Wearable assistive robots: soft exosuits and neural stimulation

How far have soft exosuits, spinal cord stimulation and artificial muscles got in people, and what limits each one?

This comparison sets three assistive technologies side by side on who they are for, a reported result in people, their regulatory status and their main limitation. Soft exosuits and spinal cord stimulation have results in people and regulatory statements from their developers, while the artificial muscle row covers lab prototypes with no human results in the sources reviewed.

Wearable assistive robots: soft exosuits and neural stimulation. Each cell shows a value, how well it is evidenced, and its sources.
Option	Who it is forThe people the technology is designed or tested for, and the setting in which it is used.	Reported result in peopleA reported result in human participants, with study size, setting, year and the measure used (for example percentage of responders or percentage change in walking measures).	Regulatory statusThe regulatory status reported, with the regulator, the indication and the date where one is given (for example US FDA clearance or EU CE marking).	Main limitationThe most important limit on use or on the evidence, with a figure where one is reported (for example percentage electrical-to-mechanical efficiency).
Soft exosuits	Stroke survivors with gait impairments, according to the company's FDA clearance wording. The 2023 lab study tested 19 people with chronic hemiparesis.Reported, unverified[1][2][3]	2023 lab study of 19 people with chronic hemiparesis, five minutes of overground walking with and without a portable ankle exosuit: ground clearance rose 22%, and propulsion rose 22% overall (35% in slower walkers, no change in faster walkers). Cost of transport did not worsen.Demonstrated[1]	Company announced US FDA clearance in June 2019 for sale to rehabilitation centres, for stroke survivors with mobility challenges (company wording). The clearance type and date are not given in the sources reviewed, and the claim was not checked against FDA records.Reported, unverified[2][3]	Tested in a five-minute lab walking comparison, so the sources do not show long-term benefit. Gains depended on walking ability: slower walkers increased propulsion and speed, while faster walkers showed no change.Demonstrated[1]
Spinal cord stimulation	Chronic incomplete cervical spinal cord injury, ages 18 to 75, for the non-invasive system (company-stated US indication).Reported, unverified[5]	Up-LIFT trial (2024), 60 analysed people with chronic tetraplegia: 43 (71.7%) met both strength and function responder criteria; single-arm, no sham.Demonstrated[4][6]	The product page states US FDA clearance for incomplete cervical injuries and CE marking under MDR 2017/745, with no dates given. A press release dated 2 April 2024 reported a De Novo submission to FDA and described the device as investigational.Reported, unverified[5][6]	Single-arm design with no concurrent control or sham group. Each person served as their own control, so gains over rehabilitation alone are hard to separate.Demonstrated[4]
Artificial muscles	No defined user group. The sources describe lab prototypes only: a fluid-driven origami muscle system (2017) and a tethered robotic leg (2024). No human use is reported.Demonstrated[7][8]	No reliable public figure	No reliable public figure	About 2% to 5% electrical-to-mechanical efficiency with miniature electric vacuum pumps in the lab origami muscle system (2017).Demonstrated[7]

Wearable assistive robots: soft exosuits and neural stimulation. Each cell shows a value, how well it is evidenced, and its sources.

Option

Who it is forThe people the technology is designed or tested for, and the setting in which it is used.

Reported result in peopleA reported result in human participants, with study size, setting, year and the measure used (for example percentage of responders or percentage change in walking measures).

Regulatory statusThe regulatory status reported, with the regulator, the indication and the date where one is given (for example US FDA clearance or EU CE marking).

Main limitationThe most important limit on use or on the evidence, with a figure where one is reported (for example percentage electrical-to-mechanical efficiency).

Soft exosuits

Stroke survivors with gait impairments, according to the company's FDA clearance wording. The 2023 lab study tested 19 people with chronic hemiparesis.Reported, unverified[1][2][3]

2023 lab study of 19 people with chronic hemiparesis, five minutes of overground walking with and without a portable ankle exosuit: ground clearance rose 22%, and propulsion rose 22% overall (35% in slower walkers, no change in faster walkers). Cost of transport did not worsen.Demonstrated[1]

Company announced US FDA clearance in June 2019 for sale to rehabilitation centres, for stroke survivors with mobility challenges (company wording). The clearance type and date are not given in the sources reviewed, and the claim was not checked against FDA records.Reported, unverified[2][3]

Tested in a five-minute lab walking comparison, so the sources do not show long-term benefit. Gains depended on walking ability: slower walkers increased propulsion and speed, while faster walkers showed no change.Demonstrated[1]

Spinal cord stimulation

Chronic incomplete cervical spinal cord injury, ages 18 to 75, for the non-invasive system (company-stated US indication).Reported, unverified[5]

Up-LIFT trial (2024), 60 analysed people with chronic tetraplegia: 43 (71.7%) met both strength and function responder criteria; single-arm, no sham.Demonstrated[4][6]

The product page states US FDA clearance for incomplete cervical injuries and CE marking under MDR 2017/745, with no dates given. A press release dated 2 April 2024 reported a De Novo submission to FDA and described the device as investigational.Reported, unverified[5][6]

Single-arm design with no concurrent control or sham group. Each person served as their own control, so gains over rehabilitation alone are hard to separate.Demonstrated[4]

Artificial muscles

No defined user group. The sources describe lab prototypes only: a fluid-driven origami muscle system (2017) and a tethered robotic leg (2024). No human use is reported.Demonstrated[7][8]

No reliable public figure

About 2% to 5% electrical-to-mechanical efficiency with miniature electric vacuum pumps in the lab origami muscle system (2017).Demonstrated[7]

What the table shows

Soft exosuits and spinal cord stimulation each have a result in people and a regulatory status reported by their developers; artificial muscles have neither in the sources reviewed.
The soft exosuit result comes from a five-minute lab walking comparison in 19 people, while the spinal cord stimulation result comes from a 60-person single-arm trial.
The main limitation cells point to different problems: a short lab walking test with gains that depended on walking ability for soft exosuits, no concurrent control for spinal cord stimulation, and pump-driven efficiency loss for artificial muscles.
The regulatory entries for soft exosuits and spinal cord stimulation are company or press statements that were not checked against regulator records.

Read with care

The figures come from different designs (a five-minute lab walking comparison, a single-arm trial and lab actuator tests), so they are not like-for-like.
Regulatory entries reflect company and press statements. FDA letters, CE certificates and regulator databases were not checked for this record.
A null cell means no reliable public figure was found in the sources reviewed. It does not show that no human study or regulatory submission exists.
Several publisher pages blocked automated access or redirected to a sign-in page, so some abstracts and full texts were read through Europe PMC or PubMed Central.

Sources

peer reviewed paper
Effects of a soft robotic exosuit on the quality and speed of overground walking depends on walking ability after stroke
L. H. Sloot, L. M. Baker, J. Bae et al.. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 1 Sept 2023. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
company announcement
FDA Issues Clearance for the ReStore Exo-Suit, the First Soft Robotic System for Stroke Therapy
ReWalk Robotics (press release, reposted by BioSpace), 4 Jun 2019. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
news
FDA Clears ReStore Exosuit for Stroke Rehabilitation
Alicia Bigica. NeurologyLive, 5 Jun 2019. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
peer reviewed paper
Non-invasive spinal cord electrical stimulation for arm and hand function in chronic tetraplegia: a safety and efficacy trial
Chet Moritz, Edelle C. Field-Fote, Candace Tefertiller et al.. Nature Medicine, 20 May 2024. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
company announcement
ARC-EX (ARCEX System) product information
ONWARD Medical, 21 Oct 2026. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
news
ONWARD Medical Submits De Novo Application to FDA for its ARC-EX System
Santelog, 2 Apr 2024. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
peer reviewed paper
Fluid-driven origami-inspired artificial muscles
Shuguang Li, Daniel M. Vogt, Daniela Rus et al.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 27 Nov 2017. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.
peer reviewed paper
Electrohydraulic musculoskeletal robotic leg for agile, adaptive, yet energy-efficient locomotion
Thomas J. K. Buchner, Toshihiko Fukushima, Amirhossein Kazemipour et al.. Nature Communications, 9 Sept 2024. Accessed 21 Oct 2026.