This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.
This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
Finite-State Impedance and Direct Myoelectric
Control For Robotic Ankle Prostheses:
Comparing their Performance and Exploring
their Combination
Ryan R. Posh, James P. Schmiedeler, Senior Member, IEEE, and Patrick M. Wensing, Member, IEEE
Abstract— Non-volitional control, such as finite-state
machine (FSM) impedance control, does not directly in-
corporate user intent signals, while volitional control, like
direct myoelectric control (DMC), relies on these signals.
This paper compares the performance, capabilities, and
perception of FSM impedance control to DMC on a robotic
prosthesis for subjects with and without transtibial am-
putation. It then explores, using the same metrics, the
feasibility and performance of the combination of FSM
impedance control and DMC across the full gait cycle,
termed Hybrid Volitional Control (HVC). After calibration
and acclimation with each controller, subjects walked for
two minutes, explored the control capabilities, and com-
pleted a questionnaire. FSM impedance control produced
larger average peak torque (1.15Nm/kg) and power (2.05
W/kg) than DMC (0.88 Nm/kg and 0.94 W/kg). The discrete
FSM, however, caused non-standard kinetic and kinematic
trajectories, while DMC yielded trajectories qualitatively
more similar to able-bodied biomechanics. While walking
with HVC, all subjects successfully achieved ankle push-off
and were able to modulate the magnitude of push-off via the
the volitional input. Unexpectedly, however, HVC behaved
either more similarly to FSM impedance control or to DMC
alone, rather than in combination. Both DMC and HVC, but
not FSM impedance control, allowed subjects to achieve
unique activities such as tip-toe standing, foot tapping,
side-stepping, and backward walking. Able-bodied subject
(N=6) preferences were split amongst the controllers, while
all transtibial subjects (N=3) preferred DMC. Desired per-
formance and ease of use showed the highest correlations
with overall satisfaction (0.81 and 0.82, respectively).
Index Terms— Transtibial prosthesis, impedance control,
myoelectric control, hybrid volitional control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Active lower-limb prostheses that produce net positive work
can enable more natural and efficient walking compared to
passive devices, potentially increasing mobility and functional-
ity beyond standard walking gaits. Balancing the repeatability
required for cyclic standard movements with the adaptability
for sudden or non-standard movements remains a control
challenge. Existing approaches can be categorized along a
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
Corresponding author: Ryan R. Posh (rposh@nd.edu)
This work was funded by NSF grants DGE-1841556 & CMMI-1943703.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spectrum, ranging from no user involvement at one extreme,
broadly termed non-volitional (or autonomous [1]) control,
to direct user intent control at the other, referred to here as
volitional control [2].
Non-volitional (or autonomous [1]) control strategies
(NVCs) do not directly incorporate user intent signals. Perhaps
the most widespread is finite-state machine (FSM) impedance
control [3]–[6], which modulates joint impedance based on
progression through discrete, detectable gait phases. This facil-
itates repeatable cyclic motions, but not significant deviations
from them. NVCs are most commonly validated by compari-
son to able-bodied data [3], [7]–[9] or both able-bodied data
and data from passive prosthesis use [4], [10]–[12].
In contrast, volitional control strategies (VCs) directly sense
user intentions for control, allowing for unique motions and
generally moving the joint as desired by emloying sensors
of a varying degree of invasiveness. Perhaps the simplest is
surface electromyography (sEMG) to implement Direct Myo-
electric Control (DMC), which uses active, continuous input
from muscle activity to directly control prosthesis motion [1].
DMC has been demonstrated in virtual [13]–[15], non-weight-
bearing [16], and full weight-bearing implementations [17]–
[19]. Direct involvement can increase the user’s sense of
autonomy and intimacy with the prosthesis and expand achiev-
able activities; however, user involvement could also increase
variability, user fatigue, and unintended activation [19]–[21].
Like NVCs, VCs have been compared to sound-limb and
able-bodied data [13]–[17] and to data from use of passive
prostheses [18], [19]. While both NVCs and VCs have been
demonstrated in a variety of conditions, the authors know of no
work directly comparing an NVC to a VC. Such a comparison
with the same hardware, subjects, and conditions may offer
new perspectives on how, when, and why these controllers are
most beneficial.
With disparate advantages for each, combining NVCs with
VCs has received increasing attention. Supervisory meth-
ods [1] incorporate volitional sensors into a control classi-
fication framework. They can sense the desired activity mode
for switching between a predefined set of NVCs [22]–[24]
or detect desired gait phase transitions, such as from stance
to swing [25]–[27]. While offering some user involvement in
control, supervisory combinations of NVC and VC do not
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
2

TABLE I: Control parameters used in this formulation.

( , , n) ( , )
FSM DMC
Finite-State Direct Myoelectric Control HVC
Machine ( , , , ) State: n=1 n=2 n=3 none
( , , ) 𝒌𝒏 [Nm/deg/kg] 0.06 0.07 0.05
𝒃𝒏 [Nms/deg/kg] 0.003 0.0015 0.02
𝜽∗𝒏 [degs] -3 10 0
Thresholding 𝒎𝑮𝑨𝑺 , 𝒎𝑻𝑨 , 𝒎𝟎 [] User specific
( , ) 𝑲 [Nm/deg/kg] 0.05
𝜽𝒎𝒂𝒙,𝒏 [degs] 15 5 15 15
𝒖𝒑,𝒏 [] 0.05 0.05 0.05
Fig. 1: FSM impedance control sets prosthesis impedance parameters
𝒖𝒅,𝒏 [] 0.9 0.9 0.05
based on device state. DMC translates muscle activations into ankle
torque. HVC additively combines torques of these two methods, with
additional volitional thresholding. user body weight and then tuned if requested for comfort and
realize the full movement flexibility of VC. Indirect volitional other needs.
control is an alternative that coordinates prosthetic joint move-
ment with that of other limbs or joints [28], [29]. According B. Direct Myoelectric Control
to the classification herein, however, these are considered For DMC, volitional sensing was achieved with sEMG
NVCs, as they do not directly sense user intentions. Other measuring activation of the gastrocnemius (GAS) and tibialis
combinations confine the volitional component to specific gait anterior (TA) muscles for plantar/dorsiflexion, respectively.
phases. For transfemoral amputation, a shared neural controller Inspired by [15], volitional input is determined by
enabled DMC of stance knee torque, increasing the EMG gain q
with knee flexion [30]. Similarly, hybrid volitional control  u2p + u2 · ( m−m0 ) if m ≥ m0
d mGAS −m0
(HVC) modulated ankle push-off just during stance [31], u= q , (1)
− u2 + u2 · ( m−m0 ) if m < m0
[32]. HVC has been defined as the additive combination of an p d mT A −m0
NVC and VC to enable both reliable cyclic walking (with low where up (p for plantarflexion) and ud (d for dorsiflexion)
user input) and unique non-walking motions (with high user are the GAS and TA sEMG inputs, each calibrated to vary
input) [2]. Others have applied HVC in just the swing phase from 0 for no input (static standing) to 1 for maximum
to increase adaptation to terrain and slope changes [33]. One voluntary activation (MVA). The measure of cocontraction
study combined DMC with FSM impedance control across the u
m is the ratio upd , and mGAS and mT A are the slopes of
gait cycle at the knee [34], but similar full gait cycle ankle linear fits to data for (ud , up ) from calibration when trying to
implementations have been limited to simulation [2]. activate each muscle individually. As seen in Fig. 2, m0 =
This paper’s main contributions are 1) directly comparing atan(tan(mGAS )+tan(mT A )/2) is the slope of the line bisecting
the performance and user perception of FSM impedance the region defined by mGAS and mT A , which partitions
control to DMC, and 2) exploring the feasibility, performance, the regions corresponding to plantar- and dorsiflextion intent.
and user perception of an HVC implementation (Fig. 1) that With volitional input from Eq. 1, the DMC output torque is
combines DMC with an FSM non-volitional base controller τ DM C = −K(θ − θmax u), where θmax is the maximum
(NVBC) at the ankle across the full gait cycle. This work plantarflexion angle of the prosthesis, and K is a tunable
includes subjects with and without amputation to assess the volitional responsiveness parameter. This controller acts as
controllers with various body types, walking styles, and mus- a position tracker with the desired trajectory defined by
culatures. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first direct the volitional input, which prevents unbounded acceleration.
comparison of FSM impedance control to DMC with the same Lower K values yield compliant spring-like behavior, rather
subjects on the same hardware and the first demonstration of than rigid position tracking.
HVC across the full gait cycle for transtibial prostheses.

C. Hybrid Volitional Control Approach

II. M ETHODS
A. Finite-State Machine Impedance Control
The FSM used here has three states: 1. Early stance (foot in
contact with ground); 2. Late stance (contact maintained and
a tunable ankle angle met, triggering the push-off action); and
3. Swing (no foot contact with ground). In each, the torque is
τ F SM = −kn (θ − θn∗ ) − bn θ̇ , where θ and θ̇ are the ankle
angle and angular velocity, and kn , bn , and θn∗ denote the
linear stiffness, damping coefficient, and equilibrium point, re-
spectively, of the n-th state’s impedance controller. Impedance
parameters in each state (Table I) were initialized based on
As defined in [2], Hybrid Volitional Control (HVC) is the
additive combination of torque from an NVBC and that of
a volitional component. The NVBC provides reliable, repeat-
able, and automatic control for cyclic walking. For this HVC
implementation, the FSM impedance controller described in
Section II-A is the NVBC, and a modified DMC provides the
volitional component (Fig. 1). For HVC, the torque from the
DMC component is modified.
(
τ V C = −K(θ − θmax,n u) if u ∈/ [−ūd,n , ūp,n ]
−K(θ − βn (u)u) if u ∈ [−ūd,n , ūp,n ]
, (2)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
Gastrocnemius
Tibialis Anterior
Fig. 2: Real-time sEMG data (red) are compared to calibrated
cocontraction data (dark blue) to determine extent that user intent
is in plantar- (light green) or dorsiflexion (light blue) region.
where θmax,n is the state-based maximum allowable range
of motion for the volitional component and K is again a
volitional responsiveness parameter. The ūd/p,n parameters are
thresholds that vary based on the current state n. The function
βn (u) is a gain that varies linearly from 0 when u = 0 to
θmax,n when u = ūd/p,n . This gain attenuates signals below
the thresholds in a way that ensures output continuity and
avoids jerky motions when the threshold boundary is crossed.
The thresholds ūp,n and ūd,n change with state progres-
sion to ensure safe actuation, yet allow for large volitional
alterations when appropriate. For the FSM’s three states, the
volitional thresholds are heuristically set to ūp,n = [0.05, 0.05,
0.05] and ūd,n = [0.9, 0.9, 0.05] (Table I). A plantarflexion
signal of less than 5% of the MVA is attenuated for each state
to mitigate small unintended actuation (beyond the filtering
described in Section II-D), but still provides freedom for
activation above that threshold. In early and late stance,
though, dorsiflexion signals must exceed 90% of MVA to be
unattenuated. This is a safety feature since no standard gait
activities involve lifting the toes while standing on them. The
HVC output torque is τ HV C = τ F SM + τ V C .
D. Prosthetic Hardware
All controllers were implemented on the Open-Source Leg
(OSL) [35]. The OSL’s motor encoder measured the motor’s
angular position, which was mapped to an ankle joint angle via
the OSL’s four-bar mechanism kinematics. The sensed motor
current was converted to motor torque and combined with the
four-bar kinematics to estimate ankle torque. The prosthetic
ankle joint power was computed from these quantities. The
OSL was outfitted with two pressure sensors (SEN-08685;
SparkFun Electronics), one each at the heel and toe, laid be-
tween two layers of polyurethane rubber compound (Vytaflex-
60) and held in place by plastic 3D-printed contact plates. Each
unit was secured to the bottom of the cosmetic footshell (LP
Variflex®foot), which was itself enveloped by a shoe.
The OSL also interfaced with two sEMG amplifiers
(SX230FW; Biometrics Ltd.), one each for GAS and TA. To
avoid irritation or discomfort within the prosthetic socket, thin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
3
Fig. 3: Open Source Leg worn by (a) subjects with transtibial ampu-
tation using their standard-of-care socket and (b) able-bodied subjects
using the ankle bypass adapter. EMG electrodes were configured to
lower-limb musculature.
(∼ 1.25mm thickness), compliant medical-grade Ag/AgCl disk
electrodes (TE/K50430-001, Technomed USA) interfaced with
the user’s skin. The EMG sensors feature a band-pass filter
between 20 and 460 Hz and 1000x amplification. All sensors
were wired to a Raspberry Pi microcomputer, which received
wireless commands from a remote laptop. The system operated
at 500 Hz, with the rectified sEMG and pressure sensor signals
filtered in the time domain with moving average filters defined
by 200 ms and 100 ms windows, respectively.
E. Experimental Protocol
Thirteen human subjects, ten able-bodied (AB) and three
with transtibial amputation (TTA), gave their informed consent
and participated in the study approved by the University of
Notre Dame IRB (Protocol 21-10-6846). Four AB subjects,
however, experienced hardware issues, including recurring
transmission belt slippage and poor motor current performance
during commanded current spikes, resulting in unusable data.
Therefore, nine subjects, as reported in Tables II and III,
completed testing. Stiffness parameters for subject TT03 were
reduced relative to other subjects to avoid these effects.
For subjects with amputation, a certified prosthetist/orthotist
(CPO) attached the OSL to the subject’s current socket and
ensured appropriate alignment. Subjects without amputation
wore the prosthesis via a bypass adapter (Fig. 3) and a
contralateral shoe lift. Leg length symmetry for subjects with
amputation was achieved with in-shoe heel lifts or lower
profile shoe lifts on the sound side. All subjects wore a safety
harness and were encouraged to hold the side hand rail when
walking on the treadmill. Each subject was asked to test three
control types: 1) FSM impedance control (Section II-A), 2)
DMC (Section II-B), and the additive combination of these
with 3) HVC (Section II-C). For each, the subject completed a
calibration procedure, was given time for acclimation, and was
asked to walk for two minutes on a treadmill. Before testing
began, each subject was screened for myoelectric activity.
1) Myoelectric Screening: In a seated position, subjects were
outfitted with sEMG sensors on GAS and TA. Hair was
removed and the skin cleaned as necessary. Subjects contracted
and relaxed these muscles while the researcher palpated them
and placed the electrodes to align with the primary fiber
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
4

TABLE II: Characteristics of able-bodied subjects (ABXX) and sub- TABLE III: Amputation Data for TTXX subjects.
jects with transtibial amputation (TTXX).
Post-
Age Height Weight Walking amputation Suspension
Subject [yrs] [cm] [kgs] Speed [m/s] Sex Subject Time [yrs] K-Level Etiology Type
AB01 21 178 73 0.8 Male TT01 27 K4 left congenital suction
AB02 24 178 68 0.8 Male TT02 10 K4 left traumatic self-suspension
AB03 27 182 72 0.8 Male TT03 1.0 K3 left vascular suction
AB04 19 183 64 0.8 Male
AB05 23 177 64 0.6 Female
AB06 25 180 68 0.7 Female 4) Exploration and Questionnaire: After the walking trials,
Mean AB 23.2 179.7 68.2 0.75 -- each subject was given the opportunity to retry any of the
TT01 27 172 79 0.7 Female controllers and explore the capabilities at their leisure, and
TT02 33 180 77 0.8 Male with any intent level. Subjects were also encouraged to try
TT03 39 162 90 0.65 Female unique activities beyond standard walking, such as standing
Mean TT 33.0 171.3 82.0 0.72 --
on tip-toes, side-stepping, and backward-walking. Finally, sub-
jects answered six Likert-scale questions. For each, subjects
indicated their level of agreement with a statement for each
direction. To ensure proper placement and evaluate muscle controller, with a value of 1 indicating strongly disagree and
activation, subjects were given visual feedback in the form of 5 indicating strongly agree. 1. I felt that the controller was
a cursor they controlled on a co-contraction plot (Fig. 2). Once reliable. 2. The controller performed the way that I wanted it
sensor placement and the ability to generate significant EMG to. 3. I felt fatigued when using the controller. 4. The controller
signals were confirmed, the prosthesis was donned. was easy to use. 5. In my exploration, I was comfortable
achieving a wide range of activities. 6. Please indicate your
2) Calibration and Tuning: For FSM impedance control,
overall satisfaction (very dissatisfied to very satisfied). Two
all impedance parameters were initialized by subject weight.
final questions were posed for written responses. 1. What
Subjects could request changes to the ankle stiffness during
controller was your favorite and why? 2. Is there anything
late stance and to the dorsiflexion angle that triggers late
else that you would like to share with us?
stance (push-off timing). With DMC, subjects were asked
to stand with relaxed lower-leg muscles for setting a static
baseline. The average EMG signal across 10 seconds was F. Data Processing
set as a volitional input baseline of 0 for each muscle, and
During walking trials, the prosthesis recorded joint angle,
activity within 2 standard deviations of this level was ignored
joint velocity, torque (via motor current), power, heel pressure,
during control. No standard deviation exceeded 0.28 mV. To
toe pressure, and raw EMG data at 250 Hz. The data were
find M V AGAS and mGAS , subjects were instructed to take a
divided into strides based on the state progression and rescaled
half-step forward with their contralateral foot and maximally
based on the average timing of gait events (heel strike, late-
contract their GAS for one second. This posture mimics
stance, toe-off) between 0 and 100% of the gait cycle. Strides
late stance to mitigate the potential effects of knee angle
with torque values outside of the mean stride torque ±3
on GAS activation due to its biarticular nature. In neutral
standard deviations were removed as outliers, most often being
stance, subjects were instructed to maximally contract the TA
the first several and last several strides due to the treadmill
to record M V AT A and mT A . Afterward, values could be
speed changes. Data from the first and second minute of HVC
manually tuned as requested to achieve more or less sensitive
walking were separated for analysis. Total ankle work across
volitional control. Some subjects required no post-calibration
each stride was calculated as the area under the ankle power
tuning, while others requested extensive tuning.
curve plotted as a function of average stride time. A Pearson
3) Treadmill Walking: For each control type, subjects were correlation test was performed to quantify the relationship
given a period of acclimation, not exceeding 10 minutes, in between user scores of the Likert-scale questions from N = 27
which to sit, stand, and walk. Subjects then walked on the responses (one for each user and controller).
treadmill at a comfortable speed for two minutes. This was
repeated with the second control type for comparison (FSM
III. R ESULTS
impedance control and DMC were randomized as first/second)
and finally with the combination of these with HVC. For A. Volitional Calibration
HVC, subjects were instructed to walk for the first minute Both DMC and HVC require calibration to translate muscle
with relaxed muscles so as to rely on the NVBC for what activity to volitional input signals per Section II-E.2. Users
is called herein “HVC with low intent”, and for the second exhibited disparate calibration signatures, with varying MVA
minute with maximal volitional contribution during push-off levels for each muscle and unique co-contraction relationships.
so as to experience the combined torque of the NVBC and After exerting maximal effort in calibration, many subjects
VC in what is called herein “HVC with high intent.” These could not replicate this same level when trying to move the
separate designations sought to understand how well users prosthesis, resulting in reduced ankle range of motion. These
could control (or not control) their muscle contributions. subjects requested lower normalization levels to enable more

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
TABLE IV: Final calibration values for each subject. Entries without
3 decimal places were set manually.
[] [] [mV]
AB01 5 0.165 25
AB02 4.363 0.156 24
AB03 1.8 0.167 15
AB04 1.618 0.117 16 135.785
AB05 1.5 0.12 23.601
AB06 2 0.079 15
TT01 2.075 0.01 25.723
TT02 2.518 0.632 62
TT03 1.483 0.137 16.322
responsive control. In contrast, others did not achieve max-
imal muscle activation during calibration, so they frequently
exceeded their normalization levels during dynamic tasks. This
resulted in high sensitivity to small EMG activations and noise.
In these cases, manually increasing the normalization threshold
mitigated the effects. In Table IV, values reported without
three decimal places were set manually for these reasons. Of
all the parameters, mGAS had the highest variability for AB
subjects (coefficient of variation (COV) 52%), as did mT A for
TT subjects (COV 103%). AB subject variability was lower
than that of TT subjects in both M V AGAS (COV: AB 23%;TT
57%) and M V AT A (COV: AB 21%; TT 38%).
B. Comparison of FSM Impedance Control and DMC
1) Biomechanic Performance: For treadmill walking, self-
selected speeds ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 m/s and were fixed
across controllers. All subjects achieved ankle push-off while
walking with both FSM impedance control and DMC. Fig-
ure 4 shows the ankle torque, volitional input (calculated with
Eq. 1), and ankle angle generated by each controller. Across
all subjects, FSM impedance control and DMC both resulted
in ankle torque magnitudes slightly less than normative able-
bodied data (∼1.5 Nm/kg at 0.9 m/s [36]), but on average,
FSM impedance control yielded larger peak torque magnitudes
(AB: 1.24 ± 0.04 Nm/kg; TT: 1.01 ± 0.16 Nm/kg) than did
DMC (AB: 0.97 ± 0.14 Nm/kg; TT: 0.72 ± 0.13 Nm/kg).
Figure 5 shows that, on average for all subjects, the FSM
impedance controller produced higher peak power (AB: 2.26
W/kg; TT: 1.68 W/kg) than did DMC (AB: 0.97 W/kg; TT:
0.91 W/kg). Unlike standard gait that exhibits a single peak of
ankle power, FSM impedance control consistently produced a
double peak power profile for all 9 subjects, shown in Fig. 6
for AB05. The first peak resulted from the discrete spike in
commanded torque at the transition to late-stance, while the
second peak corresponded to an increase in ankle velocity
during push-off. These events are synchronized in standard
gait, and DMC exhibited this single peak power profile, though
at a lower magnitude than observed in normative able-bodied
walking at these speeds (∼ 2 W/kg [36]).
Figure 5 shows that FSM impedance control generated
higher average total work across strides than did DMC for all
but one subject (TT02). For 8/9 total subjects, however, FSM
impedance generated more work than the AB reference [36].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
5
TABLE V: Average agreement level with each questionnaire state-
ment (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) across all subjects.
Desired Ease of Multiple Overall
Reliability Fatigue
[mV] Performance use activities Satisfaction
100.27 FSM 3.6 3.8 2.2 4.1 3.1 3.4
DMC 4.0 3.7 2.2 4.0 4.1 4.0
100
HVC 3.6 3.6 2.0 4.1 3.7 3.8
83.909
68.084 As observed in Fig. 6, FSM produced similar positive power
100 to the AB reference in late stance, but did not reliably produce
80 negative power in early stance, resulting in greater work.
28 In contrast, DMC did not reliably achieve reference levels
75 of total ankle work (large standard deviations), with several
cases of near-zero average total work across all strides. DMC
produced larger maximum plantarflexion angles than did FSM
impedance control for 4/6 AB and all TT subjects (Fig. 4). The
FSM enters swing as the foot leaves the ground, immediately
bringing the ankle to the neutral angle. This prevents the
plantarflexion follow-through typical of standard gait.
2) Reliability: While all subjects successfully walked with
both controllers, FSM impedance control consistently pro-
duced less variability both within and across strides for all
subjects. Not only was the standard deviation of torque smaller
at all points in the gait cycle (averages: FSM 0.05 Nm/kg;
DMC 0.13 Nm/kg), but the standard deviations in average
maximum plantarflexion angle (1.30 degs), average peak ankle
power (0.06 W/kg), and average total work across strides (0.06
J/kg) were much smaller than with DMC (3.91 degs, 0.17
W/kg, and 0.18 J/kg) for all subjects (Fig. 5).
3) Unique Activities Beyond Standard Walking: A supple-
mental video highlighting the unique activities achieved is
available for download. Using DMC, all subjects were able
to stand on tip-toes and tap the foot. These were the only
activities pursued by AB subjects, but all TT subjects spent
much longer in the exploration phase and also achieved
backward walking and side-stepping with DMC (and later
HVC), as seen in Fig. 7. This FSM impedance controller did
not allow any activities beyond forward walking.
4) User Perception: Table V reports average scores across
all subjects for each controller from the six Likert-scale
questions. An overall subject score for each controller was
compiled by subtracting the response for question 3 (fatigue
being undesirable) from the sum of the responses for the other
5 questions, for a maximum possible score of 24. Figure
8 compiles these overall scores, with each line representing
the individual subject score and the line color indicating the
subject’s stated favored controller.
In general, AB subjects either scored FSM impedance
control significantly higher than DMC or vice versa. Subjects
AB03, AB05, and AB06 scored DMC higher than FSM
impedance control, while AB01, AB02, and AB04 selected the
opposite. Multiple subjects noted that the sudden actuation of
FSM impedance control felt unnatural and in some cases “un-
necessary”. Despite varying individual preference scores, all
three TT subjects favored DMC, reporting on the questionnaire
that they highly valued being able to control the movement of
the foot and to achieve unique activities. Unexpectedly, TT02
scored FSM impedance control higher than DMC, yet favored
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
6

DMC. Similarly, TT03 scored these two equally, but chose
DMC for the “natural feel” and “smooth movement.”
C. Hybrid Volitional Control Performance
While walking with HVC, all AB and TT subjects success-
fully achieved ankle push-off. Further, subjects were able to
modulate the magnitude of ankle push-off by controlling the
volitional input contributed to the controller per the instruc-
tions for low and high intent (Fig. 4). A central principle of
HVC is that it should nearly replicate the autonomous base
controller (in this case FSM impedance) performance in the
absence of volitional activity. This was observed for subjects
AB01, AB02, AB05, and TT02, but not the others (Fig. 4).
Rather than allowing volitional input to alter or augment
the basic performance of the FSM impedance controller as
intended, the implementation of HVC herein effectively mim-
icked either FSM impedance control or DMC alone. While the
underlying NVBC was always present, DMC and HVC are
essentially identical if the late-stance state is never entered
(late-stance dorsiflexion transition angle not achieved). This
was typically the case for subjects AB03, AB04, AB06, TT01,
and TT03 and for subject AB05 with high intent (Fig. 4).
The additional plantarflexion torque in HVC from baseline
muscle activations prevented these 3/6 AB and 2/3 TT users

Fig. 4: Left and left middle columns: Prosthetic ankle torque for AB and TT subjects walking on treadmill, averaged over strides with ±2
standard deviations (shading). Right middle column: Average volitional inputs shown from -1 (full dorsiflexion intent) to +1 (full plantarflexion
intent). Right column: Prosthetic ankle angles, with the dorsiflexion threshold shown in black. FSM impedance (red) is compared to DMC
(blue), and HVC with low user intent (dark solid green) is compared to HVC with high user intent (light dashed green), along with able-
bodied references from [36] (dashed grey). All experimental data are scaled in horizontal axis based on average timing of gait events.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
7

Fig. 5: Top: Average peak power. Bottom: Average total work per stride. All averages are taken across strides from treadmill walking tests,
with able-bodied references [36] shown as dashed lines. FSM impedance (red), DMC (blue), HVC with low user intent (dark green), and
HVC with high user intent (light green) all have error bars of ±1 standard deviation.

from meeting the dorisflexion threshold required to reach late-
stance and experience its large plantarflexion moment from the
NVBC. As a result, nearly all of the ankle torque generated
came only from the volitional input, as is the case in DMC.
1) Biomechanic Performance: HVC achieved large average
peak ankle power for subjects AB01, AB05, and TT02 (2.22
W/kg) and average total work for subjects AB01, AB02, and
AB05 (0.37 J/kg), as seen in Fig. 5. These subjects all reliably
reached the FSM’s late-stance state, using HVC as intended.
While these large power values were consistent with AB
references, the positive work often greatly exceeded reference
values. HVC also produced an average peak plantarflexion
angle of 11.60 degs for AB subjects and 9.84 degs for TT
subjects (compared to an AB reference of ∼16 degs [36]).
Similar to DMC, HVC allows users to achieve plantarflexion
follow-through even after the foot leaves the ground.
2) Reliability: For AB subjects, HVC with high intent
achieved standard deviations of peak torque (average 0.13
Nm/kg), average peak plantarflexion angle (3.69 degs), average
peak ankle power (0.15 W/kg), and average total work across
strides (0.18 J/kg) that were smaller than DMC, but larger
than FSM impedance. For TT subjects, however, HVC with
high intent produced larger standard deviations of peak torque
(average 0.15 Nm/kg), average peak plantarflexion angle (6.07
degs), average peak ankle power (0.24 W/kg), and average
total work across strides (0.19 J/kg) than for AB subjects and
when compared to DMC and FSM impedance control.
3) Unique Activities Beyond Standard Walking: With HVC,
all subjects achieved the same activities as with DMC, in-
cluding standing on tip-toes, foot tapping, backward walking,
and side stepping (see supplemental video). With HVC, sub-
ject TT03 executed several kicking motions with the ankle,
repeatedly knocking over her standard-of-care prosthesis.
4) User Perception: Of the AB subjects that scored FSM
impedance control higher overall than DMC, one subject
(AB04) favored HVC overall. Of the AB subjects that scored
DMC over FSM impedance control, one subject (AB03)
indicated equal preference for DMC and HVC, but felt that
he “could walk the fastest with [HVC].” Consistent with the
reliability results in Section III-C.2, all three TT subjects
reported that HVC was unpredictable at times, leading to lower
reliability scores than FSM impedance and DMC for two of
the three subjects.
D. Overall User Perception
Figure 9 shows the Pearson correlations among the ag-
gregated questionnaire results, along with significance levels,
when looking at FSM impedance control, DMC, and their
combination in HVC. The highest positive correlations were
between desired performance and reliability (0.86, p = 6.6E-
09), desired performance and ease of use (0.83, p = 1.1E-07),
desired performance and overall satisfaction (0.82, p = 1.8E-
07), and ease of use and overall satisfaction (0.81, p = 6.8E-
08). The highest negative correlations were between fatigue
and ease of use (-0.83, p = 6.8E-08) and fatigue and overall
satisfaction (-0.73, p = 1.7E-05). The question related to
multiple activities had low correlations and may have had
multiple interpretations.

Fig. 6: Prosthetic ankle power for subject AB02 while walking on level ground, averaged over all strides of each trial with ±2 standard
deviations shown with shading. NVC (red), DMC (blue), HVC with low intent (dark solid green), and HVC with high intent (light dashed
green) are scaled in horizontal axis based on average timing of gait events, and compared to normative AB reference (black) [36].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
8

Tip-Toes Side-Stepping Backward Walking

Fig. 7: Activities achieved with HVC by all 3 TT subjects: Standing on tip-toes (left), side-stepping (middle), and walking backward (right).

IV. D ISCUSSION
A. Volitional Calibration
Each subject generated unique co-contraction slopes and
M V A values for each muscle, consistent with [37]. Normal-
ized by the mean, more variability was observed in the slopes
than the M V A values, suggesting that the co-contraction
profile may be the dominant factor when calibrating. Subject
TT01 had musculature only in the anterior region of her
residual limb and lacked an antagonistic muscle. Since ankle
push-off provides the primary gait benefit, this anterior muscle
was mapped to represent GAS in calibration, and she was
able to walk comfortably after a short acclimation period.
Subject TT02 exhibited residual musculature at similar levels
to AB subjects, perhaps related to his preference for self-
suspension, i.e., maintaining the socket connection to the
residual limb by contracting the residual muscles. Separating
contractions related to the intention of maintaining socket
connection from those related to desired ankle motion remains
a future challenge for volitional-based control. Subject TT02
exhibited the narrowest calibration profile regions, such that
the muscular signals for dorsiflexion and plantarflexion were
similar. Despite these unique challenges, all three TT subjects
walked with DMC and HVC following proper calibration.
Once normalization levels were calibrated, many subjects
Overall AB User Preference Score
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
FSM
NVC DMC
VC HVC
HVC
saturated GAS during gait. Per Eq. 1, however, this did not
result in maximal volitional input unless the input signal lies
along or beyond the co-contraction slope mGAS . Therefore, a
subject who exceeds the normalization level could still control
the ankle by modulating co-contraction nearer or farther from
slope m0 . While recording the absolute maximum activation
is appropriate when finding MVA, this may not be the goal
when normalizing EMG activity for volitional control. A
higher MVA normalization reduces the impact of noise and
avoids unintended movements at the expense of requiring an
individual to work harder to move the limb. Therefore, the
normalization procedure should manage this trade-off between
controllability and volitional demand. These challenges merit
future dedicated research.
B. Comparison of FSM Impedance Control to DMC
FSM impedance control produced average peak power
closer to AB references more reliably than did DMC in level
walking (Sec. III-B.2). FSM also produced larger average
total work than AB references due to the lack of negative
power generated in early stance, while DMC was unable
to reliably meet AB work references due to positive power
magnitudes being less. In general, the discontinuous nature of
the FSM resulted in non-smooth actuation that contributed to
transmission issues for subjects of larger weight, atypical ankle
power and position profiles, and an unnatural feel for some
users. Since FSM impedance control is incompatible with
unique activities, it may prevent individuals with amputation
AB01
AB02
AB03
Reliability 1.00
AB04
Desired
AB05 0.86*** 1.00
Performance
AB06
Fatigue -0.56** -0.65*** 1.00

Overall TT User Preference Score Ease of use 0.77*** 0.83*** -0.83*** 1.00
25.0
Multiple
20.0 0.64*** 0.64*** -0.53** 0.62*** 1.00
activities
15.0 TT01 Overall
0.78*** 0.82*** -0.73*** 0.81*** 0.78*** 1.00
10.0 TT02 Saisfaction
Performance

TT03
Ease of use

Saisfaction

5.0
Reliability

activities
Multiple
Desired

Overall
Fatigue

0.0
FSM
NVC DMC
VC HVC
HVC
Fig. 8: Individual overall scores (lines) and population averages (bars)
for each controller for AB (above) and TT (below) subjects. Line
color indicates subject’s favored controller: FSM (red), DMC (blue), Fig. 9: Pearson correlations and significance levels across question-
or HVC (green). naire responses for all subjects (∗∗ & ∗∗∗ denote p < 0.01 & 0.001).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
from participating in desired activities. For example, subject
TT02 mentioned that the late stance transition would preclude
actions that he does regularly, like lunging or kneeling.
For level walking, DMC produced kinetics that more closely
resembled able-bodied biomechanics in shape and timing
(qualitatively similar to [36]), but often at lower magnitudes.
This trend was observed on average across strides. However,
some individual strides did exhibit more appropriate torque
levels such that the stride-to-stride variability was large. While
increasing the volitional responsiveness parameter K of DMC
(analogous to control stiffness) could produce more appropri-
ate average kinetics, it might cause higher than desired levels
of torque, power, and work in individual strides. Kinematically,
DMC allowed the plantarflexion motion to continue after
push-off into early swing, unlike the FSM. This may suggest
that DMC enables better kinematic performance than kinetic,
whereas FSM impedance control exhibits the opposite. Fur-
ther, DMC allowed subjects to achieve unique activities when
desired. When walking backward, all TT subjects reported that
volitionally plantarflexing the ankle of the leading foot was
beneficial compared to their prescribed ankle-foot, which often
leads to backward tripping. Subject TT01 remarked that this
plantarflexion control increased comfort while seated, as she
could comfortably place both feet flat on the floor. TT01 also
reported a reduction in hip pain when walking with both DMC
and HVC. While walking and backward walking can also be
achieved by indirect volitional controllers [28], [29], activities
such as foot-tapping and tip-toe standing are currently shown
only by volitional controllers, such as DMC and HVC.
While AB subjects split their preferences for FSM
impedance control and DMC, all TT subjects preferred DMC,
despite DMC failing to yield peak power or total work magni-
tudes consistent with able-bodied gait. If these survey results
translate to the broader TT population, this could indicate
that subjects with amputation value the ability to volitionally
control a prosthesis more than the ability to replicate intact
walking biomechanics. This should be explored in future work.
C. Hybrid Volitional Control
This work demonstrated the feasibility of HVC applied at
the ankle across the full gait cycle. While walking, subjects
achieved biomechanic magnitudes similar to able-bodied data.
HVC also allowed users to achieve unique activities such as
standing on tip-toes, foot tapping, backward walking, and side
stepping (see supplemental video). Not all subjects, however,
realized the benefits of HVC, which may have impacted their
preference scores, as noted in their free responses. All subjects
met the dorsiflexion transition angle to immediately enter late-
stance when walking with FSM impedance control (Fig. 4),
suggesting that this tuning was appropriate; however, when
using HVC, the presence of additional plantarflexion torque
made this threshold more challenging to reach, causing this
HVC implementation to not always behave as expected. Rather
than maintaining the behavior of the autonomous base con-
troller at all times, the added volitional component caused sev-
eral users to experience exclusively either the FSM impedance
component or the volitional component. This undesirable
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
9
binary outcome might be avoided by retuning the transition
threshold for HVC, using an FSM with different transition
rules, or using a more continuous NVBC altogether. For TT
subjects, the sudden actuation at state transitions also appeared
to have an effect on the in-socket EMG electrodes, leading to a
reduction in reliability. This type of behavior may explain the
decisions in [31]–[33] to limit HVC to specific gait phases.
The HVC results herein depend so heavily on one phase
of gait because the FSM transition criteria to enter the late
stance phase exhibited the most pronounced interaction effects
between the non-volitional and volitional control components.
HVC is inextricably related to its non-volitional and volitional
subcomponents, such that any undesirable behavior of these
components may be inherited by the combination of them as
well.
Best practices for future HVC implementations include
avoiding autonomous controller transition rules that become
confounded by the effects of volitional contributions. This
change would help ensure use of the autonomous and voli-
tional components in conjunction, rather than in competition.
Moving away from state-based control of HVC to continuous
controllers (e.g., [7], [8]) appears the most promising candidate
to mitigate these interactions. Additionally, controllers, such
as that in [6], that can continuously span multiple activity
modes (level ground, ramps, stairs) could allow users to easily
engage with standard terrains and use the volitional component
in non-standard environments or activities. It may also be of
use, particularly for walking control, to account for involuntary
baseline muscle activations, such as the ones observed during
HVC with low intent.
D. Overall User Perception
Across controllers, the survey results suggest that perceived
ease of use is the dominant factor in overall satisfaction
with a powered prosthesis controller, consistent with previ-
ous findings [38]. Perceived ease of use also showed the
strongest correlation with level of fatigue, so ease of use
might better predict fatigue than factors such as reliability or
biomechanic assistance. HVC development should potentially
prioritize increasing the understandability and ease of use
of the control over biomechanic performance. Whether the
controller “performs the way the user wants it to” also appears
to strongly predict overall satisfaction. Future studies should
further engage with individuals with amputation to explore
these subjective statements and better understand the meaning
of a controller performing as desired.
V. C ONCLUSION
This study directly compared the performance and user
perception of finite-state machine (FSM) impedance control
to direct myoelectric control (DMC). Aiming to harness their
individual benefits, this work also explored the feasibility of
combining these two via Hybrid Volitional Control (HVC)
across the full gait cycle for a transtibial prosthesis. FSM
impedance control exhibited the most repeatable control, with
biomechanic metrics similar in magnitude to able-bodied data,
but resulted in non-standard kinematic and kinetic trajectories
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TNSRE.2023.3287971
10
due to its discrete nature. In contrast, DMC produced smoother
trajectories, but failed to match peak magnitudes of able-
bodied torque and power. Both DMC and HVC allowed users
to achieve a wide range of unique activities beyond standard
walking, including standing on tip-toes, foot tapping, side-
stepping, and backward walking, while FSM impedance did
not. This HVC implementation behaved either more simi-
larly to FSM impedance control or DMC, rather than these
components working together. Identified best practices and
future research directions could improve the overall perfor-
mance of HVC to allow for standard walking gaits without
volitional input, while using volitional contributions to flexibly
tailor prosthesis movement (e.g., increased swing control for
changing or uneven terrain, unique activities, and seamless
transitions between activity modes without classification). All
transtibial (TT) subjects favored DMC, suggesting that factors
such as ease of use, desired performance, and ability to achieve
unique activities may outweigh biomechanic performance for
subjects with amputation.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Fleming, N. Stafford, S. Huang, X. Hu, D. P. Ferris, and H. H.
Huang, “Myoelectric control of robotic lower limb prostheses: a review
of electromyography interfaces, control paradigms, challenges and future
directions,” J Neural Eng, vol. 18, no. 4, 2021.
[2] R. R. Posh, J. P. Schmiedeler, and P. M. Wensing, “Hybrid volitional
control as a framework for lower-limb prosthetic control: A simulation
study,” in IEEE Int Conf Intell Robots Syst, 2021, pp. 6167–6163.
[3] F. Sup, A. Bohara, and M. Goldfarb, “Design and control of a powered
knee and ankle prosthesis,” in IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom, 2007, pp.
4134–4139.
[4] S. Au, M. Berniker, and H. Herr, “Powered ankle-foot prosthesis to
assist level-ground and stair-descent gaits,” Neural Netw, vol. 21, no. 4,
pp. 654–666, 2008.
[5] M. Liu, F. Zhang, P. Datseris, and H. H. Huang, “Improving finite state
impedance control of active-transfemoral prosthesis using dempster-
shafer based state transition rules,” J Intell Robot Syst, vol. 76, no. 3-4,
pp. 461–474, 2014.
[6] N. P. Fey, A. M. Simon, A. J. Young, and L. J. Hargrove, “Controlling
knee swing initiation and ankle plantarflexion with an active prosthesis
on level and inclined surfaces at variable walking speeds,” IEEE J Transl
Eng Health Med, vol. 2, pp. 1–12, 2014.
[7] R. D. Gregg, T. Lenzi, L. J. Hargrove, and J. W. Sensinger, “Virtual
constraint control of a powered prosthetic leg: From simulation to
experiments with transfemoral amputees,” IEEE T Robot, vol. 30, no. 6,
pp. 1455–1471, 2014.
[8] D. J. Villarreal, D. Quintero, and R. D. Gregg, “Piecewise and unified
phase variables in the control of a powered prosthetic leg,” in IEEE Int
Conf Rehabil Robot, 2017, pp. 1425–1430.
[9] M. F. Eilenberg, H. Geyer, and H. Herr, “Control of a powered ankle–
foot prosthesis based on a neuromuscular model,” IEEE T Neur Sys Reh,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 164–173, 2010.
[10] B. E. Lawson, H. A. Varol, A. Huff, E. Erdemir, and M. Goldfarb,
“Control of stair ascent and descent with a powered transfemoral
prosthesis,” IEEE T Neur Sys Reh, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 466–473, 2012.
[11] K. Z. Takahashi, J. R. Horne, and S. J. Stanhope, “Comparison of
mechanical energy profiles of passive and active below-knee prostheses:
a case study,” Prosthet Orthot Int, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 150–156, 2015.
[12] N. T. Pickle, J. M. Wilken, J. M. Aldridge, R. R. Neptune, and A. K.
Silverman, “Whole-body angular momentum during stair walking using
passive and powered lower-limb prostheses,” J Biomech, vol. 47, no. 13,
pp. 3380–3389, 2014.
[13] A. Fleming, S. Huang, and H. Huang, “Proportional myoelectric control
of a virtual inverted pendulum using residual antagonistic muscles:
Toward voluntary postural control,” IEEE T Neur Sys Reh, vol. 27, no. 7,
pp. 1473–1482, 2019.
[14] S. K. Au, P. Bonato, and H. Herr, “An EMG-position controlled system
for an active ankle-foot prosthesis: an initial experimental study,” in
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot, 2005, pp. 375–379.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
[15] B. Chen, Q. Wang, and L. Wang, “Promise of using surface EMG
signals to volitionally control ankle joint position for powered transtibial
prostheses,” in Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2014, pp. 2545–2548.
[16] K. H. Ha, H. A. Varol, and M. Goldfarb, “Volitional control of a
prosthetic knee using surface electromyography,” IEEE T Bio-Med Eng,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 144–151, 2010.
[17] S.-K. Wu, G. Waycaster, and X. Shen, “Electromyography-based control
of active above-knee prostheses,” Control Eng Pract, vol. 19, no. 8, pp.
875–882, 2011.
[18] A. Fleming and H. H. Huang, “Proportional myoelectric control of a
powered ankle prosthesis for postural control under expected perturba-
tion: A pilot study,” in IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot, 2019, pp. 899–904.
[19] S. Huang, J. P. Wensman, and D. P. Ferris, “Locomotor adaptation by
transtibial amputees walking with an experimental powered prosthesis
under continuous myoelectric control,” IEEE T Neur Sys Reh, vol. 24,
no. 5, pp. 573–581, 2015.
[20] L. Hargrove, “Volitional control research,” in Full Stride: Advancing the
State of the Art in Lower Extremity Gait Systems, V. Tepe and C. M.
Peterson, Eds. Springer, 2017, pp. 137–150.
[21] B. Chen, Q. Wang, and L. Wang, “Adaptive slope walking with a robotic
transtibial prosthesis based on volitional EMG control,” IEEE-ASME T
Mech, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2146–2157, 2014.
[22] L. Peeraer, B. Aeyels, and G. Van der Perre, “Development of emg-
based mode and intent recognition algorithms for a computer-controlled
above-knee prosthesis,” J Biomed Eng, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 178–182, 1990.
[23] H. Huang, T. A. Kuiken, R. D. Lipschutz et al., “A strategy for
identifying locomotion modes using surface electromyography,” IEEE
T Bio-Med Eng, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2008.
[24] J. D. Miller, M. S. Beazer, and M. E. Hahn, “Myoelectric walking mode
classification for transtibial amputees,” IEEE T Biomed Eng, vol. 60,
no. 10, pp. 2745–2750, 2013.
[25] O. Bai, G. Kelly, D.-Y. Fei, D. Murphy, J. Fox, B. Burkhardt, W. Love-
green, and J. Soars, “A wireless, smart eeg system for volitional control
of lower-limb prosthesis,” in IEEE Reg 10 Int Conf Proc, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[26] M. Meng, Q. She, Y. Gao, and Z. Luo, “Emg signals based gait phases
recognition using hidden markov models,” in IEEE Int Conf Robot
Autom, 2010, pp. 852–856.
[27] E. Wentink, V. Schut, E. Prinsen, J. S. Rietman, and P. H. Veltink,
“Detection of the onset of gait initiation using kinematic sensors and
emg in transfemoral amputees,” Gait Posture, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 391–
396, 2014.
[28] S. Rezazadeh, D. Quintero, N. Divekar, E. Reznick, L. Gray, and R. D.
Gregg, “A phase variable approach for improved rhythmic and non-
rhythmic control of a powered knee-ankle prosthesis,” IEEE Access,
vol. 7, pp. 109 840–109 855, 2019.
[29] J. Mendez, S. Hood, A. Gunnel, and T. Lenzi, “Powered knee and
ankle prosthesis with indirect volitional swing control enables level-
ground walking and crossing over obstacles,” Sci Robot, vol. 5, no. 44,
p. eaba6635, 2020.
[30] G. R. Hunt, S. Hood, and T. Lenzi, “Stand-up, squat, lunge, and walk
with a robotic knee and ankle prosthesis under shared neural control,”
IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol, vol. 2, pp. 267–277, 2021.
[31] J. Wang, O. A. Kannape, and H. M. Herr, “Proportional EMG control
of ankle plantar flexion in a powered transtibial prosthesis,” in IEEE Int
Conf Rehabil Robot, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[32] O. A. Kannape and H. M. Herr, “Volitional control of ankle plantar
flexion in a powered transtibial prosthesis during stair-ambulation,” in
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2014, pp. 1662–1665.
[33] B. Chen and Q. Wang, “Combining human volitional control with
intrinsic controller on robotic prosthesis: A case study on adaptive slope
walking,” in Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2015, pp. 4777–4780.
[34] C. D. Hoover, G. D. Fulk, and K. B. Fite, “Stair ascent with a powered
transfemoral prosthesis under direct myoelectric control,” IEEE-ASME
T Mech, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1191–1200, 2012.
[35] A. F. Azocar, L. M. Mooney, L. J. Hargrove, and E. J. Rouse, “Design
and characterization of an open-source robotic leg prosthesis,” in IEEE
Int Conf Biomed Robot Biomechatron, 2018, pp. 111–118.
[36] D. A. Winter, “Biomechanical motor patterns in normal walking,” J Mot
Behav, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 302–330, 1983.
[37] S. Huang and H. Huang, “Voluntary control of residual antagonistic
muscles in transtibial amputees: reciprocal activation, coactivation, and
implications for direct neural control of powered lower limb prostheses,”
IEEE T Neur Sys Reh, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 85–95, 2018.
[38] J. Kim, J. Wensman, N. Colabianchi, and D. H. Gates, “The influence
of powered prostheses on user perspectives, metabolics, and activity:
a randomized crossover trial,” J Neuroeng Rehabil, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
1–13, 2021.