Towards a validated glossary of usability attributes for the evaluation of wearable robotic devices.
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:
28 Feb 2024
28 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
02
11
2023
accepted:
24
01
2024
medline:
29
2
2024
pubmed:
29
2
2024
entrez:
28
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite technical advances in the field of wearable robotic devices (WRD), there is still limited user acceptance of these technologies. While usability often comes as a key factor influencing acceptance, there is a scattered landscape of definitions and scopes for the term. To advance usability evaluation, and to integrate usability features as design requirements during technology development, there is a need for benchmarks and shared terminology. These should be easily accessible and implementable by developers. An initial set of usability attributes (UA) was extracted from a literature survey on usability evaluation in WRD. The initial set of attributes was enriched and locally validated with seven developers of WRD through an online survey and a focus group. The locally validated glossary was then externally validated through a globally distributed online survey. The result is the Robotics Usability Glossary (RUG), a comprehensive glossary of 41 UA validated by 70 WRD developers from 17 countries, ensuring its generalizability. 31 of the UA had high agreement scores among respondents and 27 were considered highly relevant in the field, but only 11 of them had been included as design criteria by the respondents. Multiple UA ought to be considered for a comprehensive usability assessment. Usability remains inadequately incorporated into device development, indicating a need for increased awareness and end-user perspective. The RUG can be readily accessed through an online platform, the Interactive Usability Toolbox (IUT), developed to provide context-specific outcome measures and usability evaluation methods. Overall, this effort is an important step towards improving and promoting usability evaluation practices within WRD. It has the potential to pave the way for establishing usability evaluation benchmarks that further endorse the acceptance of WRD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Despite technical advances in the field of wearable robotic devices (WRD), there is still limited user acceptance of these technologies. While usability often comes as a key factor influencing acceptance, there is a scattered landscape of definitions and scopes for the term. To advance usability evaluation, and to integrate usability features as design requirements during technology development, there is a need for benchmarks and shared terminology. These should be easily accessible and implementable by developers.
METHODS
METHODS
An initial set of usability attributes (UA) was extracted from a literature survey on usability evaluation in WRD. The initial set of attributes was enriched and locally validated with seven developers of WRD through an online survey and a focus group. The locally validated glossary was then externally validated through a globally distributed online survey.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The result is the Robotics Usability Glossary (RUG), a comprehensive glossary of 41 UA validated by 70 WRD developers from 17 countries, ensuring its generalizability. 31 of the UA had high agreement scores among respondents and 27 were considered highly relevant in the field, but only 11 of them had been included as design criteria by the respondents.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple UA ought to be considered for a comprehensive usability assessment. Usability remains inadequately incorporated into device development, indicating a need for increased awareness and end-user perspective. The RUG can be readily accessed through an online platform, the Interactive Usability Toolbox (IUT), developed to provide context-specific outcome measures and usability evaluation methods. Overall, this effort is an important step towards improving and promoting usability evaluation practices within WRD. It has the potential to pave the way for establishing usability evaluation benchmarks that further endorse the acceptance of WRD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38419069
doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01312-1
pii: 10.1186/s12984-024-01312-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Rodríguez-Fernández A, Lobo-Prat J, Font-Llagunes J. Systematic review on wearable lower-limb exoskeletons for gait training in neuromuscular impairments. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2021;18(1):22.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00815-5
Herrera-Valenzuela D, Díaz-Peña L, Redondo-Galán C, Arroyo M, Cascante-Gutiérrez L, Gil-Agudo A, Moreno J, Del-Ama A. A Qualitative study to elicit user requirements for lower limb wearable exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation in spinal cord injury. JNER. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01264-y .
doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01264-y
pubmed: 37848992
pmcid: 10583355
Lajeunesse V, Vincent C, Routhier F, Careau E, Michaud F. 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. 2016;11(7):535–47.
doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1080766
pubmed: 26340538
Koumpouros Y. A systematic review on existing measures for the subjective assessment of rehabilitation and assistive robot devices. J Healthc Eng. 2016;2016:1048964.
doi: 10.1155/2016/1048964
pubmed: 27196802
pmcid: 5058569
I. O. f. Standardization, "Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts," International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, 2018.
Bryce T, Dijkers M, Kozlowsk J. Framework for assessment of the usability of lower-extremity robotic exoskeletal orthoses. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;94(11):1000–14.
doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000321
pubmed: 26098923
Batavia A, Hammer G. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1990;27(4):425–36.
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.1990.10.0425
pubmed: 2089152
Arthanat S, Bauer S, Lenker J, Nochajski S, Wu Y. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;2(4):235–48.
doi: 10.1080/17483100701343665
Fuhrer M, Jutai J, Scherer M, DeRuyter F. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(22):1243–51.
doi: 10.1080/09638280310001596207
pubmed: 14617441
EUROBENCH, "Eurobench," EUROBENCH. https://eurobench2020.eu/ . Accessed 27 Feb 2023
Massardi S, Briem K, Veneman J, Torricelli D, Moreno J. Re-defining wearable robots: a multidisciplinary approach towards a unified terminology. JNER. 2023;10:1068.
EUROBENCH, "User-centered assessment of exoskeleton-assisted overground walking," EUROBENCH2020EU, 06 2022. https://platform.eurobench2020.eu/protocols/info/43 . Accessed 12 Aug 2022.
A. International, Subcommittee F48.91 on Terminology, ASTM International, 2021. https://www.astm.org/get-involved/technical-committees/committee-f48/subcommittee-f48/jurisdiction-f4891 . Accessed 26 June 2023.
R. E. Lab, The Interactive Usability Toolbox, Rehabilitation Engineering Lab, ETH Zürich, 2020. Available: www.usabilitytoolbox.ch . Accessed 22 June 2023.
Meyer JT, Tanczak N, Kanzler CM, Pelletier C, Gassert R, Lambercy O. Design and validation of a novel online platform to support the usability evaluation of wearable robotic devices. Wearable Technol. 2023;4: e3.
doi: 10.1017/wtc.2022.31
Meyer J, Gassert R, Lambercy O. An analysis of usability evaluation practices and contexts of use in wearable robotics. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2021;18:170.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00963-8
Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Washington: Wiley; 2014.
doi: 10.1002/9781394260645
Rovetta A. Raiders of the lost correlation: a guide on using Pearson and Spearman coefficients to detect hidden correlations in medical sciences. Cureus. 2020;12(11): e11794.
pubmed: 33409040
pmcid: 7779167
Wegge KZD. Accessibility, usability, safety, ergonomics: concepts, models, and differences. In: Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. UAHCI 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol 4554., Berlin: Springer; 2007, 294–301
I. E. Association, "What is Ergonomics (HFE)?," International Ergonomics Association. https://iea.cc/about/what-is-ergonomics/ . Accessed 20 Sep 2023.
Pinto-Fernandez D, et al. Performance evaluation of lower limb exoskeletons: a systematic review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28(7):1573–83.
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2989481
pubmed: 32634096
Contreras-Vidal J, et al. Powered exoskeletons for bipedal locomotion after spinal cord injury. J Neural Eng. 2016;13: 031001.
doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/13/3/031001
pubmed: 27064508
Gantenbein J, Dittli J, Meyer J, Gassert R, Lambercy O. Intention detection strategies for robotic upper-limb orthoses: A scoping review considering usability, daily life application, and user evaluation. Front Neurorobot. 2022;16: 815693.
doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2022.815693
pubmed: 35264940
pmcid: 8900616
Hill D, Holloway C, Morgado Ramirez D, Smitham P, Pappas Y. What are user perspectives of exoskeleton technology? A literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):160–7.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000460
pubmed: 28849760
Brown-Triolo D, Roach M, Nelson K, Triolo R. Consumer perspectives on mobility: Implications for neuroprosthesis design. J Rehabil Res. 2002;39:659–70.
Cowan R, Fregly B, Boninger M, Chan L, Rodgers M, Reinkensmeyer D. Recent trends in assistive technology for mobility. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:20.
doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-20
pubmed: 22520500
pmcid: 3474161
Power V, de Eyto A, Hartigan B, Ortiz J, O’Sullivan L. Application of a user-centered design approach to the development of XoSoft – a lower body soft exoskeleton. Biosystems & Biorobotics. 2018;22:44–8.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01887-0_9
McMillen A, Söderberg S. Disabled persons’ experience of dependence on assistive devices. Scand J Occup Ther. 2002;9:176–83.
doi: 10.1080/11038120260501208
Salesforce. State of the Connected Customer. San Francisco: Salesforce; 2020.
Tolikas M, Antoniou A, Ingber D. The wyss institute: a new model for medical technology innovation and translation across the academic-industrial interface. Bioeng Transl Med. 2017;2(3):247–57.
doi: 10.1002/btm2.10076
pubmed: 29313034
pmcid: 5689495
Barrett D, Heale R. What are Delphi studies? Evid Based Nurs. 2020;23:68–9.
doi: 10.1136/ebnurs-2020-103303
pubmed: 32430290