Purpose: Virtual Reality (VR) has proven to be an effective tool for motor (re)learning. Furthermore, with the current commercialization of low-cost head-mounted displays (HMDs), immersive virtual reality (IVR) has become a viable rehabilitation tool. Nonetheless, it is still an open question how immersive virtual environments should be designed to enhance motor learning, especially to support the learning of complex motor tasks. An example of such a complex task is triggering steps while wearing lower-limb exoskeletons as it requires the learning of several sub-tasks, e.g., shifting the weight from one leg to the other, keeping the trunk upright, and initiating steps. This study aims to find the necessary elements in VR to promote motor learning of complex virtual gait tasks. Methods: In this study, we developed an HMD-IVR-based system for training to control wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for people with sensorimotor disorders. The system simulates a virtual walking task of an avatar resembling the sub-tasks needed to trigger steps with an exoskeleton. We ran an experiment with forty healthy participants to investigate the effects of first- (1PP) vs. third-person perspective (3PP) and the provision (or not) of concurrent visual feedback of participants’ movements on the walking performance – namely number of steps, trunk inclination, and stride length –, as well as the effects on embodiment, usability, cybersickness, and perceived workload. Results: We found that all participants learned to execute the virtual walking task. However, no clear interaction of perspective and visual feedback improved the learning of all sub-tasks concurrently. Instead, the key seems to lie in selecting the appropriate perspective and visual feedback for each sub-task. Notably, participants embodied the avatar across all training modalities with low cybersickness levels. Still, participants’ cognitive load remained high, leading to marginally acceptable usability scores. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that to maximize learning, users should train sub-tasks sequentially using the most suitable combination of person’s perspective and visual feedback for each sub-task.

Background: In the past decade, there has been substantial progress in the development of robotic controllers that specify how lower-limb exoskeletons should interact with brain-injured patients. However, it is still an open question which exoskeleton control strategies can more effectively stimulate motor function recovery. In this review, we aim to complement previous literature surveys on the topic of exoskeleton control for gait rehabilitation by: (1) providing an updated structured framework of current control strategies, (2) analyzing the methodology of clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, and (3) reporting the potential relation between control strategies and clinical outcomes. Methods: Four databases were searched using database-specific search terms from January 2000 to September 2020. We identified 1648 articles, of which 159 were included and evaluated in full-text. We included studies that clinically evaluated the effectiveness of the exoskeleton on impaired participants, and which clearly explained or referenced the implemented control strategy. Results: (1) We found that assistive control (100% of exoskeletons) that followed rule-based algorithms (72%) based on ground reaction force thresholds (63%) in conjunction with trajectory-tracking control (97%) were the most implemented control strategies. Only 14% of the exoskeletons implemented adaptive control strategies. (2) Regarding the clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, we found high variability on the experimental protocols and outcome metrics selected. (3) With high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented a combination of trajectory-tracking and compliant control showed the highest clinical effectiveness for acute stroke. However, they also required the longest training time. With high grade of evidence and low number of participants (N = 8), assistive control strategies that followed a threshold-based algorithm with EMG as gait detection metric and control signal provided the highest improvements with the lowest training intensities for subacute stroke. Finally, with high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented adaptive oscillator algorithms together with trajectory-tracking control resulted in the highest improvements with reduced training intensities for individuals with chronic stroke. Conclusions: Despite the efforts to develop novel and more effective controllers for exoskeleton-based gait neurorehabilitation, the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of the different control strategies on clinical outcomes is still low. There is a clear lack of standardization in the experimental protocols leading to high levels of heterogeneity. Standardized comparisons among control strategies analyzing the relation between control parameters and biomechanical metrics will fill this gap to better guide future technical developments. It is still an open question whether controllers that provide an on-line adaptation of the control parameters based on key biomechanical descriptors associated to the patients’ specific pathology outperform current control strategies.