## 8 Conclusions  
Three control schemes with varying degrees of autonomy were implemented and used in the context of performing tongue-based control of an upper limb exoskeleton for individuals with tetraplegia. Computer vision was used to detect nearby objects to infer the intention of the user. The confidence of this prediction was used by an adaptive semi-autonomous control to continually adjust the amount of assistance provided when controlling the exoskeleton. The adaptive semi-autonomous control was tested against non-autonomous (i.e., manual) control and fixed semi-autonomous control, where the level of assistance was always the same. The three control schemes were tested across two studies: 10 participants without tetraplegia and 7 participants with tetraplegia. Both studies showed a clear improvement when using either the adaptive or fixed semi-autonomous control instead of the non-autonomous control. The participants without tetraplegia also showed a significant improvement for several of the tested tasks when using the adaptive semi-autonomous control instead of its fixed counterpart. However, the participants with tetraplegia performed better with the fixed semi-autonomous control instead of the adaptive one in many cases. These different results and preferences across the two studies could be attributed to a much higher average age for the participants with tetraplegia along with less training in using the tongue-based control as well. The benefits of using an adaptive versus a fixed level of autonomy for the semi-autonomous control appear to depend on the user and their amount of experience in using the system. Nevertheless, the results clearly show that both the semi-autonomous control schemes are to be preferred over manual control. Furthermore, using the adaptive semi-autonomous control instead of the manual non-autonomous control did not appear to have any drawbacks during the two studies as it was found to improve performance in all the tested cases. The fixed semi-autonomous control did, on the other hand, reduce performance in a few cases when compared to the non-autonomous control. The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12094374/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12094374/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12094374/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12094374/s1)). Conceptualization, S.H.B., M.M., F.V.K., M.A.G., L.N.S.A.S., T.B. and T.B.M. ; methodology, S.H.B., M.B.T., M.M., F.V.K., M.A.G., L.N.S.A.S., T.B. and T.B.M. ; software, S.H.B., M.B.T. and M.M. ; validation, S.H.B. ; formal analysis, S.H.B. and M.B.T. ; investigation, S.H.B., M.B.T., M.M., F.V.K., M.A.G. and L.N.S.A.S; resources, M.B.T., M.M., F.V.K., M.A.G. and L.N.S.A.S. ; data curation, S.H.B., M.B.T. and M.M. ; writing--original draft preparation, S.H.B. ; writing--review and editing, S.H.B., M.B.T., M.M., F.V.K., M.A.G., L.N.S.A., T.B. and T.B.M. ; visualization, S.H.B., M.B.T. and M.M. ; supervision, S.H.B., M.B.T., L.N.S.A.S., T.B. and T.B.M. ; project administration, S.H.B., M.B.T., M.M., F.V.K. and L.N.S.A.S. ; funding acquisition, L.N.S.A.S., T.B. and T.B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This research was conducted as part of the EXOTIC project funded by Aalborg University, Denmark. **Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Science Ethics Committee for the North Denmark Region (reg. no. : VN-20190030 and VN-20210016, approved 17 August 2021). **Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. **Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are not publicly available due to privacy concerns. **Acknowledgments:** We would like to thank the participants in the studies for their effort and patience.