Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Experimental setup for overground physical human-robot interaction (pHRI) with OPHRIE guiding participants along one of three trajectories: straight (A-B-C) or turning (A-B-D-E-F, A-B-G-H-I).

Figure adapted from [5].

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

List of markers and their anatomical locations.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Reflective marker placement used to capture arm kinematics during the experiment [22].

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Elbow and shoulder angle representation in ProCalc software.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Illustration of the Turning Perturbation Equivalent (TPE).

TPE in straight trials is positioned at the same distance from the starting point as points E and H in turning trials, but without applying a perturbation.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Example of shoulder and elbow angles during a straight trial. The perturbation window (160 frames, 800 ms) is shown in the red box and trial starting frame is marked with a vertical magenta line.

Figure adapted from [19].

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Variation in elbow and shoulder angles attributed to participant differences.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Scatter plots illustrating EAD and SAD values across individual participants.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

Mixed-effects model results for elbow and shoulder angles.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 7.

Violin plot comparing elbow angle in turning and straight trials and across the blocks, with the dot indicating the mean value.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Violin plot comparing shoulder angle in turning and straight trials and across the blocks, with the dot indicating the mean value.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 4.

Significance level of condition in the linear mixed effects model affecting different kinematic metrics (before E/H vs before TPE, after E/H vs after TPE).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 9.

Visual representation of comparing average arm angles between the perturbation-present and perturbation-absent scenarios.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Visual representation of comparing the change in average arm angles between perturbation-present and perturbation-absent scenarios.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 5.

Mixed effects model results for changes in average elbow (EAdiff) and shoulder (SAdiff) angles.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Correlation between the and arm angles.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 11.

Elbow angle signal, shoulder angle signal, and .

More »

Fig 11 Expand