Towards a Platform for Robot-Assisted Minimally-Supervised Therapy of Hand Function: Design and Pilot Usability Evaluation.

hand haptics neurorehabilitation robot-assisted therapy robotics self-directed therapy stroke

Journal

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 12 01 2021
accepted: 15 03 2021
entrez: 3 5 2021
pubmed: 4 5 2021
medline: 4 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Robot-assisted therapy can increase therapy dose after stroke, which is often considered insufficient in clinical practice and after discharge, especially with respect to hand function. Thus far, there has been a focus on rather complex systems that require therapist supervision. To better exploit the potential of robot-assisted therapy, we propose a platform designed for minimal therapist supervision, and present the preliminary evaluation of its immediate usability, one of the main and frequently neglected challenges for real-world application. Such an approach could help increase therapy dose by allowing the training of multiple patients in parallel by a single therapist, as well as independent training in the clinic or at home. We implemented design changes on a hand rehabilitation robot, considering aspects relevant to enabling minimally-supervised therapy, such as new physical/graphical user interfaces and two functional therapy exercises to train hand motor coordination, somatosensation and memory. Ten participants with chronic stroke assessed the usability of the platform and reported the perceived workload during a single therapy session with minimal supervision. The ability to independently use the platform was evaluated with a checklist. Participants were able to independently perform the therapy session after a short familiarization period, requiring assistance in only 13.46 (7.69-19.23)% of the tasks. They assigned good-to-excellent scores on the System Usability Scale to the user-interface and the exercises [85.00 (75.63-86.88) and 73.75 (63.13-83.75) out of 100, respectively]. Nine participants stated that they would use the platform frequently. Perceived workloads lay within desired workload bands. Object grasping with simultaneous control of forearm pronosupination and stiffness discrimination were identified as the most difficult tasks. Our findings demonstrate that a robot-assisted therapy device can be rendered safely and intuitively usable upon first exposure with minimal supervision through compliance with usability and perceived workload requirements. The preliminary usability evaluation identified usability challenges that should be solved to allow real-world minimally-supervised use. Such a platform could complement conventional therapy, allowing to provide increased dose with the available resources, and establish a continuum of care that progressively increases therapy lead of the patient from the clinic to the home.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted therapy can increase therapy dose after stroke, which is often considered insufficient in clinical practice and after discharge, especially with respect to hand function. Thus far, there has been a focus on rather complex systems that require therapist supervision. To better exploit the potential of robot-assisted therapy, we propose a platform designed for minimal therapist supervision, and present the preliminary evaluation of its immediate usability, one of the main and frequently neglected challenges for real-world application. Such an approach could help increase therapy dose by allowing the training of multiple patients in parallel by a single therapist, as well as independent training in the clinic or at home.
METHODS METHODS
We implemented design changes on a hand rehabilitation robot, considering aspects relevant to enabling minimally-supervised therapy, such as new physical/graphical user interfaces and two functional therapy exercises to train hand motor coordination, somatosensation and memory. Ten participants with chronic stroke assessed the usability of the platform and reported the perceived workload during a single therapy session with minimal supervision. The ability to independently use the platform was evaluated with a checklist.
RESULTS RESULTS
Participants were able to independently perform the therapy session after a short familiarization period, requiring assistance in only 13.46 (7.69-19.23)% of the tasks. They assigned good-to-excellent scores on the System Usability Scale to the user-interface and the exercises [85.00 (75.63-86.88) and 73.75 (63.13-83.75) out of 100, respectively]. Nine participants stated that they would use the platform frequently. Perceived workloads lay within desired workload bands. Object grasping with simultaneous control of forearm pronosupination and stiffness discrimination were identified as the most difficult tasks.
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Our findings demonstrate that a robot-assisted therapy device can be rendered safely and intuitively usable upon first exposure with minimal supervision through compliance with usability and perceived workload requirements. The preliminary usability evaluation identified usability challenges that should be solved to allow real-world minimally-supervised use. Such a platform could complement conventional therapy, allowing to provide increased dose with the available resources, and establish a continuum of care that progressively increases therapy lead of the patient from the clinic to the home.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33937218
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.652380
pmc: PMC8082072
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

652380

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Ranzani, Eicher, Viggiano, Engelbrecht, Held, Lambercy and Gassert.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Jun;96(6):981-90
pubmed: 25461822
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Aug 2;15(1):72
pubmed: 30068372
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Apr;194(2):219-31
pubmed: 19139867
J Neurophysiol. 1996 May;75(5):2144-9
pubmed: 8734610
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jan;23(1):67-77
pubmed: 18645190
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:957-962
pubmed: 31374753
Brain. 2008 Feb;131(Pt 2):425-37
pubmed: 18156154
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Nov 29;5(2):e10510
pubmed: 30497993
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Nov-Dec;29(10):958-68
pubmed: 25782693
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 16;(12):CD010255
pubmed: 24338496
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jul;101(7):1131-1137
pubmed: 32283048
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Winter;23(1):131-7
pubmed: 17234027
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jun 3;16(1):64
pubmed: 31159822
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Nov 21;16(1):146
pubmed: 31753011
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Mar 18;2019:5462694
pubmed: 31011576
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010 Sep 22;7:48
pubmed: 20860808
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Mar;123:11-22
pubmed: 30654899
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 May;90(5):498-506
pubmed: 30770457
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Aug 24;17(1):115
pubmed: 32831097
Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2006;19(6-7):500-15
pubmed: 17100220
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Nov 15;11:154
pubmed: 25399249
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0117013
pubmed: 25793867
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Feb;31(2):207-216
pubmed: 26869596
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Jun;27(6):494-503
pubmed: 23147552
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 21;12:CD011058
pubmed: 28002636
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Aug 03;8:42
pubmed: 21813010
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1772-83
pubmed: 20400552
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):51-62
pubmed: 31128926
IEEE Trans Haptics. 2014 Apr-Jun;7(2):140-9
pubmed: 24968378
PLoS One. 2014 May 13;9(5):e96414
pubmed: 24823925
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Feb;31(2):107-121
pubmed: 27597165
Disabil Rehabil. 2013 Feb;35(4):291-9
pubmed: 22691224
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:1159-1166
pubmed: 31374786
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;91(11 Suppl 3):S242-54
pubmed: 23080040
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Dec;5(4):541-2
pubmed: 24454995
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2015 Aug;51(4):497-506
pubmed: 26158918
Int J Stroke. 2019 Oct;14(8):792-802
pubmed: 31658893
IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;7:143-53
pubmed: 24803207
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Aug 11;13(1):75
pubmed: 27515583
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Mar 27;15(1):29
pubmed: 29587853
Semin Neurol. 2018 Apr;38(2):208-211
pubmed: 29791947
Front Neurorobot. 2017 Jul 28;11:36
pubmed: 28804454
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Dec 12;11:163
pubmed: 25495889
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Feb;101(2):359-373
pubmed: 31689417
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Mar;98(3):456-462
pubmed: 27519928
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Feb;13(2):159-66
pubmed: 24382580
Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2007 Jun;9(3):221-8
pubmed: 17601386
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 12;14(4):e0215311
pubmed: 30978249
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 14;12(6):e0179453
pubmed: 28614403
Curr Opin Neurol. 2015 Dec;28(6):549-55
pubmed: 26402404
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975440
pubmed: 22275640
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2009 Oct;17(5):512-20
pubmed: 19666345
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:477-482
pubmed: 31374675
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 1;76(9):1079-1087
pubmed: 31233135
Stroke. 2014 Jun;45(6):1784-90
pubmed: 24803595
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:3602-5
pubmed: 25570770
Front Neurorobot. 2019 Feb 13;13:3
pubmed: 30814945
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011 Nov 16;8:63
pubmed: 22087842
J Physiother. 2016 Oct;62(4):182-7
pubmed: 27637769
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007 Sep;15(3):356-66
pubmed: 17894268
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Nov 13;14(1):114
pubmed: 29132388
Stroke. 2011 Sep;42(9):2630-2
pubmed: 21757677
Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):2053-8
pubmed: 24867924
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Jul;33(7):523-537
pubmed: 31131743

Auteurs

Raffaele Ranzani (R)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, D-HEST, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Lucas Eicher (L)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, D-HEST, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Federica Viggiano (F)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, D-HEST, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Bernadette Engelbrecht (B)

Department of Physiotherapy Zürcher RehaZentrum Wald, Wald, Switzerland.

Jeremia P O Held (JPO)

Department of Neurology, University of Zurich and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Olivier Lambercy (O)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, D-HEST, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Roger Gassert (R)

Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory, D-HEST, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH