External Robotic Arm vs. Upper Limb Exoskeleton: What Do Potential Users Need?

Applied Sciences - Tập 9 Số 12 - Trang 2471
Hyung Seok Nam1,2, Han Gil Seo2, Ja‐Ho Leigh2, Yoon Jae Kim3, Sungwan Kim1,4, Moon Suk Bang5,2
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea
2Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea
3Interdisciplinary Program for Bioengineering, Seoul National University Graduate School, Seoul 08826, Korea
4Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea
5Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea

Tóm tắt

Robotic devices that practically assist activities of daily living (ADL) are scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate practical demands of potential users of external robotic arms and upper limb exoskeletons for assistance in ADL. A survey was performed in rehabilitation clinics in individuals with functional impairments in the upper extremity, divided into unilateral (UIG, n = 24) and bilateral impairment groups (BIG, n = 24). Descriptive analyses were performed for current dependency, objective importance, and subjective necessity of the 18 ADLs by using a 5-point Likert scale. Overall, handling foods, dressing, and moving close items were highly necessary functions for both robot types. The UIG demonstrated a high demand for self-exercise using exoskeletons, whereas one-hand ADLs showed low necessity. In the UIG, the exoskeleton had significantly higher demands than the external robotic arm in washing face (p = 0.005) and brushing teeth (p = 0.007). The subjects in the BIG replied that cleaning desks and eating are highly necessary abilities for the external robotic arm; and transfer and wheelchair control, for exoskeletons. In the BIG, the exoskeleton showed significantly higher necessity than the external robotic arms in dressing (p = 0.010), making phone calls (p = 0.026), using a smartphone (p = 0.011), and writing (p = 0.005). The practical demands of potential users were affected by laterality and robot type. Further robot developments should involve essential functions based on the survey results to meet end-user needs.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Maciejasz, 2014, A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation, J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 11, 3, 10.1186/1743-0003-11-3

Mehrholz, 2015, Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke, Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 11, CD006876

Maheu, 2011, Evaluation of the JACO robotic arm: Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities, IEEE. Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot., 2011, 5973597

Sale, 2014, Effects of upper limb robot-assisted therapy on motor recovery in subacute stroke patients, J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 11, 104, 10.1186/1743-0003-11-104

Blanco, 2014, Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: A multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial, Lancet Neurol., 13, 159, 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70305-3

Masiero, 2014, Randomized trial of a robotic assistive device for the upper extremity during early inpatient stroke rehabilitation, Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 28, 377, 10.1177/1545968313513073

Mehrholz, 2013, Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke, Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 7, CD006185

Babaiasl, 2016, A review of technological and clinical aspects of robot-aided rehabilitation of upper-extremity after stroke, Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol., 11, 263

Lajeunesse, 2015, Exoskeletons’ design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury, Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol., 11, 535, 10.3109/17483107.2015.1080766

Wall, 2015, Clinical application of the Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL) for gait training-a systematic review, Front. Syst. Neurosci., 9, 48, 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00048

Bedaf, 2015, Overview and Categorization of Robots Supporting Independent Living of Elderly People: What Activities Do They Support and How Far Have They Developed, Assist. Technol., 27, 88, 10.1080/10400435.2014.978916

Jarrasse, 2014, Robotic exoskeletons: A perspective for the rehabilitation of arm coordination in stroke patients, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 8, 947

Collinger, 2013, High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia, Lancet, 381, 557, 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61816-9

Kwak, 2015, A lower limb exoskeleton control system based on steady state visual evoked potentials, J. Neural. Eng., 12, 056009, 10.1088/1741-2560/12/5/056009

Kim, 2015, A study on a robot arm driven by three-dimensional trajectories predicted from non-invasive neural signals, Biomed. Eng. Online, 14, 81, 10.1186/s12938-015-0075-8

Shah, 1989, Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 42, 703, 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90065-6

Chumney, 2010, Ability of Functional Independence Measure to accurately predict functional outcome of stroke-specific population: Systematic review, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 47, 17, 10.1682/JRRD.2009.08.0140

Collinger, 2013, Functional priorities, assistive technology, and brain-computer interfaces after spinal cord injury, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 50, 145, 10.1682/JRRD.2011.11.0213

Huggins, 2015, What would brain-computer interface users want: Opinions and priorities of potential users with spinal cord injury, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 96, S38, 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.05.028

Huggins, 2011, What would brain-computer interface users want? Opinions and priorities of potential users with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Amyotroph. Lateral Scler., 12, 318, 10.3109/17482968.2011.572978

Watkins, 2002, Prevalence of spasticity post stroke, Clin. Rehabil., 16, 515, 10.1191/0269215502cr512oa

Nam, 2015, Efficacy and safety of NABOTA in post-stroke upper limb spasticity: A phase 3 multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, J. Neurol. Sci., 357, 192, 10.1016/j.jns.2015.07.028

Zorowitz, 2013, Poststroke spasticity: Sequelae and burden on stroke survivors and caregivers, Neurology, 80, S45, 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182764c86

Daly, 2005, Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke, J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 42, 723, 10.1682/JRRD.2005.02.0048

Conroy, 2011, Effect of gravity on robot-assisted motor training after chronic stroke: A randomized trial, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 92, 1754, 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.016

McCabe, 2015, Comparison of robotics, functional electrical stimulation, and motor learning methods for treatment of persistent upper extremity dysfunction after stroke: A randomized controlled trial, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 96, 981, 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.022

Anderson, 2004, Targeting recovery: Priorities of the spinal cord-injured population, J. Neurotrauma, 21, 1371, 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371

Nam, H.S., Lee, W.H., Seo, H.G., Kim, Y.J., Bang, M.S., and Kim, S. (2019). Inertial Measurement Unit Based Upper Extremity Motion Characterization for Action Research Arm Test and Activities of Daily Living. Sensors, 19.

Tanaka, 2013, Development of Assistive Robots Using International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Concept, Applications, and Issues, J. Robot., 608191, 1