[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Present and Future of Robotic Technology in Rehabilitation

  • Rehabilitation Technology (BE Dicianno, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic technology designed to assist rehabilitation can potentially increase the efficiency of, and accessibility to, therapy by assisting therapists to provide consistent training for extended periods of time, and collecting data to assess progress. Automatization of therapy may enable many patients to be treated simultaneously and possibly even remotely, in the comfort of their own homes, through telerehabilitation. The data collected can be used to objectively assess performance and document compliance as well as progress. All of these characteristics can make therapists more efficient in treating larger numbers of patients. Most importantly for the patient, it can increase access to therapy which is often in high demand and rationed severely in today’s fiscal climate. In recent years, many consumer-grade low-cost and off-the-shelf devices have been adopted for use in therapy sessions and methods for increasing motivation and engagement have been integrated with them. This review paper outlines the effort devoted to the development and integration of robotic technology for rehabilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gardner EN et al. The cost of Medicaid-covered services provided to disabled adults with neurologic disorders: implications for managed care. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5(11):1417–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winstein CJ et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Slater RJ. A model of care matching human services to patients’ needs. Neurology. 1980;30(7 Part 2):39–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(8):741–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Krebs HI et al. A paradigm shift for rehabilitation robotics. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE. 2008;27(4):61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van Vliet P, Wing AM. A new challenge—robotics in the rehabilitation of the neurologically motor impaired. Phys Ther. 1991;71(1):39–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dijkers MP, et al. Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1991;28(2).

  9. Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N. Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option? Curr Opin Neurol. 2001;14(6):745–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Krebs HI et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1998;6(1):75–87.

  11. Bosecker C et al. Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;24(1):62–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hogan N, et al. MIT-MANUS: a workstation for manual therapy and training. I. In IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. IEEE. 1992.

  13. Krebs HI, Hogan N. Therapeutic robotics: a technology push. Proc IEEE. 2006;94(9):1727–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Oujamaa L et al. Rehabilitation of arm function after stroke. Literature review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2009;52(3):269–93.

  15. Loureiro RC et al. Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011;49(10):1103–18.

  16. Peter O et al. Robot-mediated upper limb physiotherapy: review and recommendations for future clinical trials. Int J Rehabil Res. 2011;34(3):196–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lo AC et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(19):1772–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Perry JC, Ruiz-Ruano JA, and Keller T. Telerehabilitation: toward a cost-efficient platform for post-stroke neurorehabilitation. In International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. IEEE. 2011.

  19. Riener R. Robot-aided rehabilitation of neural function in the upper extremities. Springer; 2007.

  20. Colombo R et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13(3):311–24.

  21. Mehrholz J, Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted gait training after stroke: a systematic review comparing end-effector and exoskeleton devices. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(3):193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferraro M et al. Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology. 2003;61(11):1604–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fasoli SE et al. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(4):477–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Luft AR et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training and motor cortex activation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(15):1853–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Whitall J et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 2000;31(10):2390–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stoykov ME, Stinear JW. Active-passive bilateral therapy as a priming mechanism for individuals in the subacute phase of post-stroke recovery: a feasibility study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(11):873–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Byblow WD et al. Mirror symmetric bimanual movement priming can increase corticomotor excitability and enhance motor learning. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33882.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Thai P, et al. Coupled bimanual arm training for individuals with severe hemiparesis. In Society for Neuroscience. Chicago, IL: Neuroscience Meeting Planner; 2015. 329.13.

  29. Low KH. Recent development and trends of clinical-based gait rehabilitation robots. In intelligent assistive robots. Springer; 2015. p. 41–75.

  30. Schmidt H et al. HapticWalker---a novel haptic foot device. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP). 2005;2(2):166–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hesse S, Waldner A, Tomelleri C. Innovative gait robot for the repetitive practice of floor walking and stair climbing up and down in stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2010;7(1):1.

  32. Hesse S et al. Robot-assisted practice of gait and stair climbing in nonambulatory stroke patients. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(4):613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nef T, Guidali M, Riener R. ARMin III–arm therapy exoskeleton with an ergonomic shoulder actuation. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2009;6(2):127–42.

  34. Carignan C, Liszka M. Design of an arm exoskeleton with scapula motion for shoulder rehabilitation. In ICAR’05. Proceedings., 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics. IEEE. 2005.

  35. Roy A et al. Changes in passive ankle stiffness and its effects on gait function in people with chronic stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(4):555–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Veneman JF et al. Design and evaluation of the LOPES exoskeleton robot for interactive gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15(3):379–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lum PS et al. Quantification of force abnormalities during passive and active-assisted upper-limb reaching movements in post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999;46(6):652–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC. Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12(2):186–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lum PS et al. MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(5):631–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Frisoli A, et al. A new force-feedback arm exoskeleton for haptic interaction in virtual environments. In First Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics Conference. IEEE. 2005.

  41. Perry JC, Rosen J, Burns S. Upper-limb powered exoskeleton design. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics. 2007;12(4):408.

  42. Ball SJ, Brown IE, Scott SH. MEDARM: a rehabilitation robot with 5DOF at the shoulder complex. In 2007 IEEE/ASME international conference on Advanced intelligent mechatronics. IEEE. 2007.

  43. Mao Y et al. Human movement training with a cable driven arm exoskeleton (carex). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015;23(1):84–92.

  44. Jin X, et al. The effect of CAREX on muscle activation during a point-to-point reaching task. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE. 2015.

  45. Runnalls KD et al. Partial weight support differentially affects corticomotor excitability across muscles of the upper limb. Physiol Rep. 2014;2(12):e12183.

  46. Sabini RC, Dijkers MP, Raghavan P. Stroke survivors talk while doing: development of a therapeutic framework for continued rehabilitation of hand function post stroke. J Hand Ther. 2013;26(2):124–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Prange G, et al. Influence of gravity compensation on muscle activation patterns during different temporal phases of arm movements of stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009.

  48. Roy A, et al. Anklebot-assisted locomotor training after stroke: a novel deficit-adjusted control approach. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE. 2013.

  49. Roy A, et al. Measurement of human ankle stiffness using the anklebot. In International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. IEEE. 2007.

  50. Frascarelli F et al. Robot-mediated and clinical scales evaluation after upper limb botulinum toxin type a injection in children with hemiplegia. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(12):988–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nef T, et al. ARMin-robot for rehabilitation of the upper extremities. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE. 2006.

  52. Squeri V, et al. Integrating proprioceptive assessment with proprioceptive training of stroke patients. In International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. IEEE. 2011.

  53. Sheng B, et al. Bilateral robots for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys. 2016.

  54. Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wünsche B. Assessment of movement quality in robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):1.

  55. Anderson C et al. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomized controlled trial II: cost minimization analysis at 6 months. Stroke. 2000;31(5):1032–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Anderson C et al. Home or hospital for stroke rehabilitation? Results of a randomized controlled trial I: health outcomes at 6 months. Stroke. 2000;31(5):1024–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shafqat S et al. Role for telemedicine in acute stroke feasibility and reliability of remote administration of the NIH stroke scale. Stroke. 1999;30(10):2141–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Reinkensmeyer D, et al. An Internet-based, force-feedback rehabilitation system for arm movement after brain injury. In International Conference on Technology and Persons With Disabilities. 2000.

  59. Popescu VG et al. A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2000;4(1):45–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sugarman H et al. Investigating the use of force feedback joysticks for low-cost, robot-mediated therapy. Int J Disabil Hum Dev. 2008;7(1):95–100.

  61. Weightman A et al. Home-based computer-assisted upper limb exercise for young children with cerebral palsy: a feasibility study investigating impact on motor control and functional outcome. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(4):359–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Loureiro RC et al. Technology driven therapy for stroke rehabilitation: a new approach to treatment in the community. Int J Disabil Hum Dev. 2005;4(3):169–76.

  63. Carignan CR, Krebs HI. Telerehabilitation robotics: bright lights, big future? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43(5):695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Rogante M et al. Ten years of telerehabilitation: a literature overview of technologies and clinical applications. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;27(4):287–304.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hermann VH et al. Telerehabilitation and electrical stimulation: an occupation-based, client-centered stroke intervention. Am J Occup Ther. 2010;64(1):73–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Jay S, Litt IF, Durant RH. Compliance with therapeutic regimens. J Adolesc Health Care. 1984;5(2):124–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Reker DM et al. Postacute stroke guideline compliance is associated with greater patient satisfaction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(6):750–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Duncan PW et al. Adherence to postacute rehabilitation guidelines is associated with functional recovery in stroke. Stroke. 2002;33(1):167–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Sluijs EM, Kok GJ, van der Zee J. Correlates of exercise compliance in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 1993;73(11):771–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Ice R. Long-term compliance. Phys Ther. 1985;65(12):1832–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Dishman RK, Ickes W. Self-motivation and adherence to therapeutic exercise. J Behav Med. 1981;4(4):421–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Vong SK et al. Motivational enhancement therapy in addition to physical therapy improves motivational factors and treatment outcomes in people with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(2):176–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Timmermans AA et al. Sensor-based arm skill training in chronic stroke patients: results on treatment outcome, patient motivation, and system usability. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18(3):284–92.

  74. Sandlund M, McDonough S, Häger-Ross C. Interactive computer play in rehabilitation of children with sensorimotor disorders: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51(3):173–9.

  75. Loureiro R et al. Upper limb robot mediated stroke therapy—GENTLE/s approach. Auton Robot. 2003;15(1):35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Coote S et al. The effect of the GENTLE/s robot-mediated therapy system on arm function after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22(5):395–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Reinkensmeyer DJ et al. Web-based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002;10(2):102–8.

  78. Deutsch JE et al. Use of a low-cost, commercially available gaming console (Wii) for rehabilitation of an adolescent with cerebral palsy. Phys Ther. 2008;88(10):1196–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ravenek KE. Wolfe DL, Hitzig SL. A scoping review of video gaming in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015: p. 1–9.

  80. Thomson K, et al. Commercial gaming devices for stroke upper limb rehabilitation: a survey of current practice. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015: p. 1–8.

  81. Dos Santos LRA et al. The use of Nintendo Wii in the rehabilitation of Poststroke patients: a systematic review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24(10):2298–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Bower KJ, et al. Clinical feasibility of the Nintendo Wii™ for balance training post-stroke: a phase II randomized controlled trial in an inpatient setting. Clin Rehabil. 2014; p. 0269215514527597.

  83. Wingham J et al. Participant and caregiver experience of the Nintendo Wii SportsTM after stroke: qualitative study of the trial of WiiTM in stroke (TWIST). Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(3):295–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Neil A et al. Sony PlayStation EyeToy elicits higher levels of movement than the Nintendo Wii: implications for stroke rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehab Med. 2013;49(1):13–21.

  85. Betker AL et al. Video game–based exercises for balance rehabilitation: a single-subject design. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(8):1141–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Burke JW, et al. Serious games for upper limb rehabilitation following stroke. In Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications. IEEE. 2009.

  87. Zyda M. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer. 2005;38(9):25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. De Weyer T, et al. The social maze: a collaborative game to motivate MS patients for upper limb training. In Entertainment Computing-ICEC 2012. Springer; 2012. p. 476–479.

  89. Burke JW et al. Optimising engagement for stroke rehabilitation using serious games. Vis Comput. 2009;25(12):1085–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Roy AK, Soni Y, Dubey S. Enhancing effectiveness of motor rehabilitation using kinect motion sensing technology. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference: South Asia Satellite. IEEE. 2013.

  91. Seo K, et al. Serious games for stroke patients: attending to clinical staff’s voices. In The 5th International Congress of International Association of Societies of Design Research. 2013.

  92. Rizzo JR, et al. Structured Wii protocol for rehabilitation of shoulder impingement syndrome: a pilot study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2016. S1877-0657(16)30516-4

  93. Raj Kumar A, Bilaloglu S. Cost-effective mechatronic gaming device for post-stroke hand rehabilitation. In 18th International Conference on Social Robotics 2016, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering: New York, NY. p. 1505.

  94. Raj Kumar A, et al. Wearable jacket for game-based post-stroke arm rehabilitation, in 18th International Conference on Social Robotics 2016, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Science Index, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering New York, USA. p. 1520.

  95. Novak D et al. Increasing motivation in robot-aided arm rehabilitation with competitive and cooperative gameplay. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):1.

  96. Pearce C. The truth about baby boomer gamers a study of over-forty computer game players. Games and Culture. 2008;3(2):142–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Cappa P et al. Can force feedback and science learning enhance the effectiveness of neuro-rehabilitation? An experimental study on using a low-cost 3D joystick and a virtual visit to a zoo. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e83945.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Laut J et al. Increasing patient engagement in rehabilitation exercises using computer-based citizen science. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0117013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Laut J et al. Development of a mechatronics-based citizen science platform for aquatic environmental monitoring. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics. 2014;19(5):1541–51.

  100. Charles J, Gordon AM. A critical review of constraint-induced movement therapy and forced use in children with hemiplegia. Neural Plast. 2005;12(2–3):245–61.

  101. Saposnik G et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality using Wii gaming technology in stroke rehabilitation a pilot randomized clinical trial and proof of principle. Stroke. 2010;41(7):1477–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Han J et al. Enhanced computer vision with microsoft kinect sensor: a review. IEEE Trans Cybern. 2013;43(5):1318–34.

  103. Parker J. Buttons, simplicity, and natural interfaces. Loading. 2008; 2(2).

  104. Mitra S, Acharya T. Gesture recognition: a survey. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev. 2007;37(3):311–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Phamduy P, DeBellis M, Porfiri M. Controlling a robotic fish via a natural user interface for informal science education. IEEE Trans Multimedia. 2015;17(12):2328–37.

  106. Kitsunezaki N, et al. KINECT applications for the physical rehabilitation. In International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications. IEEE. 2013.

  107. Lange B, et al. Development and evaluation of low cost game-based balance rehabilitation tool using the Microsoft Kinect sensor. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE. IEEE. 2011.

  108. Webster D, Celik O. Systematic review of Kinect applications in elderly care and stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):1.

  109. Fernandez-Baena A, Susin A, Lligadas X. Biomechanical validation of upper-body and lower-body joint movements of kinect motion capture data for rehabilitation treatments. In Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems. IEEE. 2012.

  110. Da Gama A et al. Motor rehabilitation using Kinect: a systematic review. Games for Health Journal. 2015;4(2):123–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. CBET-1604355 and NIH R01HD071978.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Jeffrey Laut & Maurizio Porfiri

  2. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Preeti Raghavan

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Laut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maurizio Porfiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Preeti Raghavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Preeti Raghavan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Jeffrey Laut, Maurizio Porfiri, and Preeti Raghavan declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Rehabilitation Technology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laut, J., Porfiri, M. & Raghavan, P. The Present and Future of Robotic Technology in Rehabilitation. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 4, 312–319 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-016-0139-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40141-016-0139-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation