Reconfiguration of supernumerary robotic limbs for human augmentation
Authors: Mustafa Mete, Anastasia Bolotnikova, Alexander Schuessler, Jamie Paik
Organizations: Reconfigurable Robotics Lab, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland. · Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems (LAAS), CNRS, Toulouse, France.
Wearable robots aim to seamlessly adapt to humans and their environment with personalized interactions. Existing supernumerary robotic limbs (SRLs), which enhance the physical capabilities of humans with additional extremities, have thus far been developed primarily for task-specific applications in structured industrial settings, limiting their adaptability to dynamic and unstructured environments. Here, we introduce a novel reconfigurable SRL framework grounded in a quantitative analysis of human augmentation to guide the development of more adaptable SRLs for diverse scenarios. This framework captures how SRL configuration shapes workspace extension and human-robot collaboration. We define human augmentation ratios to evaluate collaborative, visible extended, and non-visible extended workspaces, enabling systematic selection of SRL placement, morphology, and autonomy for a given task. Using these metrics, we demonstrate how quantitative augmentation analysis can guide the reconfiguration and control of SRLs to better match task requirements. We validate the proposed approach through experiments with a reconfigurable SRL composed of origami-inspired modular elements. Our results suggest that reconfigurable SRLs, informed by quantitative human augmentation analysis, offer a new perspective for providing adaptable human augmentation and assistance in everyday environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Human augmentation with reconfigurable supernumerary robotic limbs. Human augmentation through supernumerary robotic limbs (SRLs) has the potential to provide personalized assistance across diverse scenarios. SRLs enhance human manipulation capabilities by enabling tasks such as object stabilization when the user’s arms are occupied. They support dentists and surgeons by facilitating multi-arm procedures and improving productivity in industrial contexts, such as crop planting. Reconfigurable SRLs adapt their morphology, placement, and level of autonomy to the task and scenario, providing assistance that ranges from manual to fully autonomous task execution.
Figure 2: Human augmentation analysis. Different tasks and scenarios require varying configurations of SRLs. This analysis quantifies the impact of varying placement pj and morphology (number of modules n ) of the SRL, as well as the human visual field V on human augmentation. ( A ) The 4 different SRL configurations on the human body, which capture the range of potential augmentation tasks enabled by the SRL. The SRL is placed on the chest p1 , back p2 , front of the leg p3 , and side of the leg p4 . ( B ) The human augmentation ratios as a function of the number of modules n for the 4 SRL configurations: Extension ratio re , visible extension ratio re,v , and collaboration ratio rc .
Figure 3: Workspace analysis to inform the reconfiguration strategy. The SRL configuration, defined by the placement p and the number of modules n , must be selected according to the scenario and task requirements. Workspace analysis supports this selection by computing workspace ratios wi,n for the collaborative workspace ( C ), the visible extended workspace ( EV ), and the non-visible extended workspace ( ENV ). The 4 SRL configurations ( p1 - p4 ) on the human body, that capture the range of potential augmentation tasks enabled by the SRL, are analyzed ( A - D ).
Figure 4: Adaptable control strategy. ( A ) Overview of the adaptable control strategy and its main components: the reconfiguration strategy to determine the SRL configuration based on scenario and task requirements; the selection of the appropriate autonomy level; and the control policy to control the Robogami Third Arm. ( B ) Three exemplary task scenarios demonstrating the reconfiguration and adaptable control strategy for selecting the SRL configuration and autonomy level.
Figure 5: Control policy evaluation through object stabilization. The closed-loop performance of the control policy is evaluated using an object stabilization experiment (cup holding). ( A ) Representative time steps from the human-in-the-loop stabilization experiment. The participant applies disturbances to the end effector in pitch (t2 and t3) and roll (t4 and t5). ( B ) Torso angle of the participant over time, indicating the applied disturbances during the experiment. ( C ) End-effector angle of the SRL, the Robogami Third Arm, over time in response to the human-applied disturbances.
Figure 1: Robogami module. The Robogami module realizes a parallel kinematic structure based on the Canfield joint principle through the use of three origami-inspired folding legs. Each of the legs is connected to a DC motor to realize the actuation of the module. Two versions of the Robogami module are used: ( A ) A strong but heavier version using a motor with 1.4Nm torque and a weight of 57g . ( B ) A weaker but lighter version using a motor with 0.52Nm torque and a weight of 18g .
Figure 2: Structural reconfiguration of Robogami module. The parallel kinematic structure of the Robogami module enables reconfiguration from a shape with a 4cm height ( A ) to a shape with a 14cm height ( B ). This results in an extension ratio of 3.5 for a single Robogami module.
Figure 3: Modularity of Robogami Third Arm. The Robogami modules can be stacked in series to create arms with different configurations ( A-C ). The modularity is a key feature of the Robogami Third Arm to adapt its workspace and payload capacity to different scenarios and tasks. An underactuated hand is attached to the Robogami Third Arm and can be exchanged for alternative end-effectors depending on the task.
Figure 4: Miniaturized Robogami Third Arm joystick. ( A ) A 3-DoF joystick based on a sensorized miniaturization of the Robogami Third Arm: The joystick unit includes a lithium-polymer (LiPo) battery for power supply and a microcontroller (ESP32) for Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication with the central controller unit. ( B ) A belt hook is used to attach the joystick to the belt of the human operator for comfortable use.
Figure 5: Control policy flowchart. The quadratic programming-based (QP-based) control policy receives control inputs from either an autonomous motion planner or manual control interfaces, together with the control constraints, to compute desired joint-level position and velocity commands. A cascaded PID controller simultaneously regulates joint angles and velocities. Joint angle and velocity limits are applied to the controller outputs to ensure safe execution and prevent damage to the origami-inspired folding legs.
Figure 6: Workspace calculation. The workspaces for supernumerary robotic limb (SRL) configurations are calculated in three steps. In the first step, the human and robot kinematic models are sampled, based on the kinematic parameters and the number of modules of the robot. Based on the samples, point clouds for each human arm and the robot are computed. Moreover, point cloud constraints for the human visual field are computed. Subsequently, convex polytopes for the collaborative, visible extended, and non-visible extended workspaces are computed based on the intersection of the point clouds and constraints.
Figure 7: Payload capacity. The payload capacity of reconfigurable SRLs with multiple modules depends on the number of modules n , module kinematics M , and the module type (strong vs. lightweight module). The payload experiments in a straight-beam configuration evaluate the payload capacity of the Robogami Third Arm with 1, 2, and 3 modules (A, B, and C). The first two modules are strong Robogami modules, while the third module is a lightweight module due to payload limitations. The experiments show a payload capacity of 3kg for 1 module, 1kg for 2 modules, and 0.3kg for 3 modules.
Figure 8: Robogami Third Arm communication. ( A ) The central controller unit (Arduino Due) acts as the central device that connects all peripherals (DC motors and user interfaces). The joint information from the DC motors (Dynamixel, Robotis) and the joint commands from the low-level joint control on the central controller unit are sent via TTL communication. Using serial communication an external PC for running the high-level quadratic programming-based control policy is connected to the central controller unit. An ESP32 is connected via serial communication to the central controller unit to enable Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication with user interfaces, such as the miniature Robogami joystick. ( B ) The user interfaces utilize a ESP32 to read the sensor data and send it to the central controller unit via BLE.
Figure 9: Wearable supply unit for untethered operation. ( A ) The supply unit includes all necessities for power, communication, and control of the Robogami Third Arm to run it completely untethered on the human body. A lithium-polymer battery with a 1300mAh capacity supplies the necessary power for running the arm for approximately 3 hours in unloaded scenarios and 1.5 hours in loaded scenarios. A DC/DC converter converts the voltage from the battery to the necessary 12V for running the central controller unit (Arduino Due) and the servo motors. A communication unit (ESP32) is connected to the central controller unit for realizing the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) connection to the peripheral user interfaces. The supply unit has two cables to connect to external devices: a USB cable for serial communication with an external PC and a cable for TTL communication with the servo motors. ( B ) The wearable supply unit is attached to the human body for untethered control of the Robogami Third Arm.
Robot arm
Weight ( g )
Payload capacity ( g )
Load-to-weight ratio (-)
Max. arm extension ( mm )
Extension ratio (-)
Robogami Third Arm
250
3000
12
140
3.5
(1 strong module)
Robogami Third Arm
500
1000
2
280
3.5
(2 strong modules)
Robogami Third Arm
650
300
0.46
420
3.5
(2 strong + 1 lightweight module)
Table 1: Overview of existing supernumerary robotic limbs (SRLs) and the presented Robogami Third Arm with different number of modules.
Supernumerary robotic limbs (SLs) have the potential to transform a wide range of human activities, yet their usability remains limited by key technical challenges, particularly in ensuring safety and achieving versatile control. Here, we address the critical problem of maintaining balance in the human-SLs system, a prerequisite for safe and comfortable augmentation tasks. Unlike previous approaches that developed SLs specifically for stability support, we propose a general framework for preserving balance with SLs designed for generic use. Our hierarchical three-layer architecture consists of: (i) a prediction layer that estimates human trunk and center of mass (CoM) dynamics, (ii) a planning layer that generates optimal CoM trajectories to counteract trunk movements and computes the corresponding SL control inputs, and (iii) a control layer that executes these inputs on the SL hardware. We evaluated the framework with ten participants performing forward and lateral bending tasks. The results show a clear reduction in stance instability, demonstrating the framework's effectiveness in enhancing balance. This work paves the path towards safe and versatile human-SLs interactions. [This paper has been submitted for publication to IEEE.]
The tight coupling of subsystems in most robots, though a natural consequence of their complexity, leads to monolithic designs that are time-consuming and difficult to adapt after initial deployment. To address this challenge, we present a framework and supporting abstractions for recomposition during runtime that enable robots to quickly integrate previously unseen modular software, hardware, and compute payloads. Our approach allows non-expert users to quickly add new capabilities in the field through a true plug-and-play process. Crucially, new resources are not only immediately available to a host robot but are also shared with distributed peers, enabling compute-constrained systems to access powerful new remote capabilities. Our framework reduces reconfiguration time to a matter of minutes with no developer intervention, in stark contrast to the hours of expert effort often required for traditional manual integration. We demonstrate our method in two disaster response scenarios, including radioactive source localization at an operational nuclear reactor facility and a thermal-guided search for people in dark, difficult-to-reach spaces. These demonstrations show how in-field recomposition provides timely, flexible, and accessible adaptation to dynamic requirements, representing a critical step toward creating robots that can quickly evolve alongside the tasks, technologies, and environments they support.
Steven Swanbeck, Jonathan Salfity, Jeffery Gunawan +3
Texas Robotics and the Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
How robot body configuration shapes human intervention during approach remains underexplored. We conducted a within-participants study with 41 participants, measuring final stopping distance, subjective comfort, and exploratory eye-tracking responses across four humanoid arm configurations and two spatial scales. Full forward arm extension increased stopping distance by approximately 31-36 cm relative to arms-down. Spatial scale primarily affected comfort and pupil responses without a detectable stopping-distance shift. We introduce the Configuration-Aware Limit Model (CALM), which translates stopping-distance distributions into configuration-dependent population-coverage boundaries. Estimated boundaries at 80% coverage ranged from 0.88 to 1.47 m. In an illustrative one-dimensional planning analysis, reconfiguration enabled a 1.10 m approach goal that was unreachable with arms remaining fully extended under the same nominal pointwise 20% intervention-probability constraint. These findings support treating body configuration as a planning variable while distinguishing physical safety, behavioral intervention, and subjective cost.
Xinting Gao, Sipu Zhu, Weimin Zhuang
School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, China · Architectural Design & Research Institute of Tsinghua University, China