An analysis of usability evaluation practices and contexts of use in wearable robotics.
Exoskeletons
Usability evaluation
User-centered design
Wearable robotics
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 12 2021
09 12 2021
Historique:
received:
31
07
2021
accepted:
22
11
2021
entrez:
10
12
2021
pubmed:
11
12
2021
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
User-centered design approaches have gained attention over the past decade, aiming to tackle the technology acceptance issues of wearable robotic devices to assist, support or augment human capabilities. While there is a consensus that usability is key to user-centered design, dedicated usability evaluation studies are scarce and clear evaluation guidelines are missing. However, the careful consideration and integration of user needs appears to be essential to successfully develop an effective, efficient, and satisfactory human-robot interaction. It is primarily the responsibility of the developer, to ensure that this users involvement takes place throughout the design process. Through an online survey for developers of wearable robotics, we wanted to understand how the design and evaluation in actual daily practice compares to what is reported in literature. With a total of 31 questions, we analyzed the most common wearable robotic device applications and their technology maturity, and how these influence usability evaluation practices. A total of 158 responses from a heterogeneous population were collected and analyzed. The dataset representing contexts of use for augmentation (16.5%), assistance (38.0%), therapy (39.8%), as well as few other specific applications (5.7%), allowed for an insightful analysis of the influence of technology maturity on user involvement and usability evaluation. We identified functionality, ease of use, and performance as the most evaluated usability attributes and could specify which measures are used to assess them. Also, we could underline the frequent use of qualitative measures alongside the expected high prevalence of performance-metrics. In conclusion of the analysis, we derived evaluation recommendations to foster user-centered design and usability evaluation. This analysis might serve as state-of-the-art comparison and recommendation for usability studies in wearable robotics. We believe that by motivating for more balanced, comparable and user-oriented evaluation practices, we may support the wearable robotics field in tackling the technology acceptance limitations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
User-centered design approaches have gained attention over the past decade, aiming to tackle the technology acceptance issues of wearable robotic devices to assist, support or augment human capabilities. While there is a consensus that usability is key to user-centered design, dedicated usability evaluation studies are scarce and clear evaluation guidelines are missing. However, the careful consideration and integration of user needs appears to be essential to successfully develop an effective, efficient, and satisfactory human-robot interaction. It is primarily the responsibility of the developer, to ensure that this users involvement takes place throughout the design process.
METHODS
Through an online survey for developers of wearable robotics, we wanted to understand how the design and evaluation in actual daily practice compares to what is reported in literature. With a total of 31 questions, we analyzed the most common wearable robotic device applications and their technology maturity, and how these influence usability evaluation practices.
RESULTS
A total of 158 responses from a heterogeneous population were collected and analyzed. The dataset representing contexts of use for augmentation (16.5%), assistance (38.0%), therapy (39.8%), as well as few other specific applications (5.7%), allowed for an insightful analysis of the influence of technology maturity on user involvement and usability evaluation. We identified functionality, ease of use, and performance as the most evaluated usability attributes and could specify which measures are used to assess them. Also, we could underline the frequent use of qualitative measures alongside the expected high prevalence of performance-metrics. In conclusion of the analysis, we derived evaluation recommendations to foster user-centered design and usability evaluation.
CONCLUSION
This analysis might serve as state-of-the-art comparison and recommendation for usability studies in wearable robotics. We believe that by motivating for more balanced, comparable and user-oriented evaluation practices, we may support the wearable robotics field in tackling the technology acceptance limitations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34886902
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00963-8
pii: 10.1186/s12984-021-00963-8
pmc: PMC8656061
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
170Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Oct;25(4):514-21
pubmed: 19845981
Hum Factors. 2020 May;62(3):351-364
pubmed: 31928418
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007 Nov;2(6):346-57
pubmed: 19263565
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020 Jul;28(7):1573-1583
pubmed: 32634096
Assist Technol. 2019;31(3):133-140
pubmed: 29125804
Bioeng Transl Med. 2017 Sep 05;2(3):247-257
pubmed: 29313034
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007 Sep;31(3):236-57
pubmed: 17979010
J Neural Eng. 2016 Jun;13(3):031001
pubmed: 27064508
Hum Factors. 2020 May;62(3):391-410
pubmed: 31419179
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Dec 19;11:169
pubmed: 25523497
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Jul 28;18(1):121
pubmed: 34321036
Gerontologist. 2020 Sep 15;60(7):e513-e523
pubmed: 31773145
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Nov 29;5(2):e10510
pubmed: 30497993
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Oct 30;16(1):144
pubmed: 31744511
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Winter;23(1):131-7
pubmed: 17234027
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Nov;94(11):1000-14
pubmed: 26098923
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019 Nov;27(11):2294-2304
pubmed: 31567097
PM R. 2018 Sep;10(9 Suppl 2):S174-S188
pubmed: 30269804
Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Nov 15;27(21):1321-31
pubmed: 16298935
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 24;10(1):15600
pubmed: 32973244
J Healthc Eng. 2016;2016:
pubmed: 27196802
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(2):160-167
pubmed: 28849760
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Oct;13(7):716-723
pubmed: 29334475
Assist Technol. 2021 Jan 2;33(1):1-8
pubmed: 30945983
Front Robot AI. 2020 Nov 13;7:561774
pubmed: 33501326
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Dec;26(6):3229-3247
pubmed: 32996058