Design issues for therapeutic robot systems: Results from a survey of physiotherapists

Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 239-252

  Lee, Moonhee ^a   Rittenhouse, Matheson ^a   Abdullah, Hussein A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Design requirements; Limb injury; Physiotherapists; Rehabilitation robotics; Survey; Therapeutic robot design; Usability

Indexed keywords

INTELLIGENT ROBOTS; PATIENT REHABILITATION; PHYSICAL THERAPY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SURVEYS;

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS; LIMB INJURY; PHYSIOTHERAPISTS; REHABILITATION ROBOTICS; THERAPEUTIC ROBOT DEIGN; USABILITY;

ROBOTICS;

EID: 23744438812     PISSN: 09210296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10846-004-7194-y     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Beer, R. F., Dewald, J. P., and Rymer, W. Z.: Deficits in the coordination of multipoint arm movement in patients with hemiparesis: Evidence for distributed control of limb dynamics, Experimental Brain Res. 131 (2000), 305-319.
2. Burgar, C. G., Lum, P. S., Shor, P. C., and Van der Loos, H. F. M.: Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: The Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 37(6) (2000), 663-674.
3. Butefisch, C., Hummelsheim, H., Denzler, P., and Mauritz, K.: Repetitive training of isolated movement improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand, J. Neurological Sci. 130 (1995), 59-68.
4. De Leon, R. D., Kubasak, M. D., Phelps, P. E., Timoszyk, W. K., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Roy, R. R., and Edgerton, V. R.: Using robotics to teach the spinal cord to walk, Brain Res. Rev. 40 (2002), 267-273.
5. Dijkers, M. P., de Bear, P. C., Erlandson, R. F., Kristy, K., Geer, D. M., and Nichols, A.: Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: A pilot study, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 28(2) (1991), 33-44.
6. ISO 13407: Human-centred design for interactive systems, International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
7. Jezernik, S., Scharer, R., Colombo, G., and Moraril, M.: Adaptive robotic rehabilitation of locomotion: A clinical study in spinally injured individuals, Spinal Cord 41 (2003), 657-666.
8. Krebs, H. I., Hogan, N., Aisen, M. L., and Volpe, B. T.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation, IEEE Trans. Rehabilitation Engrg. 6(1)) (1998), 75-87.
9. Krebs, H. I., Palazzolo, J. J., Dipietro, L., Vople, B. T., and Hogan, N.: Rehabilitation robotics: Performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy, Autonom. Robots 15 (2003), 7-20.
10. Loureiro, R., Amirabdollahian, F., Topping, M., and Driessen, B.: Upper limb robot mediated stroke therapy - Gentle's approach, Autonom. Robots 15 (2003), 35-51.
11. Napper, S. A. and Ronald, L.: Applications of robots in rehabilitation, Robotics Autonom. Systems 5 (1989), 227-239.
12. Nudo, R. J., Wise, B. M., SiFuentes, F., and Milliken, G. W.: Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct, Science 272 (1996), 1791-1794.
13. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Wiley, New York, 2002.
14. Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Emken, J. L., and Cramer, S. C.: Robotics, motor learning, and neurologic recovery, Ann. Rev. Biomed. Engrg. 6 (2004), 497-525.
15. Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Kahn, L. E., Averbuch, M., Mckenna-Cole, A., Schmit, B. D., and Zev Rymer, W.: Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: Progress with the arm guide, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 37(6) (2000), 653-662.
16. Schleenbaker, R. E. and Mainous, A. G.: Electromyographic biofeedback for neuromuscular reeducation in the hemiplegic stroke patient: A meta-analysis, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilitation 14(1993), 1301-1304.
17. Stanger, C. A., Anglin, C., Harwin, W. S., and Romilly, D. P.: Devices for assisting manipulation: A summary of user task priorities, IEEE Trans. Rehabilitation Engrg. 2(4) (1994), 256-265.
18. Taub, E., Uswatte, G., and Pidikiti, R.: Constraint-induced movement therapy: A new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation - A clinical review, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 36 (1999), 237-251.
19. Tejima, N.: Rehabilitation robotics: A review, Advanced Robotics 14(7) (2000), 551-564.
20. Timoszyk, W. K., Merlo, M., De Leon, R. D., Emken, J. L., Roy, R. R., London, N., Fong, A., Edgerton, V. R., and Reinkensmeyer, D. J.: Second generation robotic systems for studying rodent locomotion following spinal cord injury, in: Second Joint EMBS-BMES Conference 2002, 24th Annual Internat. Conf. of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Houston, TX, USA, 2002, Vol. 3, pp. 2358-2359.
21. Turczynski, B. E., Harjte, W., and Sturm, W.: Electromyographic feedback treatment of chronic hemiparesis: An attempt to quantify treatment effects, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilitation 65 (1984), 526-528.
22. Van Harmelen, M.: Object Modeling and User Interface Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2001.
23. Volpe, B. T., Krebs, H. I., Hogan, N., Edelstein, L., Diels, C., and Aisen, M.: A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation, Neurology 54(10) (2000), 1938-1943.
24. Wolf, S. L.: Electromyographic biofeedback applications to stroke patients: A critical review, Phys. Ther. 63 (1983), 1448-1459.