Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2016, 32, 269  -277

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jab.2015-0155
© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Running With an Elastic Lower Limb Exoskeleton

Michael S. Cherry, Sridhar Kota, Aaron Young, and Daniel P. Ferris
University of Michigan

Although there have been many lower limb robotic exoskeletons that have been tested for human walking, few devices have
been tested for assisting running. It is possible that a pseudo-passive elastic exoskeleton could benefit human running without the
addition of electrical motors due to the spring-like behavior of the human leg. We developed an elastic lower limb exoskeleton
that added stiffness in parallel with the entire lower limb. Six healthy, young subjects ran on a treadmill at 2.3 m/s with and
without the exoskeleton. Although the exoskeleton was designed to provide ~50% of normal leg stiffness during running, it only
provided 24% of leg stiffness during testing. The difference in added leg stiffness was primarily due to soft tissue compression
and harness compliance decreasing exoskeleton displacement during stance. As a result, the exoskeleton only supported about
7% of the peak vertical ground reaction force. There was a significant increase in metabolic cost when running with the exo-
skeleton compared with running without the exoskeleton (ANOVA, P < .01). We conclude that 2 major roadblocks to designing
successful lower limb robotic exoskeletons for human running are human-machine interface compliance and the extra lower
limb inertia from the exoskeleton.

Keywords: leg stiffness, human performance augmentation, spring-mass model

Advances in robotic technologies have resulted in the creation
and testing of many robotic lower limb exoskeletons to be used for
human performance augmentation. Human performance augmenta-
tion devices are not intended to assist individuals with disabilities
like the robotic exoskeletons created by Ekso Bionics (Richmond,
CA), ReWalk (Marlborough, MA), or Cyberdyne (Japan).1–4 Human
performance augmentation exoskeletons are intended for healthy
individuals, to give them physical capabilities they do not possess.
Enhanced strength, reduced fatigue, and decreased metabolic costs
are some of the targets for human performance augmentation exo-
skeletons. Only recently have robotic lower limb exoskeletons been
able to reduce the metabolic cost of walking in healthy individu-
als.5–7 Few devices have been tested for human running, providing
little biomechanical and energetic data for benchmarking running
with a robotic lower limb exoskeleton.
It may be possible to assist running in healthy humans through
the use of passive elastic robotic exoskeletons. In previous work
from our laboratory, we put an elastic ankle exoskeleton in paral-
lel with the human ankle during human hopping to reduce muscle
activity.8 The subjects responded by decreasing their own biological
leg stiffness and maintaining a constant total leg stiffness (sum of
biological leg stiffness and exoskeleton stiffness). This constant
total leg stiffness adjustment is similar to that previously seen in
humans hopping and running on compliant surfaces.9,10 Compliant
surfaces essentially place a spring in series with the lower limb.
Dollar and Herr designed a quasi-passive knee exoskeleton for use
while running.11 They later tested the device during hopping and
found it could reduce the metabolic cost compared with not using
Michael S. Cherry and Sridhar Kota are with the Department of Mechani-
cal Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Aaron Young
and Daniel P. Ferris are with the School of Kinesiology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Address author correspondence to Daniel Ferris
at ferrisdp@umich.edu.
the device.12 During human running, the muscles and tendons act
to produce spring-like behavior in the lower limb during the stance
phase.13–16 As a result, human running mechanics can be modeled as
a spring-mass system consisting of a linear compression leg spring
and a point mass representing the body mass of the runner. Adding a
spring in parallel with the human leg spring could reduce the force
and mechanical work of the human lower limb.
The objective of this study was to evaluate human running
performance using an elastic lower limb exoskeleton. There are
only a few studies in the literature involving exoskeletons for aug-
menting human running.11,17,18 In order for the field to progress, it
is necessary for scientists and engineers to publish their quantitative
data on the performance of exoskeleton designs so that others can
learn from past successes and failures.19,20 A previous publication
from our laboratory described the elastic lower limb exoskeleton
design and fabrication in detail.18 We hypothesized that subjects
would reduce their biological leg stiffness when using the device
compared with running without the device. We also expected that
using the exoskeleton would allow the runners to decrease their
metabolic energy expenditure compared with running while carry-
ing the weight of the exoskeleton.
Methods
Six healthy subjects participated in this study (age 23 y [SD 4.1],
mass 80 kg [SD 6.1], height 1.8 m [SD 0.02]), and all were recre-
ationally active runners who ran at least 10 miles/week. We limited
subject recruitment to subjects that could comfortably wear the
running shoes that were built into the exoskeleton and were within
the exoskeleton’s range of height adjustability. The University of
Michigan Institutional Review Board granted approval for this
project and all participants gave informed, written consent.
Subjects ran on a force-plate-mounted treadmill at 2.3 m/s for
7 minutes at each of 4 conditions. The first condition was normal
running in which no exoskeleton was used (No Exoskeleton). In the

269
 270  Cherry et al
other 3 conditions subjects wore the exoskeleton shown in Figure
1. The design and construction of this exoskeleton was described in
detail in another paper.18 In one of these conditions the exoskeleton
was disengaged (Disengaged Exoskeleton) such that the exoskel-
eton would provide minimal stiffness but would be primarily dead
weight. In the other 2 conditions the exoskeleton was engaged such
that the exoskeleton would provide stiffness during the stance phase
of running but would provide low resistance during swing phase.
The backpack system was modified between these 2 trials to provide
different stiffness levels of the exoskeleton. In the softer of the 2
configurations a spring was used in the backpack system (Compli-
ant Engaged Exoskeleton) that connected via a Bowden cable to
the exoskeleton knee joint. In the stiffer of the 2 configurations the
spring was removed from the backpack (Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton)
and replaced with a rigid bracket. This allowed for 2 sets of data with
the exoskeleton engaged at different exoskeleton stiffness levels.
Subjects were allowed to choose their own stride frequency and
stride width while running. Subjects were not given instruction on
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3
how they should use the device, but were given time to practice run-
ning with it. Subjects ran in the exoskeleton on 2 separate days. On
the first day, the exoskeleton was sized to fit the individual subject.
Subjects then ran for 7 minutes to 30 minutes in each of 2 conditions,
with the exoskeleton engaged and disengaged. During this time the
exoskeleton controller timing was tuned to the individual subject.
This tuning consisted primarily of setting the time delay between
peak hip flexion (which occurs just before heel strike) and when the
exoskeleton clutch is engaged so that the elastic exoskeleton would
be stiff during stance phase. On the second day, subjects ran for 7
minutes in each of the 4 conditions which included: no exoskeleton,
disengaged exoskeleton, compliant engaged exoskeleton, and stiff
engaged exoskeleton. At least 3 minutes of rest were provided
between all trials and additional rest was provided if desired.
Figure 1 — The elastic lower limb exoskeleton worn by a subject. The overall weight was 11.1 kg. The backpack system including the harness had a
mass of 7.0 kg, each shoe had a mass of 0.25 kg, and each leg had a mass of 1.8 kg.
JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016
The exoskeleton (Figure 1) was constructed primarily from
carbon composite, machined aluminum, and steel tubing. A minor
change compared with our past design18 was that the spring at the
shank was modified to eliminate attachment at the medial edge of
the shoes. This was done to allow running with a narrower stance
width. The exoskeleton uses material elasticity to store and release
energy during locomotion while supporting the weight of the user.
The only energy required to operate the device was for a friction-lock
clutch. This clutch enabled switching between stiff and free-moving
states for the stance and swing phases of running, respectively. This
was necessary so that the leg could bend during the swing phase
with minimal resistance from the exoskeleton while providing the
desired stiffness during the stance phase. The design also aimed
to be a low-profile exoskeleton, matching the motion of the legs
without encumbering their mobility.
The exoskeleton was attached to the subject at a waist harness
and custom-modified running shoes. The exoskeleton hip joint
provided full range of motion in all 3 axes (spherical joint). The
exoskeleton ankle joint provided motion in only one axis (revolute
joint orthogonal to the sagittal plane). Both the length of the thigh
segment and the waist harness were adjusted to accommodate each
subject such that subjects could use the same exoskeleton with
only minor modifications. In addition, we designed the exoskel-
eton knee joint such that the backpack spring would engage at a
set angle of exoskeleton knee joint rotation. This angle was set
in the standing position for each subject so that the exoskeleton
would provide the desired stiffness when the exoskeleton length
became shorter than the subject’s standing leg length. When the
leg was more extended than this, the knee joint allowed extension
with minimal restoring force from a secondary spring constructed
of surgical tubing.18 The exoskeleton mass was 11.1 kg in all 3
exoskeleton conditions.
 Running Exoskeleton   271

We controlled the exoskeleton using a real-time control system
(Control Desk, dSpace Inc., Wixom, MI). For each leg the inputs
to the controller were thigh angular velocity and a ground contact
switch. The output was a control signal to a pneumatic cylinder
that engaged and disengaged the backpack system clutch for that
leg. We used the angular velocity signal to detect the point of peak
hip flexion before ground contact. After a subject-specific time
delay the control signal was sent to engage the clutch such that the
exoskeleton would be stiff during the stance phase of running. The
foot switch detected the point at which the foot actually struck the
ground and the duration of the stance phase. Due to the behavior of
the friction-lock clutch, sending a control signal to disengage the
clutch during stance would only release the clutch when it was no
longer under load. Consequently we sent the control signal during
the middle of stance phase as determined by the foot-switch signal.
By doing this, the clutch would disengage automatically as soon as
the energy stored during leg compression was released. This always
occurred before toe-off because humans consistently have a longer
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3
calibrated using known gas mixtures and a syringe. We included
minutes 3.5 to 6.5 in the average for each subject in each condition
to allow subjects to reach steady-state. Metabolic cost (W) was
calculated using Brockway.22 We calculated net metabolic power by
subtracting the metabolic rate while standing from the metabolic rate
for each trial. Standing trials were performed at the beginning and end
of the data collection for each subject, and we averaged the 2 values.
We used commercial software (Visual3D, C-Motion, Rockville,
MD) for data filtering and inverse dynamics calculations. We fil-
tered motion and force data with a low-pass zero-lag fourth-order
Butterworth filter (cutoff frequencies 6 and 10 Hz, respectively).
We filtered EMG data using a high-pass zero-lag fourth-order
Butterworth filter (cutoff frequency 40 Hz) to attenuate movement
artifacts and then performed full wave rectification. We used these
data to calculate root-mean-squared (RMS) muscle activation levels
during both the stance and swing phases of each stride to compare
muscle activation levels across conditions. The RMS data were
normalized by the mean value for each muscle on each subject in

length between their toes and hips at take-off than at heel-strike. An
example of the control system behavior is shown for one subject in
Figure 2. The control system exhibited consistent behavior across
subjects by engaging at least 10 milliseconds before heel contact
and disengaging before toe-off (additional details available18).
Segment and joint kinematics were collected using an 8-camera
motion analysis system (120 Hz, Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, CA).
Reflective markers were placed on the left and right foot, shank,
thigh, ankle, knee, hip and torso. We collected ground reaction
forces using a custom-built force-plate-mounted treadmill21 rigidly
attached to concrete subflooring. We also independently measured
the thigh angular velocities using MEMS gyroscopes (1.2 kHz,
STMicroelectronics, Geneva, Switzerland) for use in the controller.
We collected surface EMG signals for 8 lower limb muscles
on each leg: tibialis anterior, soleus, medial gastrocnemius, lateral
gastrocnemius, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and
medial hamstrings (1.2 kHz, Konigsberg Instruments, Pasadena,
CA). We visually examined each electrode for noise and cross-talk
before data collection.
We measured oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide produc-
tion using a metabolic analysis system (Max-II, AEI Technologies,
Naperville, IL). Before each collection the metabolic system was
the No Exoskeleton condition. We also created linear envelopes of
the EMG data for each stride by low-pass filtering (cutoff frequency
10 Hz) the high-pass filtered and rectified EMG data. The linear
envelopes for each subject were averaged for all strides in each con-
dition and then normalized by the maximum value of the resulting
linear envelope from the No Exoskeleton condition.
Using commercial software (Matlab, The MathWorks, Natick,
MA), we calculated leg stiffness as the linear least squares fit of the
ground reaction force versus lower limb displacement calculated
from hip and forefoot markers. We excluded data points when
ground reaction force was below 5% of the maximum force during
that stride to ensure a more accurate calculation as the noise in the
force plate of the treadmill has a significant impact on the stiffness
calculation at low force levels.
We calculated the force in the exoskeleton legs from displace-
ment of the carbon fiber segments in the shank section of the
exoskeleton. Reflective markers were placed on the exoskeleton
to measure the motion of the exoskeleton and compression of the
shank spring while running. The stiffness of the shank springs was
determined using quasi-static force-deflection testing in a materials
testing machine. Using the measured stiffness and deflection data,
we calculated the approximate exoskeleton leg force.

Figure 2 — Control system behavior for an example subject. The solid black line represents the voltage from the gyro measuring thigh angular velocity.
Positive values represent motion from extension to flexion (anterior direction). Peak hip extension occurs at the zero-crossing from positive to negative
values. The solid gray line represents the control signal. When this signal has a value of 1 the pneumatic cylinder is applying pressure to the friction
lock, which disengages the clutch when the exoskeleton leg is not under load. When the value is 0 there is no air pressure and the clutch is engaged.
The dashed line represents foot switch voltage. Nonzero values indicate the stance phase of running.

JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016

 272  Cherry et al

We used a repeated-measures ANOVA (JMP Version 4, SAS

Institute, Cary, NC) on the 4 test conditions (No Exoskeleton,
Disengaged Exoskeleton, Compliant Engaged Exoskeleton, Stiff
Engaged Exoskeleton) to determine significant differences in kine-
matic, kinetic, and electromyographic data with α = .05. Post hoc
Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) tests were conducted to
determine specific differences between conditions.

Results
Force profiles through the exoskeleton were not as expected. The
force profiles for both legs were nearly symmetric. Noticeably,
the Disengaged Exoskeleton condition provided roughly 75 N
peak force during stance, while the 2 engaged conditions provided
approximately 125 N peak force (Compliant Engaged Exoskeleton)
and 150 N peak force (Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton) (Figure 3). The
peak ground reaction force was approximately 1900 N (Table 1).
About 7% of the bodyweight was transferred through the engaged
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3

exoskeleton. This was lower than expected as the exoskeleton stiff-

ness was intended to be roughly 50% of the subjects’ leg stiffness
while running without the exoskeleton. At takeoff in the Disengaged
Exoskeleton condition, the resistive force of the exoskeleton leg
was near 50 N. This resistance was a result of the kinematics and
dynamics of the exoskeleton straightening out as it extended as
well as the stiffness of the secondary exoskeleton knee joint. As
discussed earlier, the secondary knee joint enables extension of the
leg beyond the standing leg length. An elastic band was used as a
return spring to guarantee that the secondary joint returned to the
original configuration, providing safer function of the exoskeleton.
In the 2 engaged exoskeleton trials, the resistive force at toe-off
Figure 3 — Example exoskeleton leg force for a subject in 3 exoskeleton
was closer to 100 N. conditions (Disengaged Exoskeleton, Compliant Engaged Exoskeleton, and
The exoskeleton leg length (distance from foot to hip attach- Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton). Dashed lines represent individual trials and
ment) showed characteristic spring-like behavior during the stance solid lines represent the average values. Vertical lines represent take-off
phase (Figure 4). Note that the length at ground contact was signifi- and plots start and end at ground contact. Plots are provided for the left
cantly shorter than at toe-off. During swing phase, the exoskeleton leg only, but right leg had nearly identical results.
leg length was shorter than during stance. This behavior mirrored
the human leg length during running. 2). The post hoc tests indicated that there were no significant dif-
Total leg stiffness was significantly higher for all exoskeleton ferences between the 3 exoskeleton conditions. Calculation of the
conditions compared with the No Exoskeleton condition (P < 0.01) natural frequency of the spring-mass system,
(Figure 5). There were no significant differences in total leg stiff- 1
ness between the Disengaged Exoskeleton, Compliant Engaged k/m
fn =
Exoskeleton, and Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton conditions. 2π
Metabolic cost increased significantly in all 3 exoskeleton con- where k was leg stiffness and m was the combined mass of the body
ditions relative to the No Exoskeleton condition (P < 0.01) (Table and exoskeleton, revealed that subjects ran with a fairly constant

Table 1  Exoskeleton properties across conditions

Condition
Compliant Engaged Stiff Engaged
Property Exoskeleton Exoskeleton
Exoskeleton leg stiffness (kN/m) 2.9 (1.45) 3.1 (1.71)
Exoskeleton stiffness as a % of biological 23.00% 24.90%
Exoskeleton stiffness as a % of total leg stiffness 18.40% 19.20%
Peak exoskeleton force (N) 131 (56) 137 (68)
Exoskeleton % peak ground force 7.00% 7.20%
% displacement of exoskeleton compared with biological leg 32.40% 32.60%
Note. Exoskeleton leg stiffness was much less than the biological leg (23–24%). Exoskeleton force was approximately 7% of the
ground reaction force. This discrepancy between stiffness and force was the result of soft tissue compression and harness movement
on the subjects. The displacement of the elastic exoskeleton was only 32% of the biological leg displacement. Unless otherwise noted,
data are the mean values and standard deviations (in parentheses) across subjects.

JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016


Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3
Figure 4 — Exoskeleton length from hip to foot attachment for an
example subject in all 3 exoskeleton conditions (Disengaged Exoskeleton,
Compliant Engaged Exoskeleton, and Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton). Dashed
lines represent individual trials and the solid lines represent the average
values. Vertical lines represent take-off and plots start and end at ground
contact. Plots are provided for the left leg only, but right leg had nearly
identical results.
spring-mass natural frequency that trended upward with exoskel-
eton stiffness (No Exoskeleton 1.98 Hz [SD 0.10], Disengaged
Exoskeleton 1.99 Hz [SD 0.13], Compliant Engaged Exoskeleton
2.08 Hz [SD 0.14], Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton 2.12 Hz [SD 0.17]).
They increased leg stiffness to compensate for the extra mass of
the exoskeleton.
Figure 5 — Total leg stiffness and exoskeleton stiffness across conditions. The error bars are the standard deviation of the mean stiffness values for
all subjects.
JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016
Running Exoskeleton   273
When comparing running with the exoskeleton to running
without the exoskeleton, EMG activation patterns reveal increases
in muscle activity for some muscles and decreases in other muscles
(Figure 6). During stance there were increases when the exoskeleton
was used for the medial and lateral gastrocnemius, soleus, tibialis
anterior, and rectus femoris compared with running without the
exoskeleton. Decreases were seen during stance phase in the vastus
medialis and vastus lateralis when using the exoskeleton. Of these
changes in EMG activation levels, only the increase in the rectus
femoris was significant during stance (Table 3). During swing
phase the rectus femoris and medial hamstrings for both legs were
significantly higher (P < .05) when using the exoskeleton than when
running with no exoskeleton.
Discussion
Both of our hypotheses were incorrect. Runners did not run with a
constant leg stiffness across the conditions, and the exoskeleton did
not reduce the metabolic cost of running compared with running
with just the weight of the exoskeleton. However, when accounting
for the extra mass that the runners carried with the exoskeleton, the
increased leg stiffness kept the natural frequency of their virtual
spring-mass system relatively constant across conditions (Table 2).
This increase in leg stiffness with added mass during running is in
line with recent findings from Silder and colleagues.23 Metabolic
cost during the 2 engaged conditions was not statistically different
from the metabolic cost during the disengaged condition. In hind-
sight, the lack of a metabolic effect is not surprising given the small
amount of force provided by the exoskeleton during running. The
metabolic cost of running with the exoskeleton was much larger than
the cost of running without the exoskeleton. This is likely due to
the added mass of the exoskeleton increasing the metabolic cost of
leg swing along with the extra mechanical work required to extend
the exoskeleton leg at the end of stance.
Peak ground reaction forces were around 2000 N but the exo-
skeleton leg force in the stiffest condition (Stiff Engaged Exoskel-
eton) was only about 150 N. This was about 7% of the force in the
human lower limb during running. The exoskeleton was intended
to provide ~50% of the wearer’s leg stiffness. We chose the 50%
level for the stiffest condition because stiffer conditions were not
tolerable to users during pilot testing. However, the stiffness and
forces observed in the experiment by the exoskeleton were far less.
This was likely due to the movement of the waist harness relative
 Table 2  Metabolic cost for each subject and averaged data for all subjects
Condition
Disengaged Compliant Engaged Stiff Engaged
No Exoskeleton Exoskeleton Exoskeleton Exoskeleton
Subject # Net metabolic power consumption for each subject (W)
1 654 1014 1077 1052
2 827 1296 1368 1424
3 686 1222 1291 1316
4 848 1245 1310 1292
5 894 1187 1190 1233
6 735 1041 1066 1067
Mean (W) 774 1168 1217 1231
SD (W) 96 114 127 146
% change N/A 50.80% 57.20% 59.00%
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3

Note. There was a significant difference between the No Exoskeleton condition and the other 3 conditions (ANOVA, P < .001 for
condition, Tukey honest significance difference test P < .05). There were no significant differences between the 3 exoskeleton
conditions.

Figure 6 — Muscle activation levels for 8 muscles on the right lower limb. Curves shown represent the averaged curves for all subjects. Plots start
and end at ground contact. Toe-off occurred at approximately 40% of the gait cycle. TA = tibialis anterior; SO = soleus; MG = medial gastrocnemius;
LG = lateral gastrocnemius; VM = vastus medialis; VL = vastus lateralis; RF = rectus femoris; MH = medial hamstrings; EMG = electromyography.

274 JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016

 Running Exoskeleton   275

Table 3  Root-mean-squared electromyography (EMG) data

Condition
Disengaged Compliant Engaged Stiff Engaged ANOVA P
Surface EMG Location Exoskeleton, Mean (SD) Exoskeleton, Mean (SD) Exoskeleton, Mean (SD) Value
Stance phase amplitudes
LTA 1.07 (0.239) 1.16 (0.312) 0.99 (0.330) .584
LSO 0.93 (0.186) 0.97 (0.321) 0.88 (0.312) .635
LMG 1.04 (0.074) 1.06 (0.112) 1.07 (0.119) .346
LLG 1.11 (0.495) 1.13 (0.431) 1.10 (0.498) .948
LVM .92 (0.293) 0.92 (0.308) 0.80 (0.171) .076
LVL 1.02 (0.052) 0.97 (0.216) 0.85 (0.197) .17
LRF 1.25 (0.110)* 1.22 (0.128)* 1.12 (0.113) .002*
LMH 1.31 (0.596) 1.56 (0.953) 1.58 (1.121) .162
RTA 1.49 (0.715) 1.45 (0.612) 1.43 (0.586) .585
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3

RSO 1.02 (0.141) 1.08 (0.165) 1.10 (0.156) .183

RMG 1.18 (0.267) 1.12 (0.190) 1.23 (0.285) .146
RLG 1.13 (0.398) 1.09 (0.206) 0.99 (0.437) .553
RVM 0.97 (0.250) 0.95 (0.253) 0.87 (0.267) .31
RVL 0.87 (0.146) 0.85 (0.178) 0.79 (0.325) .065
RRF 1.22 (0.138)* 1.19 (0.117)* 1.18 (0.116)* < .001*
RMH 1.34 (0.886) 1.34 (0.826) 1.29 (0.729) .635
Swing phase amplitudes
LTA 0.80 (0.247) 0.78 (0.117) 0.70 (0.283)* .017*
LSO 0.95 (0.355) 0.98 (0.410) 0.91 (0.395) .798
LMG 1.47 (0.510) 1.63 (0.503)* 1.68 (0.590)* .004*
LLG 1.34 (0.537) 1.58 (0.732) 1.34 (0.453) .076
LVM 1.06 (0.274) 1.18 (0.322) 1.30 (0.700) .637
LVL 1.03 (0.142) 1.08 (0.284) 1.01 (0.218) .835
LRF 1.32 (0.249)* 1.52 (0.356)* 1.46 (0.316)* < .001*
LMH 1.31 (0.137)* 1.36 (0.175)* 1.32 (0.181)* < .001*
RTA 1.13 (0.697) 0.95 (0.510) 0.90 (0.491) .463
RSO 1.40 (0.629) 1.62 (0.730) 1.59 (0.623) .033*
RMG 1.54 (0.548) 1.66 (0.452)* 1.74 (0.598)* .006*
RLG 1.21 (0.432) 1.12 (0.348) 1.20 (0.371) .586
RVM 1.24 (0.456) 1.14 (0.294) 1.14 (0.377) .559
RVL 1.09 (0.220) 1.06 (0.267) 1.11 (0.361) .994
RRF 1.79 (0.632)* 1.93 (0.714)* 2.10 (0.629)* < .001*
RMH 1.38 (0.337)* 1.41 (0.242)* 1.40 (0.231)* < .001*
Abbreviations: LTA = left tibialis anterior; LSO = left soleus; LMG = left medial gastrocnemius; LLG = left lateral gastrocnemius; LVM = left vastus
medialis; LVL = left vastus lateralis; LRF = left rectus femoris; LMH = left medial hamstrings; RTA = right tibialis anterior; RSO = right soleus; RMG
= right medial gastrocnemius; RLG = right lateral gastrocnemius; RVM = right vastus medialis; RVL = right vastus lateralis; RRF = right rectus femoris;
RMH = right medial hamstrings.
Note. Data are normalized to mean root-mean-squared EMG for each muscle in the No Exoskeleton condition. ANOVA P values determined model sig-
nificance for individual measures. Tukey honest significant difference test was used to determine significant differences between conditions. *Asterisks
in the Disengaged Exoskeleton, Compliant Engaged Exoskeleton, and Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton columns indicate values significantly different than
No Exoskeleton condition at an alpha level of .05. No significant differences were detected between the Disengaged Exoskeleton, Compliant Engaged
Exoskeleton, and Stiff Engaged Exoskeleton conditions.

to the subject’s body and soft tissue compression in the skin, fat, resulted in the exoskeleton not being loaded to its designed levels.
and muscle around the torso, which may have an appreciable effect Unexpectedly, the relative force, displacement, and stiffness of
in normal human locomotion.24 This decoupling between bio- the exoskeleton in the 2 engaged conditions were very similar.
logical lower limb displacement and exoskeleton leg displacement This may be because the amount of soft tissue compression and

JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016

 276  Cherry et al
harness movement were different across the 2 conditions, resulting
in a similar effective exoskeleton stiffness despite the presence/
absence of the backpack spring. Future research on robotic lower
limb exoskeletons should take care to anticipate potential soft tissue
compression in the human-machine interface and should measure
it with motion analysis tools.
The changes in EMG activation levels observed during the
experiment offer insight into why the metabolic expenditure was
greater with the exoskeleton. During stance, there was a slight
decrease (10% to 20%) in vastus medialis and vastus lateralis
muscle activation levels for running with the engaged exoskeleton
compared with no exoskeleton (nonsignificant). This is likely due
to load bearing provided by the exoskeleton to support the weight
of the subject. The decrease is small and not statistically signifi-
cant, corresponding to the small amount of force provided by the
exoskeleton. It is expected that if more assistance was provided
by the exoskeleton during stance, the decrease in vastus medialis
and vastus lateralis activation levels during stance might be more
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3
pronounced and contribute to lowering metabolic cost. During the
stance phase, the only significant increase in muscle activation was
in the rectus femoris. We suspect that increases in rectus femoris
activation could have been used to stabilize the hip joint while the
exoskeleton applied a vertical force laterally to the subject’s torso.
During the swing phase, there were increases in electromyo-
graphic activity of both hip flexors and extensors when running
with the exoskeleton compared with running without the exoskel-
eton. This is most likely a result of having to swing extra lower
limb inertia with the added mass of the exoskeleton. Adding over
2 kg of exoskeleton mass to each leg substantially increases the
effort required to swing the legs, especially while running. Addi-
tional effort is also required to overcome the resistive force of the
exoskeleton to extend the exoskeleton leg at the end of the stance
phase. Future work should focus on decreasing the mass of the
exoskeleton, especially the distal mass that moves with the lower
limbs during swing. This should help decrease the metabolic cost
of running with the exoskeleton.25,26
Although our study found that the elastic lower limb exo-
skeleton increased the metabolic cost of running compared with
not using the device, the results also point to clear obstacles for
future work. The quantitative evaluation of exoskeleton forces
and displacements, along with leg stiffness and muscle activity,
yielded insight into why the exoskeleton likely did not perform
as well as it could have. There is a clear need for more published
studies with quantitative biomechanical and energetic data on the
exoskeletons that are in development around the world.4,19,27 Even
when the devices do not function as well as intended, the data can
help developers of the next prototypes for testing. This particular
study identified 2 very important factors that can play a large role in
shaping the biomechanical and energetic consequences of an elastic
lower limb exoskeleton for running. First, the human-machine inter-
face can cause a decrease in effective exoskeleton stiffness during
running. Second, the added distal mass of the exoskeleton can lead
to higher muscle activity during the swing phase that needs to be
counterbalanced by some method of swing assist. Future work must
address these issues to create a successful exoskeleton for running.
Acknowledgments
Youngseok Oh, Kevin Lapprich, Brandon Chan, Sean Mitera, Philip
Dowhan, and Joe Cho assisted with design and fabrication of the exo-
skeleton. Anne Manier and Les Wontorcik assisted with fabrication of the
harness and leaf spring. Alberto Alfaro, Evelyn Anaka, Cara Lewis, Amy
JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016
Sipp, and Monica Majcher assisted with data collections. Funding was
provided by the National Science Foundation BES-0347479.
References
1. Kawamoto H, Sankai Y. Power assist method based on phase sequence
and muscle force condition for HAL. Adv Robot. 2005;19(7):717–734.
doi:10.1163/1568553054455103
2. Esquenazi A, Talaty M, Packel A, Saulino M. The ReWalk pow-
ered exoskeleton to restore ambulatory function to individuals
with thoracic-level motor-complete spinal cord injury. Am J
Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(11):911–921. PubMed doi:10.1097/
PHM.0b013e318269d9a3
3. Chen G, Chan CK, Guo Z, Yu H. A review of lower extremity assis-
tive robotic exoskeletons in rehabilitation therapy. Crit Rev Biomed
Eng. 2013;41(4-5):343–363. PubMed doi:10.1615/CritRevBiomed-
Eng.2014010453
4. Guizzo E, Goldstein H. The rise of the body bots. [robotic exoskeletons]
IEEE Spectr. 2005;42(10):50–56. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2005.1515961
5. Collins SH, Wiggin MB, Sawicki GS. Reducing the energy cost of
human walking using an unpowered exoskeleton. Nature. 2015; in
press. PubMed doi:10.1038/nature14288
6. Mooney LM, Rouse E, Herr H. Autonomous exoskeleton reduces
metabolic cost of human walking during load carriage. J Neuroeng
Rehabil. 2014;11(1):80. PubMed doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-80
7. Mooney LM, Rouse EJ, Herr HM. Autonomous exoskeleton reduces
metabolic cost of human walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:151.
PubMed doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-151
8. Ferris DP, Bohra ZA, Lukos JR, Kinnaird CR. Neuromechanical adap-
tation to hopping with an elastic ankle-foot orthosis. J Appl Physiol.
2006;100(1):163–170. PubMed doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00821.2005
9. Ferris DP, Farley CT. Interaction of leg stiffness and surfaces stiffness
during human hopping. J Appl Physiol. 1997;82(1):15–22, discussion
13–14. PubMed
10. Ferris DP, Louie M, Farley CT. Running in the real world: adjusting
leg stiffness for different surfaces. Proc Biol Sci. 1998;265(1400):989–
994. PubMed doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0388
11. Dollar AM, Herr H. Design of a quasi-passive knee exoskeleton to
assist running. International Conference on Robots and Intelligent
Systems; 2008. doi:10.1109/IROS.2008.4651202
12. Grabowski AM, Herr HM. Leg exoskeleton reduces the metabolic cost
of human hopping. J Appl Physiol. 2009;107(3):670–678. PubMed
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.91609.2008
13. Farley CT, Ferris DP. Biomechanics of walking and running: center of
mass movements to muscle action. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1998;26:253–
285. PubMed
14. McMahon TA, Cheng GC. The mechanics of running: how does stiff-
ness couple with speed? J Biomech. 1990;23(Suppl 1):65–78. PubMed
doi:10.1016/0021-9290(90)90042-2
15. Cavagna GA, Kaneko M. Mechanical work and efficiency in level
walking and running. J Physiol. 1977;268(2):467–481. PubMed
doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011866
16. Alexander RM. Elastic Mechanisms in Animal Movement. New York:
Cambridge University Press; 1988.
17. Elliott G, Sawicki GS, Marecki A, Herr H. The biomechanics and
energetics of human running using an elastic knee exoskeleton. Inter-
national Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2013. doi:10.1109/
ICORR.2013.6650418
18. Cherry MS, Kota S, Ferris DP. An elastic exoskeleton for assisting
human running. ASME International Design Engineering Technical
Conference; 2009. doi:10.1115/DETC2009-87355

19. Ferris DP, Sawicki GS, Daley MA. A physiologist’s perspective on
robotic exoskeletons for human locomotion. Int J Humanoid Robotics.
2007;4(03):507–528. PubMed doi:10.1142/S0219843607001138
20. Dollar AM, Herr H. Lower extremity exoskeletons and active orthoses:
Challenges and state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Robot. 2008;24(1):144–
158. doi:10.1109/TRO.2008.915453
21. Collins SH, Adamczyk PG, Ferris DP, Kuo AD. A simple method for
calibrating force plates and force treadmills using an instrumented
pole. Gait Posture. 2009;29(1):59–64. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.gait-
post.2008.06.010
22. Brockway JM. Derivation of formulae used to calculate energy expen-
diture in man. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1987;41(6):463–471. PubMed
23. Silder A, Besier T, Delp SL. Running with a load increases leg stiff-
ness. J Biomech. 2015;48(6):1003–1008. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
jbiomech.2015.01.051
Downloaded by Univ of Massachusetts Lib on 09/17/16, Volume 32, Article Number 3
JAB Vol. 32, No. 3, 2016
Running Exoskeleton   277
24. Zelik KE, Kuo AD. Human walking isn’t all hard work: evidence of
soft tissue contributions to energy dissipation and return. J Exp Biol.
2010;213(24):4257–4264. PubMed doi:10.1242/jeb.044297
25. Myers MJ, Steudel K. Effect of limb mass and its distribution on the
energetic cost of running. J Exp Biol. 1985;116:363–373. PubMed
26. Browning RC, Modica JR, Kram R, Goswami A. The effects of adding
mass to the legs on the energetics and biomechanics of walking.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(3):515–525. PubMed doi:10.1249/
mss.0b013e31802b3562
27. Garcia E, Sater JM, Main J. Exoskeletons for human performance
augmentation (EHPA): a program summary. J Robotics Soc Japan.
2002;20(8):822–826. doi:10.7210/jrsj.20.822