Recent Trends in the Development and Evaluation of Assistive Robotic Manipulation Devices

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 59-77

  Allin, Sonya ^a   Eckel, Emily ^b   Markham, Heather ^c   Brewer, Bambi R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b CHATHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive device outcomes; Assistive robotics; Robotic arms; Upper extremity prostheses

Indexed keywords

ARM AMPUTATION; ARM PROSTHESIS; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROL SYSTEM; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; MUSCLE REINNERVATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; TREND STUDY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; DISABLED PERSONS; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROBOTICS; SELF-HELP DEVICES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 70649086247     PISSN: 10479651     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmr.2009.09.001     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Topping M. The development of Handy 1, a robotic aid to independence for the severely disabled. Paper presented at the Mechatronic Aids for the Disabled, IEE Colloquium. Dundee, Scotland; May 17, 1995.
2. Topping M. An overview of the development of Handy 1, a rehabilitation robot to assist the severely disabled. J Intell Robotic Syst 34 3 (2002) 253-263
3. Sheredos S.J., Taylor B., Cobb C.B., et al. Preliminary evaluation of the helping hand electro-mechanical arm. Tech Disabil 5 2 (1996) 229-232
4. Wagner JJ, Wickizer M, Van Der Loos HFM, et al. User testing and design iteration of the ProVAR user interface. Robot and human interaction, 1999. RO-MAN '99. 8th IEEE International Workshop on. vol. Pisa, Italy1999:18-22.
5. Wagner JJ, Van der Loos HFM. Training strategies for the user interface of vocational assistive robots. Paper presented at the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2004. IEMBS '04. 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE 2004. September 1-5, 2004.
6. Mahoney R.M., and Dallaway J.L. Robotic vocational accommodations in manufacturing jobs. Tech Disabil 5 (1996) 167-176
7. Smith J, Topping MJ. Study to determine the main factors leading to the overall success of the Handy 1 robotic system. Paper presented at the ICORR'97 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. Bath Institute of Medical Engineering, Bath University, Bath, UK; April 14-15, 1997.
8. Hermann R.P., Phalangas A.C., Mahoney R.M., et al. Powered feeding devices: an evaluation of three models. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80 10 (1999) 1237-1242
9. Gelderblom GJ, de Witte L, van Soest K, et al. Cost effectiveness of the Manus robot manipulator. Paper presented at the ICORR 2001 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. Institut National des Télécommunications, Evry, France; July 9-12, 1996.
10. Engelhardt KG, Awad R, Perkash I, et al. Interactive evaluation of a robotic aid: a new approach to assessment. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual International Robot Conference. Long Beach, CA; March 13-15, 1984.
11. Van der Loos H.F.M. VA/Stanford rehabilitation robotics research and development program: lessons learned in the application of robotics technology to the field of rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 3 1 (1995) 46-55
12. Jutai J., and Day H. Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Tech Disabil 14 3 (2002) 107-111
13. Romer GRBE, Stuyt HJA, Peters A. Cost-savings and economic benefits due to the assistive robotic manipulator (ARM). Paper presented at: Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. 9th International Conference. Chicago, Illinois; June 28-July 1, 2005.
14. Eftring H, Boschian K. Technical Results from Manus User Trials. Paper presented at: 1999 ICORR International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics 1999; Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; July 1-2, 1999.
15. Choi YS, Anderson CD, Glass JD, et al. Laser pointers and a touch screen: intuitive interfaces for autonomous mobile manipulation for the motor impaired. Paper presented at the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Oct 15-17, 2008.
16. Dario P., Guglielmelli E., Laschi C., et al. A personal robot in everyday life of disabled and elderly people. Tech Disabil 10 2 (1999) 77-93
17. Busnel M., Cammoun R., Coulon-Lauture F., et al. The robotized workstation "MASTER" for users with tetraplegia: description and evaluation. J Rehabil Res Dev 36 3 (1999) 217-229
18. Kang JW, Kim BS, Chung MJ. Development of assistive mobile robots helping the disabled work in a factory environment. Paper presented at: Mechtronic and Embedded Systems and Applications, 2008. MESA 2008. IEEE/ASME International Conference on 2008; July 15-17, 2008.
19. Mokhtari M, Didi N, Roby-Brami A. A multi-disciplinary approach in evaluating and facilitating the use of the Manus robot. Paper presented at the Robotics and Automation, 1999. Proceedings: 1999 IEEE International Conference. Detroit, Michigan; May 10-15, 1999.
20. AFMASTER. 2009. Photo of MASTER desktop robot. Available at:. http://www.laas.fr/iarp-france/devices/afmaster.html Accessed June 15, 2009
21. Schraft RD, Schmeirer G. Service robots. First edition. AK Peters, editor. Buxton, UK; 2000.
22. Neater Solutions, Ltd. Available at:. http://www.neater.co.uk/ Accessed June 12, 2009
23. SECOM. Meal-assistance robot MySpoon. 2009. Available at:. http://www.secom.co.jp/english/myspoon/index.html Accessed June 22, 2009
24. Hillman M. Rehabilitation robotics from past to present: a historical perspective. In: Bien ZZ, and Stefanov D. (Eds). Advances in rehabilitation robotics: human-friendly technologies on movement assistance and restoration for people with disabilities vol. 306 (2004), Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 25-44
25. Kyberd P.J., and Chappell P.H. The Southampton Hand: an intelligent myoelectric prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev 31 4 (1994) 326-334
26. Tijsma HA, Liefhebber F, Herder JL. Evaluation of new user interface features for the MANUS robot arm. Paper presented at: Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. 9th International Conference. Chicago, Illinois; June 28-July 1, 2005.
27. Eftring H. Robot control methods using the RAID workstation. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons. Vienna, Austria; September 14-16, 1994.
28. Lopez N., di Sciascio F., Soria C., et al. Robust EMG sensing system based on data fusion for myoelectric control of a robotic arm. Biomed Eng Online 8 1 (2009) 5
29. Buhler C. Integration of a robot arm with a wheelchair. Paper presented at: Intelligent Robots and Systems '94. 'Advanced Robotic Systems and the Real World', IROS '94. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ/GI International Conference. Munich, Germany; September 12-16, 1994.
30. Driessen B, Liefhebber F, Kate TT, et al. Collaborative control of the MANUS manipulator. Paper presented at: Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. 9th International Conference. Chicago, Illinois; June 28-July 1, 2005.
31. Tsui K, Yanco H, Kontak D, et al. Development and evaluation of a flexible interface for a wheelchair mounted robotic arm. Paper presented at the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; May 12-15, 2008.
32. Kwee H., Quaedackers J., van de Bool E., et al. Adapting the control of the MANUS manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy: an exploratory study. Tech Disabil 14 1 (2002) 31-42
33. Demers L., Weiss-Lambrou R., and Ska B. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. Tech Disabil 14 (2002) 101-105
34. Batavia A.I., and Hammer G.S. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 27 4 (1990) 425-436
35. Jones L.A., and Lederman S.J. Evolutionary development and anatomy of the hand (2006), Human Hand Function Oxford University Press US, New York, NY p. 10-23
36. Cupo M.E., and Sheredos S.J. Clinical evaluation of a new, above-elbow, body-powered prosthetic arm: a final report. J Rehabil Res Dev 35 4 (1998) 431-446
37. Kuiken T.A., Dumanian G.A., Lipschutz R.D., et al. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int 28 3 (2004) 245-253
38. Kuiken T.A., Li G., Lock B.A., et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. JAMA 301 6 (2009) 619-628
39. Miller L.A., Stubblefield K.A., Lipschutz R.D., et al. Improved myoelectric prosthesis control using targeted reinnervation surgery: a case series. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 16 1 (2008) 46-50
40. Hudgins B., Parker P., and Scott R.N. A new strategy for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 40 1 (1993) 82-94
41. Boostani R., and Moradi M.H. Evaluation of the forearm EMG signal features for the control of a prosthetic hand. Physiol Meas 24 (2003) 309-319
42. Zhou P., Lowery M.M., Englehart K.B., et al. Decoding a new neural machine interface for control of artificial limbs. J Neurophysiol 98 5 (2007) 2974-2982
43. Huang H., Zhou P., Li G., et al. An analysis of EMG electrode configuration for targeted muscle reinnervation based neural machine interface. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 16 1 (2008) 37-45
44. Sebelius F.C.P., Rosén B.N., and Lundborg G.N. Refined myoelectric control in below-elbow amputees using artificial neural networks and a data glove. J Hand Surg Am 30 4 (2005) 780-789
45. Ajiboye A.B., and Weir R.F. A heuristic fuzzy logic approach to EMG pattern recognition for multifunctional prosthesis control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13 3 (2005) 280-291
46. Momen K., Krishnan S., and Chau T. Real-time classification of forearm electromyographic signals corresponding to user-selected intentional movements for multifunction prosthesis control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 15 4 (2007) 535-542
47. Kenney L.P.J., Lisitsa I., Bowker P., et al. Dimensional change in muscle as a control signal for powered upper limb prostheses: a pilot study. Med Eng Phys 21 8 (1999) 589-597
48. Silva J., Heim W., and Chau T. A self-contained, mechanomyography-driven externally powered prosthesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86 10 (2005) 2066-2070
49. Abboudi R.L., Glass C.A., Newby N.A., et al. A biomimetic controller for a multifinger prosthesis. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7 2 (1999) 121-129
50. Curcie D.J., Flint J.A., and Craelius W. Biomimetic finger control by filtering of distributed forelimb pressures. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 9 1 (2001) 69-75
51. Pylatiuk C., Kargov A., and Schulz S. Design and evaluation of a low-cost force feedback system for myoelectric prosthetic hands. J Prosthet Orthot 18 2 (2006) 57-61
52. Lundborg G., Rosén B., Lindström K., et al. Artificial sensibility based on the use of piezoresistive sensors. Preliminary observations. J Hand Surg Br 23 5 (1998) 620-626
53. Weir R.F., Heckathorne C.W., and Childress D.S. Cineplasty as a control input for externally powered prosthetic components. J Rehabil Res Dev 38 4 (2001) 357-363
54. Dhillon G.S., and Horch K.W. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13 4 (2005) 468-472
55. Schuyler J.L., and Mahoney R.M. Assessing human-robotic performance for vocational placement. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 8 3 (2000) 394-404
56. Biddiss E., Beaton D., and Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2 6 (2007) 346-357
57. Miller L.A., Lipschutz R.D., Stubblefield K.A., et al. Control of a six degree of freedom prosthetic arm after targeted muscle reinnervation surgery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89 11 (2008) 2057-2065
58. VA conducting 'optimization study' of advanced prosthetic arm. VA Research Currents, Reserach News from the US Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2009. 1, 3, 6, 7 Available at: http://www.research.va.gov/resources/pubs/docs/va_research_currents_may_09.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2009.
59. Jutai J.W., Fuhrer M.J., Demers L., et al. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 84 4 (2005) 294-302
60. Scherer M.J., and Craddock G. Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process. Tech Disabil 14 3 (2002) 125-131
61. Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) (1998). http://www.prs-research.org/htmPages/PEQ.html Accessed June 15, 2009
62. Schraner I., Jonge D., Layton N., et al. Using the ICF in economic analysis of assistive technology systems: methodological implications of a user standpoint. Disabil Rehabil 30 12-13 (2008) 916-926
63. Stanger C.A., Anglin C., Harwin W.S., et al. Devices for assisting manipulation: a summary of user task priorities. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 2 4 (1994) 256-265
64. Atkins D., Heard D., and Donovan W. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot 8 1 (1996) 2-11
65. Otto Bock-SensorHand Speed 2009; technical description. Available at:. http://www.ottobockus.com/cps/rde/xchg/ob_us_en/hs.xsl/5735.html?openteaser=1 Accessed June 22, 2009
66. Touch Bionics: The i-LIMB Hand. The worlds first fully articulating and commercially available bionic hand. (2009). Available at: http://www.touchbionics.com/professionals.php?section=5 Accessed June 22, 2009
67. The Motion Control ETD Electric Terminal Device. 2009. Technical specifications. Available at:. http://www.utaharm.com/etd.php Accessed June 22, 2009
68. Adee S.A. "Manhattan Project" for the next generation of bionic arms. IEEE Spectrum. 2009 (2008). http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/a-manhattan-project-for-the-next-generation-of-bionic-arms/0 Accessed June 22, 2009
69. Pons J.L., Rocon E., Ceres R., et al. The MANUS-HAND dextrous robotics upper limb prosthesis: mechanical and manipulation aspects. Autonomous Robots 16 2 (2004) 143-163