Table 5.

Comparative performance analysis of the proposed control over the contrast control.

Joint name	RMSE (ERL-SM) (deg)	RMSE (RLQR-NF) (deg)	PI (%)
Case I: with a 20% increment in mass parameters and a trigonometric form of external disturbances (mt = 9.90, mc = 4.62, and mhf = 1.80)(𝒟1 = (6 × sin(4πt)), 𝒟2 = (5 × sin(3πt)), and 𝒟3 = (3 × sin(2πt)))
Hip	0.578	0.283	51.04
Knee	0.672	0.420	37.50
Ankle	0.321	0.224	30.21
Case II: with a 30% increment in mass parameters and a random form of external disturbances (mt = 10.73, mc = 5.00, and mhf = 1.95)(𝒟1 = (6 × random(4)), 𝒟2 = (5 × random(3)), and 𝒟3 = (3 × random(2))
Hip	0.613	0.287	53.19
Knee	0.742	0.434	41.51
Ankle	0.334	0.228	31.73