechatronics 2019, 63, 102279.
  81. Nobaveh, A.A.; Caasenbrood, B. Design Feasibility of an Energy-Efficient Wrist Flexion-Extension Exoskeleton using Compliant Beams and Soft Actuators. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 25–29 July 2022.
  82. Shi, X.Q.; Heung, H.L.; Tang, Z.Q.; Li, Z.; Tong, K.Y. Effects of a Soft Robotic Hand for Hand Rehabilitation in Chronic Stroke Survivors. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2021, 30, 105812.
  83. Kulasekera, A.L.; Arumathanthri, R.B.; Chathuranga, D.S.; Gopura, R.A.R.C.; Lalitharatne, T.D. A Low-Profile Vacuum Actuator (LPVAc) with Integrated Inductive Displacement Sensing for a Novel Sit-to-Stand Assist Exosuit. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 117067–117079.
  84. Takahashi, N.; Furuya, S.; Koike, H. Soft Exoskeleton Glove with Human Anatomical Architecture: Production of Dexterous Finger Movements and Skillful Piano Performance. IEEE Trans. Haptics 2020, 13, 679–690.
  85. Ma, J.; Chen, D.; Liu, Z.; Wang, M. A Soft Wearable Exoskeleton with Pneumatic Actuator for Assisting Upper Limb. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Real-Time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Asahikawa, Japan, 28–29 September 2020.
  86. Al-Fahaam, H.; Davis, S.; Nefti-Meziani, S.; Theodoridis, T. Novel soft bending actuator-based power augmentation hand exoskeleton controlled by human intention. Intell. Serv. Robot. 2018, 11, 247–268.
  87. Tripanpitak, K.; Tarvainen, T.V.J.; Sönmezisik, I.; Wu, J.; Yu, W. Design a Soft Assistive Device for Elbow Movement Training in Peripheral Nerve Injuries. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Macau, China, 5–8 December 2017.
  88. Hassanin, A.F.; Steve, D.; Samia, N.M. A Novel, Soft, Bending Actuator for Use in Power Assist and Rehabilitation Exoskeletons. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–28 September 2017.
  89. Yap, H.K.; Lim, J.H.; Nasrallah, F.; Yeow, C.-H. Design and Preliminary Feasibility Study of a Soft Robotic Glove for Hand Function Assistance in Stroke Survivors. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11.
  90. Gobee, S.; Durairajah, V.; Mohammadullah, N. Portable Soft-Exoskeleton for Finger Rehabilitation. Icbeb 2017, 2017, 65–70.
  91. Yap, H.K.; Kamaldin, N.; Lim, J.H.; Nasrallah, F.A.; Goh, J.C.H.; Yeow, C.H. A Magnetic Resonance Compatible Soft Wearable Robotic Glove for Hand Rehabilitation and Brain Imaging. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2017, 25, 782–793.
  92. Yap, H.K.; Jeong Hoon, L.; Nasrallah, F.; Goh, J.C.H.; Yeow, R.C.H. A Soft Exoskeleton for Hand Assistive and Rehabilitation Application Using Pneumatic Actuators with Variable Stiffness. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA, USA, 26–30 May 2015.
  93. Chen, Y.; Tan, X.; Yan, D.; Zhang, Z.; Gong, Y. A Composite Fabric-Based Soft Rehabilitation Glove with Soft Joint for Dementia in Parkinson’s Disease. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Health Med. 2020, 8, 1400110.
  94. Yang, H.D.; Cooper, M.; Eckert-Erdheim, A.; Orzel, D.; Walsh, C.J. A Soft Exosuit Assisting Hip Abduction for Knee Adduction Moment Reduction During Walking. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2022, 7, 7439–7446.
  95. Wang, H.; Totaro, M.; Beccai, L. Toward Perceptive Soft Robots: Progress and Challenges. Adv. Sci. 2018, 5, 1800541.
  96. Ang, B.W.K.; Yeow, C.-H. A Learning-Based Approach to Sensorize Soft Robots. Soft Robot. 2022, 9, 1144–1153.
  97. Little, K.; Antuvan, C.W.; Xiloyannis, M.; Bernardo, A.P.S.N.; Kim, Y.G.; Masia, L.; Accoto, D. IMU-Based Assistance Modulation in Upper Limb Soft Wearable Exosuits. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), Toronto, ON, Canada, 24–28 June 2019.
  98. Liu, Z.; Zhao, L.; Yu, P.; Yang, T.; Li, N.; Yang, Y.; Liu, L. A Wearable Bionic Soft Exoskeleton Glove for Stroke Patients. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 8th Annual International Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), Tianjin, China, 19–23 July 2018.
  99. Wu, Q.; Wang, X.; Chen, B.; Wu, H. Design and Fuzzy Sliding Mode Admittance Control of a Soft Wearable Exoskeleton for Elbow Rehabilitation. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 60249–60263.
  100. Otálora, S.; Ballen-Moreno, F.; Arciniegas-Mayag, L.; Múnera, M.; Cifuentes, C.A. The AGoRA V2 Unilateral Lower-Limb Exoskeleton: Mechatronic Integration and Biomechanical Assessment. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2022, 7, 7928–7933.
  101. Di Natali, C.; Sadeghi, A.; Mondini, A.; Bottenberg, E.; Hartigan, B.; De Eyto, A.; O’Sullivan, L.; Rocon, E.; Stadler, K.; Mazzolai, B.; et al. Pneumatic Quasi-Passive Actuation for Soft Assistive Lower Limbs Exoskeleton. Front. Neurorobotics 2020, 14, 31.
  102. Chen, L.; Chen, C.; Wang, Z.; Ye, X.; Liu, Y.; Wu, X. A Novel Lightweight Wearable Soft Exosuit for Reducing the Metabolic Rate and Muscle Fatigue. Biosensors 2021, 11, 215.
  103. Zelik, K.E.; Nurse, C.A.; Schall, M.C., Jr.; Sesek, R.F.; Marino, M.C.; Gallagher, S. An ergonomic assessment tool for evaluating the effect of back exoskeletons on injury risk. Appl. Ergon. 2022, 99, 103619.
  104. Van Ommeren, A.; Radder, B.; Kottink, A.; Buurke, J.; Prange-Lasonder, G.; Rietman, J. Quantifying upper extremity performance with and without assistance of a soft-robotic glove in elderly patients: A kinematic analysis. J. Rehabil. Med. 2019, 51, 298–306.
  105. Hill, D.; Holloway, C.S.; Morgado Ramirez, D.Z.; Smitham, P.; Pappas, Y. What Are User Perspectives of Exoskeleton Technology? A LITERATURE REVIEW. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2017, 33, 160–167.
  106. Kelley, P.G.; Yang, Y.; Heldreth, C.; Moessner, C.; Sedley, A.; Kramm, A.; Newman, D.T.; Woodruff, A. Exciting, Useful, Worrying, Futuristic: Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in 8 Countries. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES’21), Virtual Event, USA, 19–21 May 2021.
  107. Langard, M.; Aoustin, Y.; Arakelian, V.; Chablat, D. Investigation of the Stresses Exerted by an Exosuit of a Human Arm, Advanced Technologies in Robotics and Intelligent Systems; Misyurin, S.Y., Arakelian, V., Avetisyan, A.I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 425–435.
  108. Yandell, M.B.; Quinlivan, B.T.; Popov, D.; Walsh, C.; Zelik, K.E. Physical interface dynamics alter how robotic exosuits augment human movement: Implications for optimizing wearable assistive devices. J. NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2017, 14, 40.
  109. Foo, E.; Woelfle, H.; Holschuh, B. Design Tradeoffs in the Development of a Wearable Soft Exoskeleton for Upper Limb Mobility Disorders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Design of Medical Devices Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 16–18 April 2019.
  110. Kim, S.J.; Chang, H.; Park, J.; Kim, J. Design of a Portable Pneumatic Power Source with High Output Pressure for Wearable Robotic Applications. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2018, 3, 4351–4358.
  111. Bearden, W.O.; Netemeyer, R.G.; Teel, J.E. Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence. J. Consum. Res. 1989, 15, 473–481.
  112. Kiesler, S.; Hinds, P. Introduction to This Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2004, 19, 1–8.
  113. Koo, S.H. Design factors and preferences in wearable soft robots for movement disabilities. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2018, 30, 477–495.
  114. Louise-Bender, P.T.; Kim, J.; Weiner, B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disabil. Rehabil. 2002, 24, 5–20.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback