Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T09:35:02.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Brain-machine interaction and assist effect evaluation of a single-degree-of-freedom sit-to-stand transfer robot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2025

Chengyu Hou
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Qian Chen
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Peng Chen*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Xiangyun Li
Affiliation:
West China Biomedical Big Data Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
Kang Li
Affiliation:
West China Biomedical Big Data Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China West China PITEC Co., Ltd., Chengdu, China
*
Corresponding author: Peng Chen; Email: chenpeng@swjtu.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to the prevailing trend of an aging society and the increasing requirements of rehabilitation, this paper presents an approach involving brain-machine interaction (BMI) for a single-degree-of-freedom (1-DOF) sit-to-stand transfer robot. Based on a 1-DOF rehabilitation robot, three experiment paradigms involving motor imagery (MI), action observation of motor imagery (AO-MI) and motor execution are designed using both electroencephalography (EEG) and electromyography (EMG). To enhance motion intention recognition accuracy, a Gumbel-ResNet-KANs decoding model is established. The Gumbel-ResNet-KANs model integrates the Gumbel-Softmax method with the ResNet-KANs network module and demonstrates strong decoding capability, as demonstrated by comparative tests in this paper. To validate the effect of robotic assistance, EEG and EMG coherence are analyzed to assess the impact of robotic assistance on rehabilitation from a neuromuscular perspective in both assisted and unassisted conditions. We assessed the effect of robotics on rehabilitation from an emotional perspective by analyzing the difference between the differential entropy of the right and left brain. The proposed study also reveals that the movement-related cortical potentials in AO-MI are beneficial for promoting the performance of BMI in sit-to-stand training, which provides a possible approach for the development of new types of robots for lower limb rehabilitation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Mechanical structure of the 1-DOF sit-to-stand transfer robot.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Data acquisition experiment configuration.

Figure 2

Figure 3. The workflow of the sit-to-stand rehabilitation training and evaluation system.

Figure 3

Table I. ResNet34 architecture.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Structure of the Gumbel-ResNet-KANs model.

Figure 5

Figure 5. The time-frequency spectrograms for sts, (a, b) for motor imagery, (c, d) for action observation of motor imagery.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Movement-related cortical potentials (MRCP) during the execution of different direction sit-to-stand transfers: (a) for MRCP in the FCz channel and (b) for MRCP in the Cz channel.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Comparing movement-related cortical potentials in both action observation of motor imagery and motor execution: (a) for sit-to-stand and (b) for stand-to-sit.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Hyperparameter variation and model accuracy: (a) spline function order, (b) grid size, (c) learning rate and (d) weights decay.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Loss and accuracy during training of the Gumbel-RseNet-KANs.

Figure 10

Table II. Accuracy of Gumbel-ResNet-KANs in Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential (MI-MRCP) and Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential (AO-MI-MRCP)

Figure 11

Table III. Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential comparative experiment accuracy. The models are named as follows: Model1 (Shallow ConvNet), Model2 (EEGIception), Model3 (EEGITNet), Model4 (EEGResNet), Model5 (Deep ConvNet), Model6 (EEGNet), Model7 (EEGConformer), and Model8 (Gumbel-ResNet-KANs).

Figure 12

Figure 10. Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential comparative experiment accuracy (a) Comparison of accuracy for each model. (b) Comparison of average accuracy and standard deviation on each model.

Figure 13

Table IV. Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential comparative experiment accuracy.

Figure 14

Figure 11. Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential comparative experiment accuracy (a) Comparison of accuracy for each model. (b) Comparison of average accuracy and standard deviation on each model.

Figure 15

Table V. Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential comparative experiment Friedman-Nemenyi test result, critical value = 2.4535.

Figure 16

Table VI. Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential comparative experiment Friedman-Nemenyi test result,critical value = 2.4535.

Figure 17

Table VII. Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential ablation experiment accuracy.

Figure 18

Figure 12. Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential ablation experiment accuracy. (a) Ablation of accuracy for each model. (b) Ablation of average accuracy and standard deviation on each model.

Figure 19

Table VIII. Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential ablation experiment accuracy.

Figure 20

Figure 13. Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential ablation experiment accuracy. (a) Ablation of accuracy for each model. (b) Ablation of average accuracy and standard deviation on each model.

Figure 21

Table IX. Action observation of motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential ablation experiment Friedman-Nemenyi test result,critical value = 1.0600.

Figure 22

Table X. Motor imagery-movement-related cortical potential ablation experiment Friedman-Nemenyi test result,critical value = 1.0600.

Figure 23

Table XI. Number of trainable parameters and FLOPs of the ablation experiment models.

Figure 24

Figure 14. Electroencephalography-electromyography coherence with and without assisted standing process.

Figure 25

Table XII. Coefficients of coherence of Cz-channel electroencephalography signals in the alpha and beta frequency bands with the left and right rectus femoris and biceps femoris muscles in both conditions with and without assisted standing.

Figure 26

Figure 15. Electroencephalography-electromyography coherence coefficients.

Figure 27

Table XIII. Difference Asymmetry (DASM) and Rational Asymmetry (RASM) in assisted and unassisted situations for all participants, where 1 corresponded to the unassisted trial and 2 to the assisted trial.

Figure 28

Figure 16. Schematic diagram of the experiment to simulate hemiplegic lower limb weight-bearing asymmetry: (a) Resistance leash; (b) Wearing schematic.

Figure 29

Figure 17. Lower limb muscle group selection.

Figure 30

Table XIV. Symmetry analysis of standing,S-F for self-standing,L-s for left side weighted standing, R-S for RF for right side weighted standing,Rectus Femoris,VL for vastus lateralis,TA for tibialis anterior.