After a trauma or surgical procedure, continuous passive motion devices are typically used in rehabilitation to reduce edema, bleeding, pain, and inflammation. These devices are the first step in the rehabilitation process. Active assistive movement is also used, which helps the patient perform desired movements with the help of a suit that assists in completing the movement. In cases of neurological rehabilitation, this method is the first choice to stimulate neuroplasticity and reduce common side effects such as muscle weakness. Active resistive motion involves applying an external resistive force against a dynamic or static muscle contraction and is an effective way to increase bone and muscle mass, making it essential for musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Exoskeleton usage can enhance the results of different physiotherapeutic approaches. Still, the final outcome depends on a range of rehabilitation factors, including timing, intensity, repetition, frequency, and task-specific training protocols [33].

Wearing an external device, such as an exoskeleton, can provide numerous advantages in a medical rehabilitation environment [34], not only for the patients but also for clinical centers. These devices can enable patients to perform intensive and repetitive movements with precision, minimizing the physiotherapist’s intervention [35]. This can relieve therapists from fatigue and constant attention requirements. Additionally, this kind of technology can enable the rehabilitation of patients at their homes via video conference. Exoskeletons can also be used to evaluate recovery levels by measuring force levels and movement patterns [8]. This data can be collected from sensors [36] in the device itself and/or from motion capture devices that track motion patterns. This training can help people relearn lost motor functions and perform daily tasks.

The drawbacks of existing solutions should be the object of careful consideration, taking into account the person and their particular circumstances. For example, some solutions may not be energy efficient, leading to high energy consumption [26], while others may make it difficult for the user to interact effectively with their surroundings [37].

When rehabilitating a patient using an exoskeleton, the need for a large empty room must be taken into account. Moreover, since a one-size exoskeleton cannot accommodate all users due to differences in body proportions, the creation of an adjustable device that can fit all sizes poses a great challenge due to its complexity. Thus, a disproportional device regarding the body may have a negative psychological impact on the user, leading to some reluctance to make use of it [38].

Despite all the challenges, researchers have already developed reliable solutions to rehabilitate or enhance various parts of the body, such as ankles [39,40,41], hands [33,42], shoulders [43], lower limbs [44], upper limbs [45], arms [46], and back [47,48].

Design is an imperative aspect to consider in exoskeleton development, as every detail affects the user experience, with the final appearance being the first overall impression. During conception, several design considerations come into play during all stages of the project, from selecting structural materials to selecting control systems, with particular attention paid to key components such as batteries. An intelligent arrangement of actuators and energy sources (e.g., batteries) brings benefits beyond just aesthetics; it can improve weight distribution [27,49] and in some cases even reduce power consumption [50], which is directly linked to the choice of power source. Most importantly, a good design can make a positive first impression on the users, providing them with a sense of comfort, ergonomics, confidence, and convenience.

In addition to visual appearance, it is crucial to consider the technical aspects when designing the final solution. The movement’s kinematic and dynamic degrees of freedom (DOF) found in the human body [51] based on anthropometry should be present, as a concept, throughout the projects. The range of motion, joint torque requirements, joint rotational velocity, and joint angular bandwidth [52] must also be factored in. The developed device aims to aid and follow human movement without constraint or interference with the natural freedom of movement [53].

Creating and implementing practical solutions can be a challenging task due to the inherent complexity of the principles involved and their combination. A specific example of this complexity can be observed in the development of complete limb external skeletons. These particular devices are capable of an infinite number of combined movements, as they rely on seven distinct DOF [50] positioned along the limbs. These DOF are vital for daily activities [55], with lower limbs having three DOF at the hip, one at the knee, and three at the ankle, while upper limbs possess three at the shoulder (abduction-adduction, flexion-extension, and internal-external rotation), one at the elbow, one at the forearm, and two at the wrist.

Providing the necessary DOF for full-body applications becomes challenging with traditional exoskeletons, which often consist of rigid materials assembled in a series of fixed links. Their non-flexible characteristics can lead to problems of hyperstaticity [56] and can result in increased device complexity, which further complicates the design process. As an alternative, soft structures composed of mechanisms without rigid components, featuring elastic or elastomeric materials with softer (more flexible) mechanical properties, have emerged. As demonstrated by successful lightweight and flexible designs [57] and greater adaptability to both movement and the human body [58], they offer a promising alternative to their traditional rigid counterparts.

The primary function of the wearable device is not just to track human movement, but also to provide assistance by generating the necessary force or moment to hold the joints (e.g., elbow) in certain positions during daily activities or rehabilitation. Moreover, as per [59] guidelines, the device should be capable of generating the appropriate amount of auxiliary force or momentum to perform those daily tasks. However, it may be impossible to devise a solution that combines all the necessary DOF with adequate motion generation, as illustrated by the challenge of creating a wearable finger device. This limb is essential for performing basic daily tasks, such as typing or writing, and any solution must be practical and effective in addressing these needs. For example, opening a jar with a finger wearable device would require up to 120 N of force and 3 Nm of torque on the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint [60], without neglecting other considerations such as overall aesthetic and having four DOF [61,62].

The project must prioritize security measures, as an equal fundamental design factor. Following these safety standards avoid accidents and ensure the user’s protection in unforeseen events, like power loss or current leaks. The probability of accidents using exoskeletons is real and remains a significant concern, since estimations suggest around 4 out of every 100 users may encounter issues [63]. The overall solution’s appearance, functionality, safety, and ease of use are determined by the final design concept, which cannot disconnect design choices from fundamental design variables and options. Consequently, the final solution must represent a balance between design options, structural materials, actuators, energy sources, and control systems to achieve the best overall solution.

While the terms exoskeleton and exosuit have often been used interchangeably, some argue that exosuit is a more accurate description for these devices even though the general public is more acquainted with the term exoskeleton. Despite their similarities, those terms are not synonyms when the context involves structural materials. In reality, these words represent two distinct approaches to solving the same problem. Exoskeletons are typically constructed of rigid and metallic components [64,65], while exosuits are designed using soft and flexible materials [66,67]. Although they are classified differently, both solutions should be investigated together as they offer complementary features [68]. Regardless of the type of material used, it is essential that any solution designed for use in rehabilitation settings meets certain critical requirements that ensure safety, as mentioned in a study by Xiloyannis [49]. In particular, mechanical properties assume great importance since patients undergoing rehabilitation are often susceptible to minor accidents, such as small falls, and the material should be able to withstand and resist fatigue, as pointed out by Bogue [69]. These characteristics are vital for ensuring that the device has a long lifespan, even when deployed on a higher number of patients during rehabilitation. Additionally, the material should offer a warm and comfortable sensation to the wearer.

When it comes to a rigid approach, materials like stainless steel [69], aluminum [70], and titanium [65] are widely used. The final solution can involve one or multiple materials for example, with frames made from aluminum and joints made from stainless steel or titanium. This multi-material approach can offer several benefits, such as reducing weight and increasing mechanical strength at critical joints. In fact, using multiple materials is becoming popular in engineering because it provides a better balance between performance, cost, and durability.

Compared to exosuits, more rigid solutions offer some advantages but bring some disadvantages. Exoskeletons offer increased mechanical strength, making them an ideal solution when high levels of torque and strength are required. In fact, these devices can withstand up to 1 GPa of tension before experiencing plastic deformation and can endure up to 50% of strain before reaching a breakdown point [71]. Such impressive performance metrics highlight the potential benefits of using exoskeletons in various settings.

However, the materials used are typically heavier, which can limit their portability and cause discomfort for the user [72]. Additionally, achieving perfect alignment between the device and the user’s joints can be a challenge, resulting in larger inertial loads that can lead to abnormal motion patterns [73]. Other common problems associated with rigid solutions include reduced usability and poor aesthetics, as noted by several authors [74,75]. Despite these drawbacks, rigid solutions remain popular in many applications due to their mechanical reliability and stability.

Composite materials can be comprised of metallic and polymeric substances combined with carbon fibers [57,69]. In some other cases, a solution made from chloroprene and polyurethane (PU) may also be used [57]. Additionally, textiles may also be utilized for certain applications [73,79]. By combining these materials, it becomes possible to create lightweight and durable devices that can provide users with a wide range of benefits.

In general, these materials enable movement smoothness [80], comfort, portability, flexibility, lightweight (low density) [68,73], adaptation to bioorganisms [66] and even the ability to emulate biological muscles [77]. Some of these materials can exceed their structural role and be used as actuators [77] since they are prone to deformations with associated large volume changes in response to external stimuli [66].

Actuators play a critical role in wearable external devices, facilitating human movement by powering them, and in this way, enabling a better interaction with the surrounding environment. In a medical context, they can be particularly valuable for helping patients undergoing rehabilitation by providing controlled motion patterns. As such, actuators are an indispensable component of many modern wearable devices, and their effectiveness can have a significant impact on user outcomes.

Actuators can be classified as either powered or unpowered, resulting in the creation of either active or passive external devices [81], respectively. Powered alternatives may be noisier and are generally costlier due to the need for additional components, as well as requiring users to carry bulky energy-supply systems [82]. On the other hand, passive devices do not require power units, making them lighter and weighing up to a fourth of their powered counterparts. A good example of this is the ankle exoskeleton developed by Mooney et al. [83] and Collins et al. [84], which aims to reduce the metabolic rate during walking [85].

Traditional actuators typically are based on rigid systems, allowing them to generate higher forces [49], greater movement precision, and improved dynamic performance [68], and as a result, making them ideal for more complex tasks such as severe mobility disorders. However, it brings some disadvantages, such as leading to higher power consumption [68]. When a power supply is required to input the actuator, the user’s freedom of movement can be limited. Additionally, elderly users may feel uncomfortable with the robotic aspect of the actuators, which can convey a detached and cold sensation and lead to their refusal to use the device.

Purely mechanical actuators such as springs [86], are commonly used in unpowered devices (which do not require any external source of energy) and convert the tension force from the actuators into torques at the joints [44]. This mechanical solution can help to reduce the metabolic consumption of energy [84] during walking or running activities [87]. However, the usability of such actuators has limited usefulness in rehabilitation cases, as they only provide passive assistance. For example, during walking, the user must first tense the actuator during flexion movement in order to receive assistance in the extension movement.

Mechanical servomotor-based actuators [88] are a simple and direct approach for achieving actuation through electrical stimulation. They provide motion and assistance when connected to the structural material (soft or rigid). However, due to the nature of the input type, they always require an external source of electrical energy, such as (portable) batteries. Plus, they are also rigid and bulky, which can limit the flexibility of the entire system [89].

Pneumatic-based actuators are a highly efficient and safe solution in terms of linear and rotational movement control since the actuator’s motion is converted from pressurized air energy [89]. Also, they are particularly suitable for applications that demand repetitive opening and closing tasks, as well as in environments of extreme temperatures or even in industrial applications where other types of actuators are not viable alternatives. As air-compressed-based actuators, this type of solution can convert up to 6 bar of pressure into movement, if necessary. However, to perform all of this and enable movement, connectivity to a rigid control and power system, such as a compressor, is a mandatory aspect requirement [89], which can occasionally lead to pressure drops and noise. Moreover, pneumatic actuators could be produced either considering rigid [90] or soft materials, such as latex or rubber tubes [91], which make them a feasible solution for exoskeletons [90] and exosuits [91].

Hydraulic actuators [92,93] share similar advantages and disadvantages when compared to pneumatic actuators. Similarly, they require a hydraulic fluid to output linear, rotary, or even oscillatory movements by the actuator, but as liquids are nearly incompressible, the force produced is considerably higher. The exoskeleton/exosuit movement is thus achieved by converting hydraulic into mechanical energy.

Actuation solutions based on soft actuators can be a comfortable alternative when used during the rehabilitation process [119] and unlike the traditional methods, they can be stimulated externally by different inputs. The direct incidence of light, heat, electric or magnetic fields results in mechanical movement performed by the actuators [77,89]. They can be thus defined as mechanical and electrical elements whose output/operation varies under different physical, chemical, and/or biological stimuli. Typically, these soft actuators can be built using a different range of materials, from particles to polymers, such as EAPs [77] or SMPs [120], papers [89], fluids, shape memory alloys (SMAs) [89], hydrogels, liquid materials [66], 2D materials, carbon-based materials [66] or combinations thereof [89]. Despite the numerous alternatives, not all of these soft actuators are viable for rehabilitation cases. The pertinence of their applicability is based on performance parameters such as stress, strain, Young’s modulus, power, energy, and force density [89].

Electrically responsive soft materials are flexible and stretchable materials able to convert external electric inputs into mechanical response outputs. Depending on the type of material, they are classified as dielectric elastomer actuators (DEAs), piezoelectric-based actuators, and electrically conducting polymers (ECPs). DEAs have their input-output conversion based on Coulombic attraction. Two flexible electrodes with a potential difference located on separate ends of a compressible membrane are used to obtain the mechanical response from DEAs [89]. They are highly flexible materials with high energy density, strains, and the ability to emulate the behavior of biological muscles [94]. The performance of these materials depends on their stability, breakdown voltage, and dielectric constant of them [89]. However, they generally require high voltages, usually in the kV range, to perform and leakage currents are often observed when high electric fields are applied, especially when the actuator ages [89]. Adding liquid elastomers to DEAs has been proposed as a solution for these limitations [89]. Examples of dielectric materials found in the literature include acrylic elastomers [95], which are highly deformable and possess high viscoelasticity. However, the actuator’s bandwidth could be limited due to these mechanical properties [89]. Other examples include silicone-based materials [96] and PU-based elastomers [97]. The PU-based elastomers have faster reactions and can be cast into various shapes, but they perform significantly lower strains than the dielectric materials [89]. DEA solutions are constantly being researched and developed to enhance their properties in the actuation field [98].

Piezoelectric-based actuators are capable of producing voltage or electric charge in the presence of mechanical or vibrational forces (direct effect) or deformation when electrically-stimulated (indirect effect) [77,99]. These actuators can operate in room conditions for long periods and have a quick response time, typically in the milliseconds range. Also, they can hold strain under activation, inducing relatively large actuation forces [77]. However, their usability in real-world scenarios can be limited by the large AC voltages required [89]. Common piezoelectric materials for actuation and sensors include PVDF and its copolymers [100,101], graphene [102], and zirconate titanate [103], among many others [104]. ECPs [105] are organic polymeric materials obtained by reduction or oxidation reactions [106]. They can conduct electricity with conductivities up to 10⁵ S/cm, achieved through traditional sources, such as batteries or chemical reactions. Moreover, these electrically responsive material types have been powered using biofuels, such as glucose, which shows their potential as an environmentally friendly source of energy [107]. Polypyrrole, a type of ECP obtained by the oxidative polymerization of pyrrole, is characterized by high mechanical properties and chemical stability [106] and has been shown to emulate human biological muscles due to its similar behavior and low voltage operability [107,108]. These characteristics make ECPs an interesting choice due to their biomimetic and biocompatible nature.

Magnetic responsive materials have potential applications as actuators since they are easily controllable through magnetic field direction and magnitude, which can penetrate most materials [89]. This feature makes them a promising solution for use in restricted or enclosed areas [109]. This actuation method is based on incorporating magnetic particles and fillers into different soft compounds such as polymers, gels, papers, or fluids [109]. This results in a magnetization profile with variable magnitude and direction [110]. In the presence of a magnetic field, the particles or fillers align to create deformation, bending, elongation, or contraction [89]. These magnetic-based actuators have a fast response time, with literature reporting speeds of up to 100 Hz [111]. However, there are some disadvantages associated with the magnetic coils used to generate magnetic fields. Their large size, high energy consumption and limited control areas where the magnetic field may not be strong enough are some handicaps to consider [89].

Thermally responsive materials, including silicone-based elastomer materials [116], liquid crystal elastomers, and synthetic hydrogels [89], can be activated by a thermal source, such as infrared (IR) radiation, thermal radiation, or Joule heating [113]. For instance, shape-memory materials (SMM) [115] can be deformed by external forces and return to their original “memorized” shape under loading or thermal cycles [89]. These materials include SMAs (typically iron-based or copper-based) [114], which return to their original shape when the temperature exceeds a certain threshold after deformation, and SMP materials (PU and thermoplastic PU) [112]. SMPs are cost-effective, have high elastic deformation, and are easy to manufacture [89]. Furthermore, they can be activated remotely, for instance, through laser incidence, and are often safer than electrical fields for biomedical applications [89]. Some of these light actuators are capable of lifting objects that are up to 200 times heavier than their own weight, to up to 5 mm height [113]. However, such thermally responsive materials tend to have slower response times and are less efficient compared to other types of stimuli-based actuators [89].

Photo-responsive materials employ photochromic molecules to capture optical signals and convert them into property modifications [117,118]. They represent an attractive wireless alternative, as they can be controlled in small sizes and consume low energy [89]. However, slow actuation speed and mechanical property degradation remain major limitations [89]. Photochromic molecules, such as spiropyran [117], may be added to various materials, such as gels, polymers, and fluids, to render them photoresponsive [89]. They respond to the light spectrum, visible or near-IR) [89].

The control system of external skeleton or suit devices can be categorized into four main architectures—model-based, hierarchy-based, physical parameters-based, and usage-based [121]. While none of these architectures have been used individually due to their complexity or effectiveness, they are frequently combined to achieve the desired control of a specific device [121].

In general, model-based control systems can be further classified into two types—dynamic and muscular models [124]. The dynamic model reflects the human motion intent by combining inertial, gravitational, Coriolis, and centrifugal effects to model the human body as a series of rigid links connected by joints (bones) [125,126]. The control system of BLEEX is just an example of a dynamic model-based system [50]. This based-type architecture is even developed through different approaches: mathematical, system identification, and artificial intelligence models. To obtain a mathematical architecture for the external device based on the physical characteristics of the system, the system requires a precise dynamic model [121]. For instances in which a dynamic model cannot be adequately developed through theoretical mathematical models, the system identification model is often utilized [127]. The artificial intelligence method is the most popular approach to identifying the dynamic model due to its efficiency [127].

Muscle-based models have also been utilized in exoskeleton control systems. Unlike dynamic models, these models predict the muscle forces generated by human joints as a function of muscle neural activities and joint kinematics [126,128]. This approach, which can be obtained by using parametric or non-parametric models, takes the electrical signal produced by muscles as input and sends force estimation as output to actuators [121]. The parametric muscle model is commonly implemented using the Hill-based model, which refers to muscle contraction and uses the estimated muscle activation level [129,130,131]. It is comprised of three elements: a contractile element, representing force generated by active muscle fibers, a series element, which models the mechanical response of the muscle, and a parallel element which simulates the passive resistance of muscles to stretch [131]. In addition, the output sent from this type of control model is a function of electromyographic (EMG) neural activity and muscle length [121]. In contrast, non-parametric muscle models do not require knowledge about muscle and joint dynamics but they can be the source of control inefficiencies [132] (ex. finite impulse response model).

Shafer et al. [133] developed an ankle exoskeleton controller that uses a control system based on a neuromuscular model. They make conclusions on the effectiveness of their model in providing a wide range of assistance torque and power. Moreover, Song et al. [134] developed a novel model-based control to predict motion trajectories and amplify the forces produced by the user.

The hierarchy-based control system, exemplified in Huang et al. [135] and Dinh et al. [136], utilizes a hierarchical structure to manage inputs and outputs. The controllers are divided into three levels: task level, high level, and low level. The task-level controller, which is the highest level, is responsible for performing the designated tasks [121]. The high-level controller adjusts the force of human-external device interaction based on information received from the task-level controller [121]. Finally, the low-level controller is responsible for controlling the position and/or force performed by the exoskeleton joints, therefore contacting directly to the exosuit [121].

Copaci et al. [137] implemented a hierarchy-based control system in an elbow exoskeleton. Using algorithms to process EMG signals, they were capable of generating position and torque references in SMA actuators used for active rehabilitation therapies.

Control strategies such as those utilized in the ARMin [138], RUPERT IV [139], and LOPES [140] exoskeletons use physical parameters as a basis for their implementation. These solutions can be classified as either position, torque/force, or force interaction controllers [121]. The low-level controller in the position control scheme ensures that the exoskeleton joints turn to the desired angle, while the torque/force controller regulates the desired force and/or torque [141], and is also classified as a low-level controller [121].

The interaction force controller, typically functioning as a high-level controller, is responsible for providing appropriate assistance to users during a task [121]. This physical parameter controller takes into consideration the force interaction between the user and the exoskeleton, which is considered in an external device [121]. The impedance controller, which accepts position and produces force, or the admittance controller, which accepts force and yields position, can be used to control this physical parameter controller [142].

The impedance controller is typically more effective for lightweight, backdrivable external devices (such as cable-driven devices) compared to other controllers [124]. It extends the position control, enabling it to not only regulate the position and force but also the relationship and interaction between the exosuit and the human body [142,143]. This controller architecture includes an impedance module, which receives the error position of the joints and yields the force values that serve as force references for subsequent stages. The architecture also comprises a force/torque controller that attempts to ensure that the forces exerted by the exoskeleton actuators are approximately equal to force references [121].

The admittance controller is employed to regulate the force generated by the external skeleton during interaction with the user [144]. It features an admittance model, which receives forces and outputs the position, as well as a position controller that controls the joint angle based on position references from the admittance model output [121].

Wu et al. [145] implemented a physical parameter-based control system in an exoskeleton for upper-limb rehabilitation of disabled patients. They used a modified sliding mode control strategy incorporating a proportional integral derivative (PID) sliding surface and a fuzzy hitting control law to ensure a robust and optimal position control performance. Their approach led to the best control performances in terms of tracking accuracy, response speed, and robustness against external disturbances.

The usage-based control systems, such as those implemented in MGA [146] and L-Exos [147], can be categorized into three types: virtual reality (VR) controller, teleoperation controller [121], and gait controller, which is commonly used in lower limb solutions [140]. VR controllers are commonly employed in rehabilitation exercises for upper-limb exoskeletons [148]. They allow for the guidance and assistance of patients during tasks such as moving a virtual object with their hands [139], virtually painting a wall [146], or carrying out constrained motion tasks [147]. In these applications, the exoskeleton/exosuit can be regarded as a haptic device [121].

The teleoperation controller is a form of master-slave controller, where the exoskeleton worn by the user is commonly used as the master type and a mirror robot serves as the slave [121]. In this configuration, interaction control occurs between the slave robot and the environment, as opposed to the typical interaction between the user and the exoskeleton [121]. Rahman et al. [149] implemented a teleoperation controller in an exoskeleton for rehabilitation and passive arm movement assistance (MARSE-4), constituted by an upper-limb prototype and a master exoskeleton arm (mExoArm). While mExoArm is operated by the patient, the upper-limb prototype mirrors the movement.

Capturing human motion intents for external device control is a major challenge, which can be addressed through the use of sensors associated with both the control system and the device [151]. These sensors capture the user’s movement intention as an input signal to the control system, which then provides output to the exosuit to perform the intended move. To ensure success, this input signal must be precise and accurate. In addition to the intention-prediction instrumentation, other sensors such as inertial measurement units [152] (e.g., gyroscopes [153] and accelerometers [154]) or mechanical sensors [155] can be employed to measure or evaluate the output movement. However, it should be noted that these sensors are unable to predict movement beforehand [156].

Several control methods have been proposed to detect human intention through human–robot interaction dynamics, which could effectively assist able-bodied human subjects [157,158]. While control methods using human–robot interaction dynamics are effective in assisting able-bodied humans, they may not always be suitable as the user needs to produce sufficient torque at joints to initiate movement. If this amount of torque is not generated, the device may not be effectively controlled, resulting in a problematic aspect for elderly or severely disabled individuals [159]. The ideal solution for human–robot interaction entails the prediction of movement intention, instead of a reaction to a precursor movement. This approach can improve performance in scenarios where generating sufficient torque is not possible [122].

To predict human movement, electrophysiological signals from proteins, organs, or muscles can be captured through sensors measuring voltage changes or electric current [160,161]. EMG sensors (intramuscular [162], surface [163]) can measure small electrical signals [164] produced by muscle contraction and have been successfully used in exoskeleton control [165,166]. EMG-based methods can capture the user’s intention to control the device, even if the person cannot produce sufficient joint torques or execute a particular movement [122]. However, the signal measured by EMG sensors might be biased by various factors, such as muscle crosstalk susceptibility [151], skin condition (surface sensors), muscle fatigue [156], or the inaccessibility of deep muscle fibers [167].

In addition to the use of EMG sensors, there are other sensors that can be considered to be alternatives for measuring muscle electrical activity. One such alternative is mechanomyography (MMG) sensors which are less sensitive to skin conditions compared to EMG sensors [156,168]. These sensors measure the signal produced by muscles with respect to the gross lateral muscle movements which causes low-frequency vibration during contraction, lateral vibrations at the muscle’s resonant frequency, and volumes introduced by the changes in the muscles [169]. Despite the advantages, MMG sensors have some disadvantages, such as being affected by muscle fatigue as well [156]. Sonomyography (SMG) sets up another possibility to predict the user’s movement intention by measuring muscle thickness and tracking skeletal muscle deformation from superficial to deep tissue [170,171]. SMG sensors are also capable of classifying several motions and predicting joint kinetics during dynamic activities, such as those in the wrist [171,172]. However, muscle fatigue is still a common issue with SMG sensors [156].

Finally, Electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors can capture the user’s intention without using sensors that measure the signal produced directly in muscles [156,174]. Instead, they measure the electrical activity in the brain. However, the signal captured by EEG sensors is not accurate enough and can only be used for classifying movements [156].