Article

The International Journal of

Robotics Research
Model-based online learning and adaptive 1–21
Ó The Author(s) 2019

control for a ‘‘human-wearable soft robot’’ Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0278364919873379
integrated system journals.sagepub.com/home/ijr

Zhi Qiang Tang1 , Ho Lam Heung1, Kai Yu Tong1 and Zheng Li2

Abstract
Soft robots are considered intrinsically safe with regard to human–robot interaction. This has motivated the development
and investigation of soft medical robots, such as soft robotic gloves for stroke rehabilitation. However, the output force of
conventional purely soft actuators is usually limited. This restricts their application in stroke rehabilitation, which requires a
large force and bidirectional movement. In addition, accurate control of soft actuators is difficult owing to the nonlinearity of
purely soft actuators. In this study, a soft robotic glove is designed based on a soft-elastic composite actuator (SECA) that
integrates an elastic torque compensating layer to increase the output force as well as achieving bidirectional movement.
Such a hybrid design also significantly reduces the degree of nonlinearity compared with a purely soft actuator. A model-
based online learning and adaptive control algorithm is proposed for the wearable soft robotic glove, taking its interaction
environment into account, namely, the human hand/finger. The designed hybrid controller enables the soft robotic glove to
adapt to different hand conditions for reference tracking. Experimental results show that satisfactory tracking performance
can be achieved on both healthy subjects and stroke subjects (with the tracking root mean square error (RMSE) \0.05 rad).
Meanwhile, the controller can output an actuator–finger model for each individual subject (with the learning error RMSE
\0.06 rad), which provides information on the condition of the finger and, thus, has further potential clinical application.

Keywords
Model-based learning control, soft robot, human–robot interaction

1. Introduction upper (Balasubramanian et al., 2008) and lower (Park

Soft robots have attracted much attention in recent years
owing to their distinctive features compared with rigid
robots. Soft robots have found applications in a variety of
fields, including astronautics (Villoslada et al., 2018), deep
sea exploration (Galloway et al., 2016), and medicine
(Awad et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018). Among medical
applications, soft robots for rehabilitation are increasingly
being employed owing to their inherent safety, light weight,
and increased potential for portability and efficacy, in con-
trast to conventional rigid rehabilitation devices (Dovat
et al., 2008; Hu et al., 2013), which have limitations of
heavy weight and large size that may hinder upper-limb
movement and performance of activities of daily living
(ADLs). Robot-assisted hand rehabilitation for stroke sur-
vivors has demonstrated improved motor recovery after
rehabilitation training (Balasubramanian et al., 2010;
Takahashi et al., 2007) and more clinicians are interested to
use robotic devices in clinical rehabilitation. Up to now,
soft robots have been designed for assisting movements of
et al., 2014) limbs. In particular, wearable soft robotic
gloves (In et al., 2015; Polygerinos et al., 2015) have been
designed for hand rehabilitation. Such soft robotic gloves
are different from the soft robotic hands (Catalano et al.,
2014; Deimel and Brock, 2016) that are used as prostheses.
The output force of soft robotic gloves is usually limited,
1
Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR
2
Department of Surgery and the Chow Yuk Ho Technology Centre for
Innovative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin,
Hong Kong SAR
Corresponding authors:
Kai Yu Tong, Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR.
Email: kytong@cuhk.edu.hk
Zheng Li, Department of Surgery and the Chow Yuk Ho Technology
Centre for Innovative Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Shatin, Hong Kong SAR.
Email: lizheng@cuhk.edu.hk
2 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)
Fig. 1. 3D-printed soft robotic glove.
whereas soft robotic hands need to be able to supply a
strong force when grasping various objects in their role as
replacements for missing hands. Soft robotic gloves need
to interact with human hands for assisting hand movement,
and therefore hand conditions are important factors in their
design and control, whereas these conditions are not rele-
vant for prosthetic robotic hands. The development of con-
trol algorithms remains a challenge for soft robots, owing
to the nonlinearity of soft actuators and their interaction
with the environment.
Pioneering soft robotic gloves (In et al., 2015;
Polygerinos et al., 2015) mainly provided flexional move-
ment to grasp objects, but could not produce sufficient
extensional force for stroke patients who are unable to
extend their fingers because of spasticity. This led to a situ-
ation in which a stroke survivor was able to grasp an object
but could not release it. Therefore, this type of system
could not assist the training of stroke patients with spasti-
city. Consequently, another type of fabric-based bidirec-
tional soft robotic glove was designed to offer active
assistance with both finger flexion and extension (Yap
et al., 2017). However, the overall size of this bidirectional
actuator was twice that of the earlier type (around 30 mm
in thickness), making the system more cumbersome to
wear.
In the present study, a new soft robotic glove is designed
to assist both flexional and extensional movement while
retaining a small size (15 mm in thickness) by incorporat-
ing an elastic torque-compensating layer into the soft actua-
tor, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. This design can provide
flexional torque on pressurization, and the compensating
layer can provide extensional torque on depressurization.
Such a hybrid design also exhibits a significantly reduced
degree of nonlinearity compared with a purely soft actua-
tor, with consequent benefit to dynamic modeling of the
actuator.
The interaction of soft robots with the environment is a
critical challenge faced by soft robotic modeling and con-
trol. In particular, the interaction between soft robots and
Fig. 2. Exploded view of one 3D-printed soft-elastic composite
actuator (SECA).
humans is an essential consideration with regard to the
control of soft robots for rehabilitation. Existing controllers
proposed for the manipulation of soft robots can be cate-
gorized into three types (George Thuruthel et al., 2018):
model-free, model-based, and hybrid controllers. Model-
free controllers are usually based on machine learning tech-
niques or empirical methods. Such controllers have great
advantages in highly nonlinear, non-uniform, and unstruc-
tured environment situations where modeling is almost
impossible. Although Lyapunov stability and convergence
can be proved in some model-free adaptive controllers
(Parks, 1966), analytical methods for the stability and con-
vergence analysis of popular machine-learning-based
model-free controllers nowadays are difficult to derive
owing to probabilistic or non-parametric properties
(Braganza et al., 2007; Kocijan, 2016; You et al., 2017). In
applications where stability is the first priority and system
behavior needs to be predictable, model-based approaches
are preferred. Model-based controllers (Best et al., 2016;
Morrow et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2019) usually need analy-
tical models to derive the controller. These controllers have
more accurate and reliable performance than model-free
controllers for uniform soft manipulators in known envir-
onments. However, they usually require well-defined dyna-
mical models for the soft robots, which may not be easy to
construct on the basis of rigid-body assumptions (Trimmer,
2014). Advanced accurate modeling methods (Renda et al.,
2018; Zhang et al., 2016) have limited use owing to their
computational complexity and the cost of the sensors
required. Hybrid controllers (Braganza et al., 2007;
Reinhart et al., 2017) combine model-free and model-based
controllers, and are usually based on an analytical model to
capture the main part of the system’s intrinsic properties
and a data learning model to compensate dynamic uncer-
tainties. Hybrid controllers are a viable and promising
approach for soft robot control (George Thuruthel et al.,
Tang et al.
2018). In this study, we design a hybrid controller for our
system.
It is important to consider the human finger as the inter-
action environment for a wearable soft robotic glove. For
stroke rehabilitation, finger spasticity is the main difficulty
that needs to be overcome (Yue et al., 2017). Spasticity
results from impaired reflex function and induces a number
of changes in muscle properties, such as stiffness, fibrosis,
and atrophy (Thibaut et al., 2013). It has been shown that
joint stiffness can be treated as a constant when the finger
joint moves at a fixed velocity (Kamper et al., 2006, 2002).
Each individual has a constant joint stiffness, but stiffness
varies from person to person. Hence, it is necessary to
design an effective control algorithm that allows a soft
robotic glove to adapt to differences in finger spasticity.
Our proposed control algorithm is a novel integration of
model predictive control (MPC) and iterative learning con-
trol (ILC) that simultaneously achieves model learning and
reference trajectory tracking of targets. In contrast, previous
MPC and ILC combinations have aimed at improving
tracking performance only. Cueli and Bordons (2008) and
Lee et al. (1999) focused on how to incorporate iterative
information into an MPC controller and improve its track-
ing performance by redesigning the MPC cost function.
Bukkems et al. (2005) and Liu and Xi (2014) emphasized
ILC controller design as a way of improving ILC tracking
performance. With regard to model learning control,
Ichikawa et al. (2006) and Underwood and Husain (2010)
developed an online parameter identification method based
on a recursive least-squares algorithm to control
permanent-magnet synchronous motors, and Bouffard et al.
(2012) proposed a learning-based model predictive control-
ler based on the extended Kalman filter method for control
of a quadrotor. The learning technique in our proposed
method can output an accurate model for the soft actuator–
finger system within specified error tolerance. In addition,
the learned model parameters can provide insight into the
behavior of the system, which has clinical potential for the
investigation of finger conditions.
In this article, we propose a model-based online learning
and adaptive control algorithm for a wearable soft robotic
glove, taking account of its need to interact with stroke sur-
vivors. We describe the complete architecture of the control
algorithm as well as a theoretical proof of its capabilities.
Our hybrid controller utilizes a dynamic model structure
for the soft actuator–finger system and a model learning
method to allow updating of model parameters based on
observed data in real time. The learning technique enables
the soft robotic glove to adapt to different hand conditions.
Our method provides the reference tracking performance
that is necessary for rehabilitation training of stroke survi-
vors with the aim of improving motor functions (Ao et al.,
2015; Timmermans et al., 2009). Because hand rehabilita-
tion training is usually a repetitive process (Takahashi et al.,
2007), the reference trajectory is taken to be a periodic sig-
nal, and our controller is designed for periodic reference
tracking. This reference tracking can provide the necessary
3
repetitive stretching exercise training for stroke patients. In
addition, an adjustable reference trajectory is designed,
which takes both individual range of motion differences
and human–robot interaction comfort into consideration.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this article is the
first to take finger spasticity into account in the design of a
controller for a soft robotic glove. The contributions of this
article include the following.
 Simplification (i.e., linearization) of the control for soft
robots by incorporating elastic materials, using the
SECA as the example.
 Consideration of the interaction environment (finger)
in the development of the dynamic model and control
problem of the soft actuator–finger system.
 Development of a model-based online learning adap-
tive control algorithm for the soft actuator–finger sys-
tem with theoretical proof and experimental validation.
 A proposal for use of the learned model when investi-
gating stroke finger conditions.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows.
The soft robotic glove and an overview of the control sys-
tem are described in Section 2, and the model of the soft
actuator–finger system is presented in Section 3. The com-
plete model learning adaptive control algorithm is
explained in detail in Section 4. Results of simulations are
presented in Section 5. Tests of the proposed method on
six human subjects are described in Section 6. The poten-
tial clinical application and limitations of the model are dis-
cussed in Section 7. Finally, our conclusions from this
investigation are given in Section 8.
2. System description
Our system consists of a soft robotic glove and pneumatic
control hardware. Each item is described in a subsection in
the following.
2.1. Soft robotic glove
We have previously designed a soft robotic glove that
assists stroke survivors in performing ADLs (Heung et al.,
2019). In the present study, the soft robotic glove is further
modified via our proposed control algorithm to adapt to dif-
ferent stroke survivors suffering from finger spasticity. Our
soft robotic glove consists of a hand base that enables the
3D-printed SECA to be attached to a hand with Velcro
straps, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the structure
of the SECA, which is composed of metacarpophalangeal
(MCP) and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) segments corre-
sponding to actuation of the MCP and PIP joints of the
human finger. When wearing the soft robotic glove, the
position of hand base can be adjusted to align MCP and
PIP segments of the SECA with MCP and PIP joints of the
human finger, respectively. Once aligned, the hand base is
fixed. Then Velcro straps are used to secure each finger on
4 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Fig. 3. Demonstration of bidirectional movement of the SECA on a wooden hand. (a) Resting state of the wooden index finger with
attached torsional springs (stiffness 2 N/mm for MCP and 0.6 N/mm for PIP). The sum of the MCP and PIP angles in the resting state
is 1108. (b) Extended state of the wooden index finger bound with the SECA at 0 kPa pressure. The sum of the MCP and PIP angles
in the extended state is 608. (c) Flexed state of the wooden index finger bound with the SECA at 87 kPa pressure. The sum of the
MCP and PIP angles in the flexed state is 1058.

the SECA to minimize any gap between the finger and

SECA during the training period. The SECAs for our soft
robotic glove are double-segmented and lack covering on
the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint because the DIP joint
contributes only 15% to a functional grip (Leibovic and
Bowers, 1994) and stroke patients need to have a sense of
touch at the fingertips when grasping objects (Tong et al.,
2010). Each segment of the SECA consists of a silicone
actuator body, fiber reinforcements, a flex sensor, and a tor-
que compensating layer. On pressurization with fluid, the
fiber reinforcement restricts the radial expansion of each
segment, as a result of which they become elongated in the
axial direction. The torque compensating layer further con-
strains the bottom elongation, acting as a strain limiting
layer for bending of the MCP and PIP segments. On depres-
surization, the torque compensating layer provides an
assisting torque to facilitate effective extension of the MCP
and PIP segments to their initial resting position. Figure 3
illustrates the flexed and extended states of a wooden index
finger bound to the SECA. Torsional springs with stiffness
2 N/mm for MCP and 0.6 N/mm for PIP are attached to the
MCP and PIP joints of the wooden index finger to simulate
a hand clenched owing to spasticity (Yap et al., 2016).
The silicone actuator body of the double-segmented
SECA (length 120 mm, width 18 mm, height 15 mm, and
mass 24 g) is directly 3D-printed from silicone (ACEO
Silicone GP Shore A 30 from Wacker Chemie AG and
ACEO, Burghausen, Germany). The selected silicone mate-
rial offers high elongation (from 200% to 800%) and hard-
ness (Shore A 30) to prevent failure during bending
deformation. An A2 stainless steel plate of thickness 0.2
mm is adopted as the torque compensating layer. Soft sen-
sors (Kim et al., 2018; Soter et al., 2018; Thuruthel et al.,
2019) are good potential candidates for soft robotic appli-
cations. Currently, in our system two commercially avail-
able 2:200 (5.6 cm) flex sensors (Flexpoint Sensor System,
Draper, UT, USA) are positioned between the MCP/PIP
segment and the torque compensating layer to measure the
Fig. 4. Architecture of the pneumatic control setup.
bending angle. Gerboni et al. (2017) have already shown
the high accuracy and repeatability of the selected flex sen-
sors in instantly measuring bending angles. Transparent
fiber reinforcements are embedded in the MCP and PIP
segments.
2.2. Pneumatic control hardware
The architecture of the pneumatic control setup is shown in
Figure 4. The control algorithm is implemented on
LabVIEW 2015 Version (National Instruments, Corp.,
USA). The data acquisition device (DAQ; USB-6009,
National Instruments, Corp., USA) transmits control com-
mands to a proportional solenoid valve (ITV2091-
21N2BS5, SMC, Tokyo, Japan) and receives sensor read-
ings from the solenoid valve and the flex sensors. The air
pump (BTC Diaphragm Pump, Parker Hannifin
Corporation, OH, USA) supplies air pressure for the
SECA. The proportional solenoid valve can regulate the air
pressure based on command signals from the DAQ. The
two flex sensors measure the bending angles of the MCP
and PIP segments. The flex sensor data are sampled at
1,000 Hz with 16-bit resolution. The controller frequency
is 10 Hz.
Tang et al. 5

Fig. 5. (a) Illustration of the interaction between SECA and finger. The MCP and PIP segments of the SECA correspond to the MCP
and PIP joints of the finger, respectively. (b) Side view of one segment (MCP or PIP) of the SECA, illustrating the bending state. (c)
Zoomed-in cross-sectional view showing the geometry of the system.

3. System modeling manipulator can be expressed as a function of bending

angle:
This section gives a detailed description of the procedures
for modeling the interaction between the soft actuator and 1 1
the human finger. PEjs = Vj Es e2 = Kjs q2j ð2Þ
2 2
where e is the material strain, qj is the bending angle of
3.1. SECA model segment j, and Kjs is the equivalent stiffness of the silicone
body at segment j.
The fundamental energy problem for soft robots is similar The torque compensating layer here can be viewed as a
to that for rigid robots (Trimmer, 2014). We construct a cantilever beam because one end is fixed in the hand base
dynamic model for each segment of the SECA from an and the other end can bend freely. According to Rao and
energy perspective. The model is based on the assumption Yap (2011), the strain energy of this layer can be expressed
of piecewise-constant curvature (Li and Du, 2013; as
Marchese and Rus, 2016; Webster III and Jones, 2010),
which is widely used in soft robot modeling. Based on the p 4 Et I 2 1 t 2
Lagrangian equations of motion, we first need to find the PEjt = q = Kq ð3Þ
64lj3 j 2 j j
potential and kinetic energy of each segment. Owing to the
light weight of the SECA, we ignore the gravitational where Kjt is the equivalent stiffness of the torque compen-
potential energy. As the fiber reinforcements restrict radial sating layer with respect to segment j, and Et and I are the
expansion, circumferential expansion can also be neglected. Young’s modulus and moment of inertia of the torque com-
The main deformation is elongation of the silicone actuator pensating layer, respectively. Thus, the total potential
body. The potential energy of each segment contains strain energy of each segment is
energy stored in this body and in the torque compensating
layer. For the silicone actuator body, the material volume 1
PEj = PEjs + PEjt = Kja q2j ð4Þ
incurring strain of each segment is 2
    where Kja = Kjs + Kjt is the total stiffness of actuator seg-
1 2 1 2
Vj = pr + 2(w + d)r2  pr + 2wr1 × lj ment j.
2 2 2 1 The bending velocities of the silicone actuator body and
ð1Þ torque compensating layer are the same because they are
attached to each other. According to Rao and Yap (2011),
where j 2 fm, pg, with j = m and j = p representing the the kinetic energy of each segment can be expressed as
MCP and PIP segments, respectively, lj is the length of seg-
 
ment j, r1 and r2 are the inner and outer radii, respectively, 1 3 4 1
w is the chamber gap, and d is the SECA thickness, as KEj =  (msj + mtj )lj2 q_ 2j = Jja q_ 2j ð5Þ
2 2 p 2
shown in Figure 5c.
The stressâĂSx-strain relationship of our SECA material where Jja is the equivalent moment of inertia of actuator
can be approximated with a constant Young’s modulus Es segment j, and msj and mtj are the masses of the silicon
when the strain is below 100% (based on data provided by body and the torque compensating layer, respectively, at
Wacker Chemie AG and ACEO). According to Marchese segment j.
et al. (2016), the strain energy of a soft fluidic elastomer The moment generated by pressure is
6 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Z 
w
t x_ = Ax + BP
Mja = 2Pr1 x1 + d + dx1
2 y = Cx
Z0 r1 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
t ð6Þ
+ 2P r12  x22 x2 + w + d + dx2 x = ½ q_ m qm q_ p qp T
0 2 2 3
Mja = Tja P  DJmm  KJmm 0 0
6 7
6 1 0 0 0 7 ð9Þ
where Tja is the equivalent moment–pressure constant of A=6 6 0
7
 Jpp  Jpp 7
D K
4 0 5
actuator segment j, t is the thickness of the torque compen-
sating layer, x1 and x2 are integration variables, and P is the 0 0 1 0
h iT
pressure. T
B = TJmm 0 Jpp 0
Then, by using the Lagrangian LGj = KEj  PEj , we
can obtain the equation of motion of segment j as follows: C=½0 1 0 1
! where Jj = Jja + Jjf , Dj = Daj + Dfj , Kj = Kja + Kjf , Tj =
d ∂LGj

∂LGj
= Mja  Daj q_ j Tja + Tjf , j 2 fm, pg, and y is the total finger angle, which
dt ∂q_ j ∂qj ð7Þ is the sum of the MCP and PIP joint angles. In our physical
) Jja €qj + Daj q_ j + Kja qj = Tja P experiment, the MCP and PIP joint angles qm and qp are
measured by flex sensors, and the pressure P is generated
where Daj is the damping coefficient of actuator segment j, by the proportional solenoid valve.
which accounts for the non-conservative energy. The
dynamic model structure (7) also matches the modeling 4. Control algorithm
results in Marchese et al. (2016).
Based on the model structure described previously, we pro-
pose a model learning adaptive control algorithm to achieve
3.2. Finger joint model our control objectives. Stretching exercise training can help
Widely used finger joint dynamics satisfy the following relax muscles and reduce finger spasticity (Hesse et al.,
second-order linear system with constant coefficients when 2008). Such training is usually applied in the treatment for
the finger joints move at a fixed velocity (Blana et al., stroke patients who are unable to extend fingers owing to
2019; Chen et al., 2014; Kamper et al., 2006, 2002): spasticity and contracture (Yue et al., 2017). Meanwhile,
finger conditions need to be assessed during the training
Jjf €
qj + Dfj q_ j + Kjf qj = Mjf ð8Þ process. The control objectives are to design a stretching
exercise training routine and investigate finger conditions
where Jjf , Dfj , and Kjf are the moment of inertia, damping simultaneously. Technically speaking, we want to achieve
coefficient, and stiffness, respectively, of finger joint j, and satisfactory reference trajectory tracking performance for
Mjf is the external moment exerted on finger joint j. In our stretching exercise training and find the true model para-
application, this external moment is generated by pressure. meters for investigating finger conditions. We give a
Here Mjf = Tjf P, Tjf is the moment–pressure constant of fin- detailed description of our proposed control algorithm in
ger joint j. this section.

3.3. SECA–finger model 4.1. Reference angle design

The incorporation of the elastic compensating layer and the
finger dynamics enables us to model the soft actuator–
finger system as a linear system. The MCP and PIP seg-
ments of the SECA correspond to the MCP and PIP joints
of the human finger, as shown in Figure 5a, and we assume
that the bending angles of the SECA MCP and PIP seg-
ments are equal to the corresponding finger MCP and PIP
joint angles. This assumption is based on our previous
work (Heung et al., 2019), in which we showed that the dif-
ference between the SECA segment angles and the corre-
sponding joint angles could be ignored. Hence, the state
space equation of the SECA–finger system can be written
as follows:
The reference angle is designed for the total finger angle,
which is the summation of PIP and MCP joint angles,
because our SECA is an under-actuated system in which
the two fluid chambers of the MCP and PIP segments are
connected. The reference angle is our tracking target.
When choosing the reference angle, we have two consid-
erations to bear in mind: (1) the reference angle should
have a smooth trajectory for safe interaction between robot
and human; (2) it should be adjustable for different ranges
of motion of the hand. Previous studies (Amirabdollahian
et al., 2001; Loureiro et al., 2001a,b) have applied mini-
mum jerk theory to design reference trajectories for a reha-
bilitation robot that helps stroke survivors in upper limb
Tang et al. 7

rehabilitation training. Minimum jerk theory (Hogan, 4.2. Model learning law
1984) is a simple approach to the design of human-like The learning target is to acquire true model parameters. To
smooth trajectories in real-time control situations. Here we achieve this target, a discrete-time transfer function by z-
apply it to design the reference angle. According to mini- transform is first derived for each joint as follows:
mum jerk theory, we need to find a time-dependent func-
tion by minimizing the jerk parameter over the time of u1i z1 + u2i z2
movement: ^qi (k) = Gi Pi (k) = Pi (k) ð14Þ
1 + u3i z1 + u4i z2
Z T 3 2
d r where i is the iteration number, k is the time instance, and
min 3 dt ð10Þ
0 dt ^qi (k) is the model estimated joint angle. Let

T
where t is time and t 2 ½0, T  with T the designed time ui = u1i u2i u3i u4i 4×1
period, and r is the time-dependent reference angle func-
ui (k) = ½ Pi (k 1) Pi (k  2)  ^qi (k  1)  ^qi (k  2) T4 × 1
tion. As a specific form for the reference angle function, a
polynomial is a good candidate because it is convenient for ð15Þ
designers to control the position, velocity, and acceleration
where k = 2, 3, . . . , N , and N = T =Ts, Ts is the sampling
of movement. In the context of minimum jerk theory, a
time. Then we have
fifth-order polynomial has been shown to be sufficient to
create a smooth trajectory (Hogan, 1984). When jerk move-
^qi (k) = ui (k)T ui ð16Þ
ment is minimized, higher-order polynomials will be
reduced to fifth-order polynomials (Amirabdollahian et al., The true model parameters are searched by minimizing the
2002). Hence, we apply a fifth-order polynomial to define error between the actual angle and the model estimated
our reference trajectory: angle, as shown by the following quadratic function:

r(t) = a0 + a1 t + a2 t2 + a3 t3 + a4 t4 + a5 t5 ð11Þ minkEi k22

ui
where ai 2 R, i = 0, 1,    , 5 are the polynomial coeffi- s:t: Ei = qi  ^qi
cients. Values of these coefficients will affect the position, q^i = Fi ui ð17Þ
velocity, and acceleration of the reference trajectory. These
coefficients are determined by a set of boundary condi- qi = ½ qi (2) qi (3)    qi (N) T(N 1) × 1
tions. Safety issues and comfortable interaction between Fi = ½ ui (2) ui (3)    ui (N ) T(N 1) × 4
the human hand and the soft robotic glove are considered
to set the boundary conditions, listed as follows: where qi is the actual joint angle. Then the Gauss–Newton
method (Mascarenhas, 2014) is applied to update the model
rjt = 0 = r0 , rjt = T = re parameters:
dr dr ð12Þ
jt = 0 = 0, j =0
dt dt t = T ui + 1 = ui + r(FTi Fi )y FTi Ei ð18Þ

d2r d2r where the learning step size r is a constant.

j = 0, j =0
dt2 t = 0 dt2 t = T
where r0 and re are the start and end angles, respectively. 4.3. Reference tracking law
The velocity and acceleration are set to be zero at the begin-
Based on the model learning law, we propose a reference
ning and end of the movement to minimize movement risks
tracking method using iterative learning model predictive
(Amirabdollahian et al., 2002; Hogan, 1984). The reference
control (ILMPC), which is a combination of MPC and ILC.
angle range ½r0 , re  will be selected based on stroke patient’s
The actual input pressure consists of the feedback pressure
comfortable range of movement. By minimizing the inte-
ui calculated by MPC and the feedforward pressure vi given
gral (10) and taking account of the constraints (12), we
by ILC.
obtain the following reference trajectory:
First, the updated model provided by the model learning
  3  t 4  t 5  law is fed into the internal model predictive controller. The
t
r(t) = r0 + (re  r0 ) × 10  15 +6 cost function of the internal MPC is
T T T
ð13Þ hP
+H
min ½Q(r(k)  yi (k))2 + Ru2i (k)
ui
where a0 = r0 , a1 = 0, a2 = 0, a3 = 10(re  r0 )=T , 3 k =h+1 ð19Þ
xi (k + 1) = Ai xi (k) + Bi ui (k)
a4 =  15(re  r0 )=T 4 , and a5 = 6(re  r0 )=T 5 .
yi (k) = Ci xi (k)
8 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

where Q and R are output and input weighting factors, 4.4. Complete algorithm description
respectively, Q and R are positive scalars, i is the iteration To integrate the modeling learning law and the reference
number, k is the time instance, and h and H are the reced- tracking law into a complete algorithm, we first define the
ing and prediction horizons, respectively. By solving the model learning error and the reference tracking error. The
optimization problem (19), we obtain the feedback pressure criterion for successful model learning is that the model
ui (k) as follows: predicted output should be sufficiently close to the system’s
k actual output, given the same input. Hence, the model
ui (k) = hi^ei learning error is defined as the root mean square error
^eki = rh  T
 i xi (k) (RMSE) between the system’s actual output qi and the
model predicted output ^qi :
rh = ½ r(h + 1) r(h + 2)  r(h + H) TH × 1
1 T rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
hi = ½ 1 0 TQ
   0  1 × H (S  iS
i + R
 i ) (Q i)
 iS 1 2
2 3
i
epi = kq  ^qi k2 ð23Þ
R 0  0 N 1 i
60 R  0 7
6 7 Meanwhile, a satisfactory reference tracking perfor-
i = 6 .
R .. .. .. 7
6. 7 mance should be such that the system’s actual output is suf-
4. . . .5
ficiently close to the reference trajectory. Hence, the
0 0    R H ×H
2 3 reference tracking error is defined as the RMSE between
Q 0  0 the reference angle and the actual angle:
60 Q  0 7
6 7 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
i =6
Q 6 .. .. . . .. 7
7 1
4. . . .5 eri = kr  yi k22 ð24Þ
N
0 0    Q H ×H
ð20Þ Finally, we choose the proper error tolerance de to ter-
minate the algorithm. Pseudo-code for our proposed model
2 3
Ci B i 0  0 learning adaptive control is presented in Algorithm 1. The
6 CAB Ci B i  0 7 algorithm convergence analysis is described elaborately in
6 i i i 7
Si = 6

6 .. .. .. .. 7 7 Appendix B.
4 . . . . 5
M1 M2
Ci Ai Bi Ci Ai Bi  Ci B i H × H
2 3 Algorithm 1. Model learning adaptive control.
Ci Ai
6 Ci A2 7
6 i 7 1: Initialization i = 0, r 2 ½r0 , re , ui = u0 and vi = 0.
i = 6
T 7 2: Run ILMPC.
6 .. 7
4 . 5 3: do
4: Execute model learning law.
Ci AM
i H ×4 5: Execute reference tracking law.
6: i+ +
Second, based on the idea of ILC (Arimoto et al., 1984), 7: Compute epi and eri .
the feedforward pressure vi is calculated as follows: 8: return ui and yi
9: while jeri  eri1 j.de or jepi  epi1 j.de
vi + 1 (k) = vi (k) + lei (k + 1)
ei = r  yi 5. Simulation results
ð21Þ
r = ½ r(1) r(2)    r(N ) TN × 1 To validate the performance of our proposed control algo-
yi = ½ yi (1) yi (2)    yi (N ) TN × 1 rithm, we first conduct some simulation experiments using
the LabVIEW 2015 software platform. In this section, the
where the feedforward input gain l is a constant. simulation procedure is presented in detail and the control
The final input pressure is then given by parameters needed to guide the controller design are
discussed.
Pi (k) = ui (k) + vi (k) ð22Þ

where Pi (k), ui (k), and vi (k) are the final input pressure, 5.1. Algorithm simulation procedure
feedback pressure, and feedforward pressure at time
instance k in iteration i, respectively. In our simulation, we assume that the true SECA–finger
system model as
Tang et al. 9

Table 1. Simulation control parameters.

u0 r0 re T Ts Q R H r l dE

m1 08 908 6s 0.1 s 100 1 20 0.4 10 1 × 1025

x_ = Ax + BP angle tracking can be achieved with satisfactory

y = Cx performance.
x = ½ q_ m qm q_ p qp T
2 3 5.2. Parameter sensitivity analysis
5 300 0 0
6 1 0 0 0 7 ð25Þ In our proposed control algorithm, there exist several custo-
6 7
A=6 7 mized parameters, such as learning step size r and feedfor-
4 0 0 10 400 5
ward input gain l. Here we discuss how these parameters
0 0 1 0
affect the performance of our control algorithm. This analy-
T
B=½3 0 5 0 sis will provide some suggestions to help us in designing
C=½0 1 0 1 control parameters.

The model described by (25) is assumed to be unavail-

able for controller design and just serves as the I/O data
generator. In actual control situations, the system is exe-
cuted in discrete time. Here we discretize the continuous-
time models in (25) by applying the zero-order hold
method to the inputs with sampling time of 0.1 s. To follow
our control algorithm, we first need to give an initial value
to the model parameter u. To test the efficiency of our algo-
rithm and simplify the choice of initial value, we take the
initial model parameters for both MCP and PIP joints to be
u0 = m1, where m is a constant scalar and
1 = ½1, 1, 1, 1T 2 R4 . The value of m is selected to mini-
mize model learning iterations. From Figure 8b, we can see
that m = 0:01 is the best with minimum learning iterations
among tested m values. Hence, we adopt m = 0:01 in the
simulation. The other control parameters for the simulation
are listed in Table 1.
The simulation results are shown in Figure 6. From
Figures 6b and 6d, we can see that the estimated model
parameters gradually converge to the true values. After the
model learning process, we convert the learned discrete-
time model into continuous-time model by applying the
zero-order hold method to the inputs. The learned model
parameters and corresponding true model parameters are
listed in Table 2. From the plots (2) and (3) in Figure 6f, we
see that the error between model estimated angle and actual
angle converges to 0 after 30 iterations, which demonstrates
the success of the learning process. Moreover, Figure 6e
shows that the actual total angle (the sum of the MCP and
PIP angles) gradually approaches the reference angle. The
plot (1) in Figure 6f intuitively shows that the reference
tracking error converges to zero and reaches a steady state
for iterations greater than 30.
The simulation results show that the true model para-
meters can be learned from an initial guess and reference
5.2.1. Independence of reference trajectory. The time
period and angular range described in (11) can be adjusted
to satisfy actual requirements. Figure 7a shows a reference
angle with time period 4 s and angular range ½208, 1208,
that is different from that in Figure 6e. Although in our
application the reference angle is designed as (11) for
stroke rehabilitation, our proposed control algorithm does
not rely on the reference angle being of this kind. Other
kinds of reference angle can also be tracked using our con-
trol algorithm. Figures 7b and 7c show the simulation
results for tracking a step angle and a trapezoidal angle.
For the simulation results shown in Figure 7, with the
exception of the reference angle, all the control parameters
are the same as those in Table 1 and the assumed true
model is also the same as (25). Figure 7 demonstrates that
our control algorithm can retain good tracking performance
for various input trajectories. Furthermore, Figure 8a shows
that the proposed model learning method can be adaptive
to different types of reference angle including sinusoidal
wave, step commands, and trapezoid. The convergence of
model learning is not affected by the choice of reference
angle.
5.2.2. Effect of initial model value m. Different choices of
initial model may influence the model learning convergence
speed, as shown in the proof of Theorem 1 in Appendix B.
Here we choose different values of m to see the effects of
initial model choice. The assumed true model is the same
as (25). Except for the value of m, all the control parameters
are the same as those in Table 1. We take the learning pro-
cess of the model parameter u4m as a detailed example. u4m is
one of the MCP model parameters. Figure 8b shows the
effects of different values of m on the model learning pro-
cess. We can see that different initial model values will
10 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Fig. 6. Simulation results. In (a) and (c), the estimated MCP and PIP angles gradually become close to the actual angles. In (b) and
(d), the estimated model parameters of MCP and PIP gradually approach the respective true parameters. In (e), the total angle, given
by the sum of the MCP and PIP actual angles, gradually reaches the reference angle. In (f), the reference tracking error and model
learning errors gradually decrease below error tolerance value.

Table 2. Simulation model parameters.

Km =Jm Dm =Jm Tm =Jm Kp =Jp Dp =Jp Tp =Jp

True model 300 5 3 400 10 5

Learned model 300.21 5.01 3.00 400.29 10.01 5.00

finally converge to the true model parameter, but with dif-
ferent convergence speeds.
5.2.3 Effect of learning step size r. Choosing different
learning step sizes will influence the model learning con-
vergence speed. We try different values of r to see the
effects of learning step size. The assumed true model is the
same as (25). Except for the value of r, all the control para-
meters are the same as those in Table 1. We also take the
learning process of the model parameter u4m as a detailed
example. Figure 8c shows the impact of different values of
r on the model learning process. We can see that larger val-
ues of r lead to smaller numbers of iterations being
required for convergence when r 2 (0, 1). However, when
r 2 (1, 2), the model parameter learning shows marginal
stability. When r.2, the model parameter learning will
diverge. This simulation result is again consistent with the
theoretical result in Theorem 1 in Appendix B.
Tang et al. 11

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7. Different kinds of reference angles. (a) A series of designed reference angles with time period T = 4 s and angular range
½208, 1208, which is different from the reference angle in Figure 6e. (b) A series of 308 step angle commands ranging from 08 to 908,
changing the command at time increments of 2 s. (c) A series of trapezoidal angles with 9 s period ranging from 08 to 908, ramping at
4:58/s linearly.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 8. Impacts of different control parameters on model learning and reference tracking. (a) The model parameter learning is
independent of the choice of reference angle. (b) Different initial model values will finally converge to the true model parameter with
different convergence speeds. (c) When r.2: model parameter learning will diverge; when 1\r\2: model parameter learning will
oscillate around the true value within a bounded region; 0\r\1: the model parameter will converge to the true value, and a larger
value of r will speed up convergence. (d) The reference tracking error will decrease below the error tolerance, and a larger value of l
can help speed up tracking when l satisfies 0\1  lG z\1, whereas l = 0 (1  lG z = 0) and l = 50 (1  lG z =  0:1), which
do not meet the requirement, will cause tracking divergence. (e) and (f) Simultaneously increasing values of r and l in their required
ranges will speed up model learning and reference tracking convergence.

5.2.4 Effect of feedforward input gain l. Different values
of the feedforward input gain will influence the reference
tracking convergence speed. We try different values of l to
see the effects of feedforward input gain. The assumed true
model is the same as (25). Except for the value of l, all the
other control parameters are the same as those in Table 1.
Figure 8d shows the effects of different values of l on the
reference angle tracking process. We can see that when
l = 10 and l = 20, the tracking error can finally decrease
below the error tolerance and that a larger l value will
speed up tracking of the reference trajectory. However,
when l = 0 and l = 50, the tracking error will diverge
because 1  lG z = 0 when l = 0 and 1  lG z =  0:1
when l = 50 which do not satisfy the requirement
0\1  lG z\1 (G is the discrete time model of
Equation (25)). This proof is shown in the Theorem 2 in
Appendix B. In particular, a value of l = 0 means that the
ILC component is not involved in the reference tracking.
These simulation results demonstrate that the ILC compo-
nent is necessary and helpful for our designed control algo-
rithm. Therefore, an appropriate value of l needs to be
determined in the actual experiments.
5.2.5 Effect of varying r and l together. Because r appears
in the discrete-time transfer function and l in the state
space equation, it is difficult to express the model learning
or reference tracking error as a function of r and l in an
explicit form. Nonetheless, we can still observe the effects
on the control performance when r and l are changed
simultaneously. As can be seen from Figures 8c and 8d,
12 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Table 3. Stroke characteristics.

Stroke subjects Age range (years) Stroke onset Gender Stroke type Hemiplegic side ARAT MAS

1 55–59 21 months Male Ischemic Left 9 1

2 50–54 11 months Male Hemorrhagic Right 6 1+
3 50–54 36 months Male Hemorrhagic Left 2 2
1
ARAT (Action Research Arm Test) is an observational measurement for evaluating upper limb function. Full score is 57. A higher ARAT score
indicates better upper limb performance.
2
MAS (Modified Ashworth Scale) is a grading method for spasticity measurement. MAS value ranges from 0 to 4 (0 = No increase in muscle tone; 1
= Slight increase in muscle tone at the end of the range of motion; 1 + = Slight increase in muscle tone throughout the range of motion; 2 = More
marked increase in muscle tone throughout the range of motion). A higher MAS index indicates more severe spasticity. The MAS values here were
measured for finger flexors.

larger values of r and l in their required ranges can indivi-
dually speed up learning and tracking convergence, respec-
tively, and so we explore the effects of increasing r and l
together. Figure 8e shows the combined effects of r and l
on parameter estimation, and Figure 8f shows the effects on
reference tracking. From Figure 8e, we can see that combi-
nations of larger r and l can cause the parameter learning
to converge faster when r and l are in their required ranges.
A similar observation can be made from Figure 8f. The ref-
erence tracking error decreases faster with combinations of
larger r and l. The simulation results in Figures 8e and 8f
indicate that combinations of large values of both r and l
can be selected to speed up model learning and reference
tracking convergence under the premise of system stability.
and minimize the risk to subjects (Ao et al., 2015). The
SECA linear elastic bending range and the subject’s com-
fortable range of movement were considered when select-
ing the reference angle range. All three stroke subjects’
impaired hands could be passively fully extended without
any pain or discomfort. The subjects did not feel any dis-
comfort during the experiments. Other control parameters
were determined by the simulation results and the actual
experimental situations. When the control algorithm started
running, the training data were continuously collected until
the termination of the algorithm. The experimental setup is
shown in Figure 9.

6. Experimental results
The simulation results provide support and guidance for the
following physical experiments. In this section, we describe
some preliminary experiments to demonstrate the feasibility
of our proposed control method.
We used the following protocol to perform physical
experiments. The experiments involved three situations: (1)
the SECA without a human finger (the free bending case);
(2) the SECA with an unimpaired finger (the healthy sub-
ject case); (3) the SECA with a stroke-impaired finger (the
stroke subject case). The experiments were approved by the
Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong–New Territories
East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee (approval
protocol number NCT03286309). Three healthy subjects
(all men, age range 22–24) and three stroke subjects
(detailed information is listed in Table 3) voluntarily parti-
cipated in this pilot study. Each subject gave informed con-
sent before the experiment. During experimentation, each
subject was asked to stay relaxed and the subject’s index Fig, 9. Experimental setup. The control algorithm is
finger (left hand for healthy subjects and impaired hand for implemented on a personal computer (64-bit operating system, i5
CPU and 8 GB RAM) based on LabVIEW 2015 software. The
stroke subjects) was passively moved with the SECA. The
battery supplies electric power for the air pump and proportional
time period of each iteration was taken as 3 s both for flex-
solenoid valve. The air pump supplies air pressure for the SECA
ion and for extension, based on our group’s previous reha- and the proportional solenoid valve regulates air pressure. The
bilitation study (Susanto et al., 2015). The maximum joint data acquisition collects data from the proportional solenoid
torque exerted by SECA was limited to 0.1 Nm with air valve and flex sensors. The PCB board integrates wire
pressure in ½0, 100 kPa and bending velocity was less than connections. The SECA assists finger movement and flex
308 per second, which could ensure experimental safety sensors measure bending angles.
Tang et al. 13

Table 4. Experimental control parameters.

u0 r0 re T Ts Q R H r l d

Free bending m1 108 808 6s 0.1 s 100 1 20 0.02 10 0.01

Healthy subjects ufb 208 808 6s 0.1 s 100 1 20 0.03 15 0.01
Stroke subjects ufb 208 608 6s 0.1 s 100 1 20 0.01 10 0.01

m = 0.002 and ufb are the final learned model parameters of free bending.

Table 5. Experimental learned SECA–finger system model parameters.

Km =Jm Dm =Jm Tm =Jm Kp =Jp Dp =Jp Tp =Jp

Free bending 51.21 5.10 0.25 5.11 3.74 0.03

Healthy subject 1 75.90 7.15 0.37 38.61 4.23 0.31
Healthy subject 2 94.82 8.92 0.46 41.99 5.40 0.32
Healthy subject 3 64.76 5.94 0.32 38.12 3.26 0.34
Stroke subject 1 175.60 14.88 0.75 122.60 10.59 1.18
Stroke subject 2 204.99 17.76 0.97 101.16 10.12 0.81
Stroke subject 3 231.06 21.49 1.05 153.74 13.25 1.49

For free bending, the model parameters are those for the SECA MCP and PIP segments.

6.1. Free bending case 6.2. Healthy subject case

For the free bending situation, the system becomes just the
SECA model, and so the free bending experiment can help
us determine accurate SECA model parameters, thus provid-
ing a basis for the following human subject tests. Similar to
the simulation procedure, we took u0 = m1 to initialize the
discrete-time models of the soft actuator’s MCP and PIP seg-
ments. Initial model parameter m = 0:002 was empirically
selected to minimize learning iterations. The control algo-
rithm parameters used in the free bending experiment can be
seen in Table 4. The model learning and reference tracking
results for the free bending situation are shown in Figure 10.
The real-time free bending situation is shown in the video in
Extension 1. We convert the learned discrete-time models
into continuous-time models by applying the zero-order
hold method to the inputs. The converted continuous-time
model parameters are listed in Table 5.
From Figure 10a we can see that the tracking performance
gradually improves and finally satisfies our requirement.
Figure 10b intuitively shows the monotonically decreasing ten-
dency of the reference tracking error. Figure 10c shows that
the MCP model estimated angle gradually approaches the
actual MCP angle. Figure 10d also shows that the learning
error of the MCP model gradually decreases below the defined
error tolerance value. Meanwhile, we can see that each MCP
model parameter shows a tendency to converge to a certain
point, as illustrated in Figure 10g. The learning process of the
PIP model exhibits similar behavior to that of the MCP model.
The PIP model estimated angle gradually covers the actual
PIP angle, and the PIP model parameters show a tendency to
converge, as depicted in Figures 10e and 10h.
After the free bending experiment, we tested our control
algorithm on healthy subjects whose hands were unim-
paired. The free bending results provided an appropriate
initial value for the finger–SECA model. Hence, we took
the free bending model learning results as the initial model
for the healthy subject tests. The detailed experimental
results of healthy subject 1 are given in the following and
the other two healthy subjects have similar patterns. Before
the test, we measured the index finger angle of each healthy
subject’s left hand using a protractor. The finger angle was
around 208 in the resting state. We then adjusted the refer-
ence angle to lie in the range ½208, 808. The control algo-
rithm parameters used in healthy subjects’ experiment are
listed in Table 4.
The experimental results of healthy subject 1 are shown
in Figure 11. The real-time healthy subject 1 test situation
is shown in the video in Extension 2. We also converted
the learned discrete-time models into continuous-time
models. The converted continuous-time model parameters
are listed in Table 5. From Figure 11 we can see that it
takes nine iterations to reach the threshold of conver-
gence. Ten iterations were needed for the other tested two
healthy subjects to converge. Figure 11a shows that the
actual finger angle gradually approaches the reference
angle. From Figures 11c and 11e, we can see that the
MCP and PIP model estimated angles gradually approach
their actual values, respectively. These can be seen more
intuitively in Figure 11d and 11f, where the learning error
of MCP and PIP gradually decreases below the error tol-
erance value.
14 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Fig. 10. Free bending experimental results. In (a) and (c), the estimated MCP and PIP angles gradually approach their respective
actual values. In (e), the total angle, given by the sum of the actual MCP and PIP angles, gradually reaches the reference angle. In (b),
(d), and (f), the model learning errors and reference tracking error gradually decreases below the error tolerance value. In (g) and (h),
we show the learning processes of the MCP and PIP model parameters.

6.3. Stroke subject case
The motor functions of stroke subjects’ paretic upper
limbs were assessed by a trained clinical assessor who
was blinded to the experiment. Clinical information on
stroke subjects are listed in Table 3. One stroke subject’s
(stroke subject 1) detailed experimental results are given
in the following. Before the test started, we measured the
MCP and PIP joint angles of the subject’s impaired-hand
index finger. We found that the subject’s maximum ranges
of voluntary motion for the MCP and PIP joints were both
108. Taking account of the finger spasticity and the sub-
ject’s comfort, we adjusted the reference angle range to
½208, 608. The initial model parameters for stroke subjects
were also based on free bending model learning results.
The control algorithm parameters used are listed in Table
4.
The experimental results of the stroke subject test are
shown in Figure 12. The real-time stroke subject test situa-
tion is shown in the video in Extension 3. The converted
continuous-time model parameters can be seen in Table 5.
Tang et al. 15

Fig. 11. Healthy subject 1 experimental results. In (a) and (c), the estimated MCP and PIP angles gradually approach their respective
actual values. In (e), the total finger angle, given by the sum of the actual MCP and PIP angles, gradually reaches the reference angle.
In (b), (d), and (f), we show the tendency of model learning errors and reference tracking error. In (g) and (h), we show the learning
processes of the MCP and PIP model parameters.

From Figure 12 we can see that it takes 17 iterations to 7. Discussion

reach the threshold of convergence. The other tested two
In this section, we further explore the model learning results
stroke subjects needed 15 and 14 iterations to converge.
in physical experiments and provide a method for deriving
Figure 12a shows that the actual total finger angle gradually
independent finger joint model parameters. We also discuss
approaches the reference angle. From Figures 12c and 12e,
the limitations of the model.
we can see that the MCP and PIP model estimated angles
gradually approach the actual MCP angle, respectively.
From the current experimental results, it takes around 10
7.1. Separate finger joint model parameters
iterations for healthy subjects and 15 iterations for stroke
subjects to converge to the threshold. Stroke subjects need The final learned model parameters in the healthy and
longer iterations than healthy subjects to converge. stroke subjects’ experiments are those of the overall system
16 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Fig. 12. Stroke subject 1 experimental results. In (a) and (c), the estimated MCP and PIP angles gradually approach their respective
actual values. In (e), the total angle, given by the sum of the actual MCP and PIP angles, gradually reaches the reference angle. In (b),
(d), and (f), we show the tendency of model learning errors and reference tracking error. In (g) and (h), we show the learning
processes of the MCP and PIP model parameters.

model, which contains both the SECA and the human fin- Kja Kj Jja
= c1 , = c2 , =1
ger. Here we want to derive independent finger joint model Jja Jj Jjf
parameters. According to Dempster (1955), Peters et al. f
(2002), and Kamper et al. (2002), the index finger length Kj Kja + Kj
) = = c2 ð26Þ
of an adult is around 90 mm and the index finger mass is Jj Jja + Jjf
about 30 g in general. The length of our SECA is 120 mm
Kjf
and its mass is 24 g. The ratio of the moments of inertia ) = 2c2  c1
between the finger and the SECA can be assumed to be a Jjf
constant. Because the average length and mass of an adult’s
index finger are similar to those of our SECA, we assume where c1 can be found from the free bending model learn-
this ratio to be 1, which means that Jja =Jjh = 1. Based on ing results, and c2 from the model learning results for the
this assumption, independent finger joint model parameters healthy or stroke subjects. Here Dfj =Jjf and Tjf =Jjf can be
can be derived as follows: derived in a similar way as in (26). The moment of inertia
Tang et al.
Table 6. Finger joint model parameters.
Kmf =Jmf Dfm =Jmf
Healthy subject 1 100.59 9.20
Healthy subject 2 138.43 12.74
Healthy subject 3 78.31 6.78
Stroke subject 1 299.99 24.66
Stroke subject 2 358.77 30.42
Stroke subject 3 410.91 37.88
(Jjf ) is a constant for each subject and, thus, Kjf =Jjf could
be served as a stiffness indicator for each subject. We call
Kjf =Jjf a stiffness indicator as there is no particular physical
meaning for it. Although stiffness values (Kjf ) cannot be
directly obtained in this method, stiffness indicators
(Kjf =Jjf ) could be used to reflect the stiffness change for
each subject. Similarly, Dfj =Jjf and Tjf =Jjf are the damping
indicator and moment–pressure indicator of finger joint j,
respectively. The separate finger joint model parameters are
listed in Table 6.
From Table 6, we can observe that there exist obvious
differences between healthy subjects and stroke subjects
with respect to the MCP and PIP model parameters. In par-
ticular, the stiffness indicator (Kjf =Jjf ) values of stroke sub-
jects are clearly larger than that of healthy subjects. It is
reasonable because the spasticity of stroke subjects is obvi-
ously more severe than that of healthy subjects. This com-
parison is also consistent with the results of Kamper et al.
(2006, 2002). Meanwhile, the stiffness indicator values
show a similar tendency with the spasticity levels measured
by modified Ashworth scale (Ansari et al., 2008) in
Table 3. Such similar tendency indicates that a larger stiff-
ness indicator value may imply more severe finger
spasticity. A larger sample size is needed to provide more
evidence for this implication. The stiffness indicator can
provide guidance for hand rehabilitation training and may
be used to quantify MCP and PIP joint spasticity condi-
tions. In addition, stiffness indicator values as well as other
model parameters can help improve our control algorithm.
Initial model parameters can be selected based on previous
learned model parameters to speed up tracking and leaning
convergence.
In future work, rehabilitation training for stroke survi-
vors will be conducted to test the training performance of
the designed controller and evaluate the rehabilitation effec-
tiveness after 20 sessions of training. The model parameters
can record finger conditions during training sessions. This
will help researchers to understand the behavior of spasti-
city after stroke, as well as to assess changes in spasticity
during the rehabilitation training sessions.
7.2. Model limitations
Our proposed model learning adaptive control method is
based on a linear model structure. The soft actuator–finger
system consists of a SECA model and a finger joint model.
17
Tmf =Jmf Kpf =Jpf Dfp =Jpf Tpf =Jpf
0.49 72.11 4.72 0.59
0.67 78.87 7.06 0.61
0.39 71.13 2.78 0.65
1.25 240.09 17.44 2.33
1.69 197.21 16.50 1.59
1.85 302.37 22.76 2.95
In our physical experiments, the range of motion that was
tested was restricted to ½08, 908, which lies in the linear
elastic range of the SECA material. However, if the bend-
ing angle is larger than 908, the SECA tends to be subject
to nonlinear behavior, for which the current linear assump-
tions in the SECA model may no longer be valid. An
Euler–Bernoulli beam model with large deflection
(Banerjee et al., 2008; Lee, 2002) may need to be applied
in situations with larger bending angles. In addition,
although the assumption that the model coefficients of fin-
ger joint dynamics can be treated as constants is valid when
the finger joints move at a fixed velocity, they will vary if
the joint velocities vary. In this case, velocity-dependent
coefficients will need to be used in the finger joint
dynamics. Assumptions of fixed joint velocity plus con-
stant curvature limit the current model. However, one of
the main contributions in this study would be the concept
and framework of the iterative learning approach to assess
the environment that the soft robot interacts. Variable velo-
city and non-constant curvature models could be further
explored in the same control framework.
8. Conclusion
We have proposed a model-based online learning adaptive
control algorithm for a wearable soft robotic glove, taking
its interaction with its environment, i.e., the human finger,
into account. The asymptotic stability of the control algo-
rithm has been proved using a Lyapunov function. The soft
robotic glove was developed based on a SECA containing
an elastic plate as a torque compensating layer to overcome
finger spasticity. We have constructed a second-order linear
system for the actuator–finger system. Based on this
model, an online learning adaptive control method is able
to provide the model parameters for the whole system. This
gives us an insight into the actuator–finger system and the
finger alone. The proposed method has been evaluated
with three settings: the actuator alone, the actuator with
unimpaired fingers, and the actuator with fingers affected
by stroke. The results show that the stiffness term for the
actuator–stroke finger is significantly larger than that for
the actuator–healthy finger. This implies that the proposed
method could be developed further as a novel approach for
quantitative evaluation of finger condition in stroke
survivors.
18
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work was supported by the CUHK T Stone Robotics Institute
(grant number C4930759), the Knowledge Transfer Project Fund
(grant number KPF18HLF12) of the Chinese University of Hong
Kong, and the Innovation and Technology Fund of Hong Kong
(grant number ITS/065/18FP).
ORCID iD
Zhi Qiang Tang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6555-9938
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro R, Driessen B and Harwin W (2001)
Error correction movement for machine assisted stroke rehabi-
litation. Integration of Assistive Technology in the Information
Age 9: 60–65.
Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro R and Harwin W (2002) Minimum
jerk trajectory control for rehabilitation and haptic applications. In:
Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, 2002 (ICRA’02), Vol. 4. IEEE, pp. 3380–3385.
Ansari NN, Naghdi S, Arab TK and Jalaie S (2008) The interrater
and intrarater reliability of the modified ashworth scale in the
assessment of muscle spasticity: Limb and muscle group effect.
NeuroRehabilitation 23(3): 231–237.
Ao D, Song R and Tong Ky (2015) Sensorimotor control of track-
ing movements at various speeds for stroke patients as well as
age-matched and young healthy subjects. PLoS One 10(6):
e0128328.
Arimoto S, Kawamura S and Miyazaki F (1984) Bettering opera-
tion of dynamic systems by learning: A new control theory for
servomechanism or mechatronics systems. In: The 23rd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, pp. 1064–1069.
Awad LN, Bae J, O’Donnell K, et al. (2017) A soft robotic exosuit
improves walking in patients after stroke. Science Translational
Medicine 9(400): eaai9084.
Balasubramanian S, Klein J and Burdet E (2010) Robot-assisted
rehabilitation of hand function. Current Opinion in Neurology
23(6): 661–670.
Balasubramanian S, Wei R, Perez M, et al. (2008) Rupert: An
exoskeleton robot for assisting rehabilitation of arm functions.
In: Virtual Rehabilitation, 2008. IEEE, pp. 163–167.
Banerjee A, Bhattacharya B and Mallik A (2008) Large deflection
of cantilever beams with geometric non-linearity: Analytical
and numerical approaches. International Journal of Non-Lin-
ear Mechanics 43(5): 366–376.
Best CM, Gillespie MT, Hyatt P, Killpack M, Rupert L and Sher-
rod V (2016) Model predictive control for pneumatically actu-
ated soft robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine
2(9): 31.
Blana D, van den Bogert AJ, Murray WM, et al. (2019) Model-
based control of individual finger movements for prosthetic
hand function. bioRxiv 629246.
Bouffard P, Aswani A and Tomlin C (2012) Learning-based model
predictive control on a quadrotor: Onboard implementation
The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)
and experimental results. In: 2012 IEEE International Confer-
ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 279–284.
Braganza D, Dawson DM, Walker ID and Nath N (2007) A neural
network controller for continuum robots. IEEE Transactions
on Robotics 23(6): 1270–1277.
Bukkems B, Kostic D, De Jager B and Steinbuch M (2005)
Learning-based identification and iterative learning control
of direct-drive robots. IEEE Transactions on Control Sys-
tems Technology 13(4): 537–549.
Catalano MG, Grioli G, Farnioli E, Serio A, Piazza C and Bicchi
A (2014) Adaptive synergies for the design and control of the
pisa/iit softhand. The International Journal of Robotics
Research 33(5): 768–782.
Chen FC, Appendino S, Battezzato A, Favetto A, Mousavi M and
Pescarmona F (2014) Human finger kinematics and dynamics.
In: Petuya V, Pinto C and Lovasz EC (eds.) New Advances in
Mechanisms, Transmissions and Applications. Dordrecht:
Springer, pp. 115–122.
Cueli JR and Bordons C (2008) Iterative nonlinear model predic-
tive control. stability, robustness and applications. Control
Engineering Practice 16(9): 1023–1034.
Deimel R and Brock O (2016) A novel type of compliant and
underactuated robotic hand for dexterous grasping. The Inter-
national Journal of Robotics Research 35(1–3): 161–185.
Dempster WT (1955) Space requirements of the seated operator,
geometrical, kinematic, and mechanical aspects of the body
with special reference to the limbs. Technical report, Michigan
State University East Lansing.
Dovat L, Lambercy O, Gassert R, et al. (2008) Handcare: A cable-
actuated rehabilitation system to train hand function after
stroke. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilita-
tion Engineering 16(6): 582–591.
Galloway KC, Becker KP, Phillips B, et al. (2016) Soft robotic
grippers for biological sampling on deep reefs. Soft Robotics
3(1): 23–33.
George Thuruthel T, Ansari Y, Falotico E and Laschi C (2018)
Control strategies for soft robotic manipulators: A survey. Soft
Robotics 5(2): 149–163.
Gerboni G, Diodato A, Ciuti G, Cianchetti M and Menciassi A
(2017) Feedback control of soft robot actuators via commer-
cial flex bend sensors. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatro-
nics 22(4): 1881–1888.
Hesse S, Kuhlmann H, Wilk J, Tomelleri C and Kirker SG (2008)
A new electromechanical trainer for sensorimotor rehabilitation of
paralysed fingers: A case series in chronic and acute stroke
patients. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 5(1): 21.
Heung HL, Tong KY, Lau TH and Li Z (2019) Robotic glove with
soft-elastic composite actuators for assisting activities of daily
living. Soft Robotics 6(2): 289–304.
Hogan N (1984) An organizing principle for a class of voluntary
movements. Journal of Neuroscience 4(11): 2745–2754.
Hu X, Tong K, Wei X, Rong W, Susanto E and Ho S (2013) The
effects of post-stroke upper-limb training with an electromyo-
graphy (EMG)-driven hand robot. Journal of Electromyogra-
phy and Kinesiology 23(5): 1065–1074.
Huang HW, Tibbitt MW, Huang TY and Nelson BJ (2018)
Matryoshka-inspired micro-origami capsules to enhance load-
ing, encapsulation, and transport of drugs. Soft Robotics, in
press.
Ichikawa S, Tomita M, Doki S and Okuma S (2006) Sensorless
control of permanent-magnet synchronous motors using online
Tang et al.
parameter identification based on system identification theory.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 53(2): 363–372.
In H, Kang BB, Sin M and Cho KJ (2015) Exo-glove: A wearable
robot for the hand with a soft tendon routing system. IEEE
Robotics and Automation Magazine 22(1): 97–105.
Ioannou PA and Sun J (1996) Robust Adaptive Control, Vol. 1.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kamper DG, Fischer HC, Cruz EG and Rymer WZ (2006) Weak-
ness is the primary contributor to finger impairment in chronic
stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
87(9): 1262–1269.
Kamper DG, Hornby TG and Rymer WZ (2002) Extrinsic flexor
muscles generate concurrent flexion of all three finger joints.
Journal of Biomechanics 35(12): 1581–1589.
Kim D, Kwon J, Han S, Park YL and Jo S (2018) Deep full-body
motion network for a soft wearable motion sensing suit. IEEE/
ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 24(1): 56–66.
Kocijan J (2016) Modelling and Control of Dynamic Systems
using Gaussian Process Models. Berlin: Springer.
Lee K (2002) Large deflections of cantilever beams of non-linear
elastic material under a combined loading. International Jour-
nal of Non-Linear Mechanics 37(3): 439–443.
Lee KS, Chin IS, Lee HJ and Lee JH (1999) Model predictive
control technique combined with iterative learning for batch
processes. AIChE Journal 45(10): 2175–2187.
Leibovic SJ and Bowers WH (1994) Anatomy of the proximal
interphalangeal joint. Hand Clinics 10(2): 169–178.
Li Z and Du R (2013) Design and analysis of a bio-inspired wire-
driven multi-section flexible robot. International Journal of
Advanced Robotic Systems 10(4): 209.
Liu X and Xi K (2014) Feedback-assisted iterative learning model
predictive control with nonlinear fuzzy model. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering 2014: 874705.
Loureiro R, Amirabdollahian F, Coote S, Stokes E and Harwin W
(2001a) Using haptics technology to deliver motivational thera-
pies in stroke patients: Concepts and initial pilot studies. In:
Proceedings of EuroHaptics, p. 6.
Loureiro R, Amirabdollahian F, Driessen B and Harwin W
(2001b) A novel method for computing natural path for
robot assisted movements in synthetic worlds. In: Marincek C,
Buhler C, Knops H and Andrich R (eds) Rehabilitation, Allied
Medicine: Assistive Technology - Added Value to the Quality
of Life (AAATE’01) (Assistive Technology Research Series,
No. 10). Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 262–267.
Marchese AD and Rus D (2016) Design, kinematics, and control
of a soft spatial fluidic elastomer manipulator. The Interna-
tional Journal of Robotics Research 35(7): 840–869.
Marchese AD, Tedrake R and Rus D (2016) Dynamics and trajec-
tory optimization for a soft spatial fluidic elastomer manipula-
tor. The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(8):
1000–1019.
Mascarenhas WF (2014) The divergence of the BFGS and Gauss
Newton methods. Mathematical Programming 147(1-2):
253–276.
Morrow J, Shin HS, Phillips-Grafflin C, et al. (2016) Improving
soft pneumatic actuator fingers through integration of soft sen-
sors, position and force control, and rigid fingernails. In: ICRA,
pp. 5024–5031.
Park YL, Chen Br, Pérez-Arancibia NO, et al. (2014) Design and
control of a bio-inspired soft wearable robotic device for
ankle–foot rehabilitation. Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 9(1):
016007.
19
Parks P (1966) Liapunov redesign of model reference adaptive
control systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
11(3): 362–367.
Peters M, Mackenzie K and Bryden P (2002) Finger length and
distal finger extent patterns in humans. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the
American Association of Physical Anthropologists 117(3):
209–217.
Polygerinos P, Wang Z, Galloway KC, Wood RJ and Walsh CJ
(2015) Soft robotic glove for combined assistance and at-home
rehabilitation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 73:
135–143.
Rao SS and Yap FF (2011) Mechanical Vibrations, Vol. 4. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reinhart RF, Shareef Z and Steil JJ (2017) Hybrid analytical and
data-driven modeling for feed-forward robot control. Sensors
17(2): 311.
Renda F, Giorgio-Serchi F, Boyer F, Laschi C, Dias J and Senevir-
atne L (2018) A unified multi-soft-body dynamic model for
underwater soft robots. The International Journal of Robotics
Research 37(6): 648–666.
Soter G, Conn A, Hauser H and Rossiter J (2018) Bodily aware
soft robots: Integration of proprioceptive and exteroceptive
sensors. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 2448–2453.
Susanto EA, Tong RK, Ockenfeld C and Ho NS (2015) Efficacy
of robot-assisted fingers training in chronic stroke survivors: A
pilot randomized-controlled trial. Journal of Neuroengineering
and Rehabilitation 12(1): 42.
Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR and Cramer
SC (2007) Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain
131(2): 425–437.
Tang ZQ, Heung HL, Tong KY and Li Z (2019) A novel iterative
learning model predictive control method for soft bending
actuators. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 4004–4010.
Thibaut A, Chatelle C, Ziegler E, Bruno MA, Laureys S and Gos-
series O (2013) Spasticity after stroke: Physiology, assessment
and treatment. Brain Injury 27(10): 1093–1105.
Thuruthel TG, Shih B, Laschi C and Tolley MT (2019) Soft robot
perception using embedded soft sensors and recurrent neural
networks. Science Robotics 4(26): eaav1488.
Timmermans AA, Seelen HA, Willmann RD and Kingma H
(2009) Technology-assisted training of arm–hand skills in
stroke: Concepts on reacquisition of motor control and thera-
pist guidelines for rehabilitation technology design. Journal of
Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 6(1): 1.
Tong K, Ho S, Pang P, et al. (2010) An intention driven hand func-
tions task training robotic system. In: 2010 Annual Interna-
tional Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and
Biology. IEEE, pp. 3406–3409.
Trimmer B (2014) Soft robot control systems: A new grand chal-
lenge? Soft Robotics 1(4): 231–232.
Underwood SJ and Husain I (2010) Online parameter estimation
and adaptive control of permanent-magnet synchronous
machines. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 57(7):
2435–2443.
Villoslada Á, Rivera C, Escudero N, Martı́n F, Blanco D and Mor-
eno L (2018) Hand exo-muscular system for assisting
astronauts during extravehicular activities. Soft Robotics, in
press.
20 The International Journal of Robotics Research 00(0)

Webster III RJ and Jones BA (2010) Design and kinematic model- ~i

Ei = qi  ^qi = Fi u  Fi ui = Fi u
ing of constant curvature continuum robots: A review. The ð28Þ
Dui = ui + 1  ui = r(FTi Fi )y FTi Ei =  ru
~i
International Journal of Robotics Research 29(13):
1661–1683.
Yap HK, Khin PM, Koh TH, et al. (2017) A fully fabric-based Then, we have
bidirectional soft robotic glove for assistance and rehabilitation
of hand impaired patients. IEEE Robotics and Automation Let- ~T r1 u
Fi + 1  Fi = u ~i + 1  u ~i
~T r1 u
i+1 i
ters 2(3): 1383–1390. ~i + Dui )T r1 Dui
= (2u
Yap HK, Lim JH, Goh JCH and Yeow CH (2016) Design of a soft ð29Þ
robotic glove for hand rehabilitation of stroke patients with = (r  2)u ~
~T u
i i
clenched fist deformity using inflatable plastic actuators. Jour-  2
nal of Medical Devices 10(4): 044504. = (r  2)u~i 
2
You X, Zhang Y, Chen X, et al. (2017) Model-free control for soft
~i are
Because r\2, Fi is non-increasing. Then Fi , ui and u
manipulators based on reinforcement learning. In: 2017 IEEE/
RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- bounded. In addition, we also have
tems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 2909–2915.    2 
Yue Z, Zhang X and Wang J (2017) Hand rehabilitation robotics Fi + 1  Fi = r1 u ~i + 1 2 u~i  \0
2 2
on poststroke motor recovery. Behavioural Neurology 2017:  2  2
) u ~i + 1  \u ~i  ð30Þ
3908135. 2 2
Zhang Z, Dequidt J, Kruszewski A, Largilliere F and Duriez C ) kui + 1  u k22 \kui  u k22
(2016) Kinematic modeling and observer based control of soft
robot using real-time finite element method. In: 2016 IEEE/ Inequality (30) implies that the error between estimated
RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- parameter value and true model parameter value is monoto-
tems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 5509–5514. nically decreasing. Moreover, when r 2 (0, 1), we have

Fi + 1 \(1  r)Fi
Appendix A. Index to multimedia extensions ) Fi + n \(1  r)n Fi ð31Þ
Archives of IJRR multimedia extensions published prior to ) Fi \(1  r)i F0
2014 can be found at http://www.ijrr.org, after 2014 all  2
As Fi = r1 u
~i  , we have
videos are available on the IJRR YouTube channel at http:// 2

www.youtube.com/user/ijrrmultimedia  2
r1 u
~i  \(1  r)n Fi
 22 ð32Þ
Table of Multimedia Extensions ) u ~i  \F0 × r(1  r)i
2
 2
Extension Media type Description and as F0 = r1 u
~0  = r1 ku0  u k2 , we have
2 2

1 Video Free bending situation.  2

2 Video Healthy subject situation. u
~i  \u0  u × (1  r)i ð33Þ
2
3 Video Stroke subject situation.  2
Appendix B: Convergence analysis
Theorem 1. If r 2 (0, 1), then ui asymptotically converges
to the true model parameter u based on Equations (14)–
(18).
Proof. We first define the parameter change as
~i = ui  u . Then we choose the Lyapunov function
u Equations (19)–(22).
(Ioannou and Sun, 1996) to evaluate the rate of parameter
change, shown as follows:
~T r1 u
Fi = u ~i
i process:
From Equations (17) and (18), we know that
Inequality (33) shows that u ~i  approaches zero asympto-
2
tically as i goes to infinity when r 2 (0, 1). This implies
that ui asymptotically converges to u . In addition, we can
see that a proper initial value that is close to true value will
help with faster convergence. The convergence speed will
also be faster when r is given a larger value in the range
(0, 1). h
Theorem 2. if l satisfies 0\(1  lG z)\1 where G rep-
resents the true SECA–finger system model, then the track-
ing error asymptotically converges to zero based on
Proof. Here we use G to represent the true SECA–finger
system model that we want to find after model learning
ð27Þ
yi (k) = G Pi (k) ð34Þ
Tang et al. 21

Based on Equations (20), (21), and (22), we can analyze ei + 1 (k + 1) ł ei (k + 1)  G lei (k + 2) ð36Þ
the reference tracking error as follows: We take z-transformation on both sides of inequality
(36), then we have
ei + 1 (k + 1) = r(k + 1)  yi + 1 (k + 1)
= ei (k + 1) + yi (k + 1)  yi + 1 (k + 1) zEi + 1 (z) ł zEi (z)  z2 G lEi (z)
= ei (k + 1) + G Pi (k + 1)  G Pi + 1 (k + 1) ) Ei + 1 (z) ł (1  lG z)Ei (z)
k +1 k +1
= ei (k + 1)  G lei (k + 2) + G (hi + 1^ei + 1  hi^ei ) ð37Þ
) Ei + k (z) ł (1  lG z)k Ei (z)
ð35Þ ) Ei (z) ł (1  lG z)i E0 (z)
Inequality (37) shows that when we choose proper l such
As model parameters approach the true value with the
that 0\(1  lG z)\1, then the tracking error asymptoti-
increase of i, so the model accuracy increases with i. This
cally converges to zero as i approaches infinity. h
means the error between model predicted angle and true
angle decreases with i. It is reasonable to assume that
k +1 k +1 Appendix C: Nomenclature
hi + 1^ei + 1 ł hi^ei . Then we have

j SECA segment or finger joint: j = m for MCP; j = p for PIP

P, qj , q_ j , €qj Pressure, angle, angle velocity, and angle acceleration of joint j, respectively
r1 , r2 , w, d, t Inner radius, outer radius, chamber gap, thickness of SECA and thickness of torque compensating layer,
respectively
Vj , lj Material volume and length of SECA segment j, respectively
Es , Et Young’s modulus of the soft elastomer body and compensating layer, respectively
Kjs , Kjt Stiffness of the soft elastomer body and torque compensating layer at segment j, respectively
PEjs , PEjt Strain energy of the soft elastomer body and torque compensating layer at segment j, respectively
msj , mtj Mass of the soft elastomer body and the torque compensating layer at segment j, respectively
Jja , Daj , Kja , Tja Moment inertia, damping coefficient, stiffness, and moment–pressure constant of SECA segment j,
respectively
Mja , Mjf Moment on segment j of the SECA and joint j of finger, respectively
Jjf , Dfj , Kjf , Tjf Moment inertia, damping coefficient, stiffness, and moment–pressure constant of finger joint j, respectively
Kjf =Jjf , Dfj =Jjf , Tjf =Jjf Stiffness indicator, damping indicator, and moment–pressure indicator of finger joint j, respectively
A, B, C Coefficient matrix/vector of state space equation
y Total finger angle (the summation of MCP angle and PIP angle)
J j , Dj , K j , T j Moment inertia, damping coefficient, stiffness, and moment–pressure constant of SECA–finger system joint j,
respectively
r Reference trajectory
a0 , a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 Polynomial coefficients of reference trajectory
T , Ts Time period of reference trajectory and sampling time, respectively
r0 , re Start and end angles of reference trajectory, respectively
i, k Iteration number and time instance, respectively
^q, u, F Model estimated angle, estimated model parameter, and model information matrix, respectively
r, l, m Learning step size, feedforward input gain, and initial model parameter, respectively
Q, R, H Output, input weighting factors, and prediction horizon of MPC cost function, respectively
u, v Feedback and feedforward pressure, respectively
eri , epi Reference tracking error and model learning error at iteration i, respectively
dE Error tolerance