Posts Tagged Rehabilitation robotics

[Abstract] An Elbow Exoskeleton for Upper Limb Rehabilitation With Series Elastic Actuator and Cable-Driven Differential


Movement impairments resulting from neurologic injuries, such as stroke, can be treated with robotic exoskeletons that assist with movement retraining. Exoskeleton designs benefit from low impedance and accurate torque control. We designed a two-degrees-of-freedom tethered exoskeleton that can provide independent torque control on elbow flexion/extension and forearm supination/pronation. Two identical series elastic actuators (SEAs) are used to actuate the exoskeleton. The two SEAs are coupled through a novel cable-driven differential. The exoskeleton is compact and lightweight, with a mass of 0.9 kg. Applied rms torque errors were less than 0.19 Nm. Benchtop tests demonstrated a torque rise time of approximately 0.1 s, a torque control bandwidth of 3.7 Hz, and an impedance of less than 0.03 Nm/° at 1 Hz. The controller can simulate a stable maximum wall stiffness of 0.45 Nm/°. The overall performance is adequate for robotic therapy applications and the novelty of the design is discussed.

via An Elbow Exoskeleton for Upper Limb Rehabilitation With Series Elastic Actuator and Cable-Driven Differential – IEEE Journals & Magazine

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] Design and Kinematics Analysis of a Bionic Finger Hand Rehabilitation Robot Mechanism


The rehabilitation process of human fingers is a coupling movement of wearable hand rehabilitation equipment and human fingers, and its design must be based on the kinematics of human fingers. In this paper, the forward kinematics and inverse kinematics models are established for the index finger. Kinematics analysis is carried out. Then a bionic finger rehabilitation robot is designed according to the movement characteristics of the finger, A parallelogram linkage mechanism is proposed to make the joint independent drive, realize the flexion/extension movement, and perform positive kinematics and inverse kinematics analysis on the mechanism. The results show that it conforms to the kinematics of the index finger and can be used as the mechanism model of the finger rehabilitation robot.
1. Ibrahim Yildiz, “A Low-Cost and Lightweight Alternative to Rehabilitation Robots: Omnidirectional Interactive Mobile Robot for Arm Rehabilitation” in Arabian Journal for Science & Engineering, Springer Science & Business Media B.V., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1053-1059, 2018.

2. Bai Shaoping, Gurvinder S. Virk, Thomas G. Sugar, Wearable Exoskeleton Systems: Design control and applications[M], Institution of Engineering and Technology Control, pp. 1-406, 2018.

3. Kai Zhang, Xiaofeng Chen et al., “System Framework of Robotics in Upper Limb Rehabilitation on Poststroke Motor Recovery”, Behavioural Neurology, vol. 12, pp. 1-14, 2018.

4. Yang Haile, Zhu Huiying, Lin Xingyu, “Review of Exoskeleton Wearable Rehabilitation System[J]”, Metrology and testing technology, vol. 46, no. 03, pp. 40-44, 2019.

5. Xiang Shichuan, Meng Qiaoling, Yu Hongliu, Meng Qingyun, “Research status of compliant exoskeleton rehabilitation manipulator [J]”, Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 33, no. 04, pp. 461-465+474, 2018.

6. Wu Hongjian, Li Lina, Li Long, Liu Tian, Jue Wang, “Review of comprehensive intervention by hand rehabilitation robot after stroke [J]”, Journal of biomedical engineering, vol. 36, no. 01, pp. 151-156, 2019.

7. Yu Junwei, Xu Hongbin, Xu Taojin, Zhang Chengjie, Lu Shiqing, “Structure Design and Finite Element Analysis of a Rope Traction Upper Limb Rehabilitation Robot [J]”, Mechanical transmission, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 93-97, 2018.

8. Chang Ying, Meng Qingyun, Yu Hongliu, “Research progress on the development of hand rehabilitation robot [J]”, Beijing Biomedical Engineering, vol. 37, no. 06, pp. 650-656, 2018.

9. N A I M Rosli, M A A Rahman, S A Mazlan et al., “Electrocardiographic (ECG) and Electromyographic (EMG) signals fusion for physiological device in rehab application[C]”, IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development, pp. 1-5, 2015.

10. K O Thielbar, K M Triandafilou, H C Fischer et al., “Benefits of using a voice and EMG- Driven actuated glove to support occupational therapy for stroke survivors”, IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 297-305, 2017.


via Design and Kinematics Analysis of a Bionic Finger Hand Rehabilitation Robot Mechanism – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Remote Upper Limb Exoskeleton Rehabilitation Training System Based on Virtual Reality


According to the present situation that the treatment means for apoplectic patients is lagging and weak, a set of long-distance exoskeleton rehabilitation training system with 5 DOF for upper limb was developed. First, the mechanical structure and control system of the training system were designed. Then a new kind of building method for virtual environment was proposed. The method created a complex model effectively with good portability. The new building method was used to design the virtual training scenes for patients’ rehabilitation in which the virtual human model can move following the trainer on real time, which can reflect the movement condition of arm of patient factually and increase the interest of rehabilitation training. Finally, the network communication technology was applied into the training system to realize the remote communication between the client-side of doctor and training system of patient, which makes it possible to product rehabilitation training at home.

via Remote Upper Limb Exoskeleton Rehabilitation Training System Based on Virtual Reality – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[REVIEW ARTICLE] Robot-Assisted Therapy in Upper Extremity Hemiparesis: Overview of an Evidence-Based Approach – Full Text

Robot-mediated therapy is an innovative form of rehabilitation that enables highly repetitive, intensive, adaptive, and quantifiable physical training. It has been increasingly used to restore loss of motor function, mainly in stroke survivors suffering from an upper limb paresis. Multiple studies collated in a growing number of review articles showed the positive effects on motor impairment, less clearly on functional limitations. After describing the current status of robotic therapy after upper limb paresis due to stroke, this overview addresses basic principles related to robotic therapy applied to upper limb paresis. We demonstrate how this innovation is an evidence-based approach in that it meets both the improved clinical and more fundamental knowledge-base about regaining effective motor function after stroke and the need of more objective, flexible and controlled therapeutic paradigms.


Robot-mediated rehabilitation is an innovative exercise-based therapy using robotic devices that enable the implementation of highly repetitive, intensive, adaptive, and quantifiable physical training. Since the first clinical studies with the MIT-Manus robot (1), robotic applications have been increasingly used to restore loss of motor function, mainly in stroke survivors suffering from an upper limb paresis but also in cerebral palsy (2), multiple sclerosis (3), spinal cord injury (4), and other disease types. Thus, multiple studies suggested that robot-assisted training, integrated into a multidisciplinary program, resulted in an additional reduction of motor impairments in comparison to usual care alone in different stages of stroke recovery: namely, acute (57), subacute (18), and chronic phases after the stroke onset (911). Typically, patients engaged in the robotic therapy showed an impairment reduction of 5 points or more in the Fugl-Meyer assessment as compared to usual care. Of notice, rehabilitation studies conducted during the chronic stroke phase suggest that a 5-point differential represents the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), i.e., the magnitude of change that is necessary to produce real-world benefits for patients (12). These results were collated in multiple review articles and meta-analyses (1317). In contrast, the advantage of robotic training over usual care in terms of functional benefit is less clear, but there are recent results that suggest how best to organize training to achieve superior results in terms of both impairment and function (18). Indeed, the use of the robotic tool has allowed us the parse and study the ingredients that should form an efficacious and efficient rehabilitation program. The aim of this paper is to provide a general overview of the current state of robotic training in upper limb rehabilitation after stroke, to analyze the rationale behind its use, and to discuss our working model on how to more effectively employ robotics to promote motor recovery after stroke.

Upper Extremity Robotic Therapy: Current Status

Robotic systems used in the field of neurorehabilitation can be organized under two basic categories: exoskeleton and end-effector type robots. Exoskeleton robotic systems allow us to accurately determine the kinematic configuration of human joints, while end-effector type robots exert forces only in the most distal part of the affected limb. A growing number of commercial robotic devices have been developed employing either configuration. Examples of exoskeleton type include the Armeo®Spring, Armeo®Power, and Myomo® and of end-effector type include the InMotion™, Burt®, Kinarm™ and REAplan®. Both categories enable the implementation of intensive training and there are many other devices in different stages of development or commercialization (1920).

The last decade has seen an exponential growth in both the number of devices as well as clinical trials. The results coalesced in a set of systematic reviews, meta-analyses (1317) and guidelines such as those published by the American Heart Association and the Veterans Administration (AHA and VA) (21). There is a clear consensus that upper limb therapy using robotic devices over 30–60-min sessions, is safe despite the larger number of movement repetitions (14).

This technic is feasible and showed a high rate of eligibility; in the VA ROBOTICS (911) study, nearly two thirds of interviewed stroke survivors were enrolled in the study. As a comparison the EXCITE cohort of constraint-induced movement therapy enrolled only 6% of the screened patients participated (22). On that issue, it is relevant to notice the admission criteria of both chronic stroke studies. ROBOTICS enrolled subjects with Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) of 38 or lower (out of 66) while EXCITE typically enrolled subjects with an FMA of 42 or higher. Duret and colleagues demonstrated that the target population, based on motor impairments, seems to be broader in the robotic intervention which includes patients with severe motor impairments, a group that typically has not seen much benefit from usual care (23). Indeed, Duret found that more severely impaired patients benefited more from robot-assisted training and that co-factors such as age, aphasia, and neglect had no impact on the amount of repetitive movements performed and were not contraindicated. Furthermore, all patients enrolled in robotic training were satisfied with the intervention. This result is consistent with the literature (24).

The main outcome result is that robotic therapy led to significantly more improvement in impairment as compared to conventional usual care, but only slightly more on motor function of the limb segments targeted by the robotic device (16). For example, Bertani et al. (15) and Zhang et al. (17) found that robotic training was more effective in reducing motor impairment than conventional usual care therapy in patients with chronic stroke, and further meta-analyses suggested that using robotic therapy as an adjunct to conventional usual care treatment is more effective than robotic training alone (1317). Other examples of disproven beliefs: many rehabilitation professionals mistakenly expected significant increase of muscle hyperactivity and shoulder pain due to the intensive training. Most studies showed just the opposite, i.e., that intensive robotic training was associated with tone reduction as compared to the usual care groups (92526). These results are shattering the resistance to the widespread adoption of robotic therapy as a therapeutic modality post-stroke.

That said, not all is rosy. Superior changes in functional outcomes were more controversial until the very last years as most studies and reviews concluded that robotic therapy did not improve activities of daily living beyond traditional care. One first step was reached in 2015 with Mehrholz et al. (14), who found that robotic therapy can provide more functional benefits when compared to other interventions however with a quality of evidence low to very low. 2018 may have seen a decisive step in favor of robotic as the latest meta-analysis conducted by Mehrholz et al. (27) concluded that robot-assisted arm training may improve activities of daily living in the acute phase after stroke with a high quality of evidence However, the results must be interpreted with caution because of the high variability in trial designs as evidenced by the multicenter study (28) in which robotic rehabilitation using the Armeo®Spring, a non-motorized device, was compared to self-management with negative results on motor impairments and potential functional benefits in the robotic group.

The Robot Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke (RATULS) study (29) might clarify things and put everyone in agreement on the topic. Of notice, RATULS goes beyond the Veterans Administration ROBOTICS with chronic stroke or the French REM_AVC study with subacute stroke. RATULS included 770 stroke patients and covered all stroke phases, from acute to chronic, and it included a positive meaningful control in addition to usual care.[…]


Continue —->  Frontiers | Robot-Assisted Therapy in Upper Extremity Hemiparesis: Overview of an Evidence-Based Approach | Neurology

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Configuration Optimization of a Dual-Arm Rehabilitation Robot – IEEE Conference Publication


Robotic rehabilitation devices have gained high popularity in upper limb physical therapy for stroke patients. Dual-Arm rehabilitation robot system has advantages in achieving coordinated motions for the upper arm and forearm segments. In this paper, an efficient method for the design and evaluation of the kinematics of a dual-arm robot for upper limb rehabilitation, is presented. First, requirements for an upper limb rehabilitation robot are analyzed and candidate manipulator structures are presented. Then, workspace and manipulability, which are served as the criterion of the optimization configuration of a dual-arm rehabilitation robot, are analyzed. Thereafter, the optimal configuration is modeled and simulated to verify the method. Finally, simulation results are shown.

via Configuration Optimization of a Dual-Arm Rehabilitation Robot – IEEE Conference Publication


, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Desktop upper limb rehabilitation robot using omnidirectional drive gear – IEEE Conference Publication


Research and development efforts into small upper limb rehabilitation robots for home-based rehabilitation have been made in order to reduce the patient burden associated with making visits to the hospital. However, currently, there are only a few small upper limb rehabilitation robots capable of providing training that is tailored to account for the differences in individual patients. This is because many robots use omni wheels for their movement mechanism, thus causing problems when measuring patient motor function because it is not possible to accurately estimate the position. To solve this problem, in this study, we propose a new small upper limb rehabilitation robot that switches the driving unit from an omni wheel to an omnidirectional drive gear mechanism, as a mechanism that does not cause slips. Although an omnidirectional drive gear poses problems in terms of machining difficulty and weight, these problems can be solved by using a 3D printer. We show that position errors in small upper limb rehabilitation robots are greatly reduced by introducing a gear mechanism.

via Desktop upper limb rehabilitation robot using omnidirectional drive gear – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] Patient Evaluation of an Upper-Limb Rehabilitation Robotic Device for Home Use – IEEE Conference Publication


The paper presents a user study to compare the performance of two rehabilitation robotic systems, called HomeRehab and PupArm. The first one is a novel tele-rehabilitation system for delivering therapy to stroke patients at home and the second one has been designed and developed to provide rehabilitation therapy to patients in clinical settings. Nine patients with different neurological disorders participated in the study. The patients performed 16 movements with each robotic platform and after that they filled a usability survey. Moreover, to evaluate the patient’s performance with each robotic device, 8 movement parameters were computed from each trial and for the two robotic devices. Based on the analysis of subjective assessments of usability and the data acquired objectively by the robotic devices, we can conclude that the performance and user experience with both systems are very similar. This finding will be the base of more extensive studies to demonstrate that home-therapy with HomeRehab could be as efficient as therapy in clinical settings assisted by PupArm robot.


1. WHO global report. Preventing Chronic Diseases: A Vital Investment, World Health Organization, 2005.

2. J. Mackay, G. A. Mensah, The Atlas of Heart Disease and Stroke, Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Organization, 2004.

3. D. S. Nichols-Larsen, P. C. Clark, A. Zeringue, A. Greenspan, S. Blanton, “Factors Influencing Stroke Survivors Quality of Life during Subacute Recovery”, Stroke, vol. 36, pp. 14801484, 2005.

4. P. Langhorne, F. Coupar, A. Pollock, “Motor Recovery after Stroke: a Systematic Review”, The Lancet Neurology, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 741754, 2009.

5. C. R. Carnigan, H. I. Krebs, “Telerehabilitation Robotics: Bright Lights Big Future?”, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 695-710, 2006.

6. K. J. Ottenbacher, P. M. Smith, S. B. Illig, R. T. Linn, G. V. Ostir, C. V. Granger, “Trends in Length of Stay Living Setting Functional Outcome and Mortality following Medical Reha-bilitation”, JAMA, vol. 292, no. 14, pp. 1687-1695, 2004.

7. L. Richards, C. Hanson, M. Wellborn, A. Sethi, “Driving Motor Recovery after Stroke”, Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 397411, 2008.

8. S. M. Linder, A. B. Rosenfeldt, A. Reiss, S. Buchanan, K. Sahu, C. R. Bay, S. L. Wolf, J. L. Alberts, “The Home Stroke Rehabilitation and Monitoring System Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial”, International Journal of Stroke, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1747-4949, 2013.

9. T. Larsen, T. S. Olsen, J. Sorensen, “Early Home-Supported Discharge of Stroke Patients: A Health Technology Assessment”, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 313-320, 2006.

10. Ifiaki Díaz, José María Catalan, Francisco Javier Badesa, Xabier Justo, Luis Daniel Lledo, Axier Ugartemendia, Jorge juan Gil, Jorge Díez, Nicolás García-Aracil, Development of a robotic device for post-stroke home tele-rehabilitation. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2018.

11. J. Brooke, P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerd-meester, J. L. McClealland, “SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale” in Usability Evaluation in Industry, London:Taylor and Francis, pp. 189194, 1996.

12. R. Likert, G. M. Maranell, “A method of constructing an attitude scale” in Scaling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral Scientists, Chicago, IL:Aldine Publishing, pp. 233243, 1974.

13. H. J. Krebs, N. Hogan, M. L. Aisen, B. T. Volpe, “Robot-aided neurorehabilitation”, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 75-87, Mar 1998.

14. Franciso J Badesa, Ana Llinares, Ricardo Morales, Nicolas Garcia-Aracil, Jose M Sabater, Carlos Perez-Vidal, “Pneumatic planar rehabilitation robot for post-stroke patients”, Biomedical Engineering: Applications Basis and Communications, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1450025, 2014.

15. D. Lledo Luis, A. Diez Jorge, Bertomeu-Motos Arturo, Ezquerro Santiago, J. Badesa Francisco, M. Sabater-Navarro Jose, Garca-Aracil Nicolas, “A Comparative Analysis of 2D and 3D Tasks for Virtual Reality Therapies Based on Robotic-Assisted Neurorehabilitation for Post-stroke Patients”, Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 8, pp. 205, 2016.

16. A. Llinares, F. J. Badesa, R. Morales, N. Garcia-Aracil, J. Sabater, E. Fernandez, “Robotic assessment of the influence of age on upper-limb sensorimotor function”, Clin. Interv. Aging, vol. 8, pp. 879, 2013.

17. D. S. Dunn, Statistics and data analysis for the behavioral sciences, New York, NY, US:McGraw-Hill, 2001.

18. J. Brooke, P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerd-meester, I. L. McClealland, “SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale” in Usability Evaluation in Industry, London:Taylor and Francis, pp. 189194, 1996.

19. AM Coderre, AA Zeid, SP Dukelow et al., “Assessment of upper-limb sensorimotor function of subacute stroke patients using visually guided reaching”, Neurorehabil Neural Repair., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 528541, 2010.

via Patient Evaluation of an Upper-Limb Rehabilitation Robotic Device for Home Use – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] A Tendon-driven Upper-limb Rehabilitation Robot – IEEE Conference Publication


Rehabilitation robots are playing an increasingly important role in daily rehabilitation of patients. In recent years, exoskeleton rehabilitation robots have become a research hotspot. However, the existing exoskeleton rehabilitation robots are mainly rigid exoskeletons. During rehabilitation training using such exoskeletons, the patient’s joint rotation center is fixed, which cannot adapt to the actual joint movements, resulting in secondary damage to the patients. Therefore, in this paper, a tendon-driven flexible upper-limb rehabilitation robot is proposed; the structure and connectors of the rehabilitation robot are designed considering the physiological structure of human upper limbs; we also built the prototype and performed experiments to validate the designed robot. The experimental results show that the proposed upper-limb rehabilitation robot can assist the human subject to conduct upper-limb rehabilitation training.

I. Introduction

Central nervous system diseases, such as stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury, tend to cause movement disorder [1]. Clinical studies have shown that intensive rehabilitation training after cerebral injury help patients recover motoric functions because of the brain plasticity [1], [2]. Traditional movement therapy is highly dependent on physiotherapists and the efficacy is limited by professional knowledge and skill levels of physiotherapists [3]. Upper-limbs recover more slowly than lower limbs because of the complex function of neurons. Meanwhile, the rehabilitation therapies are unaffordable for most patients. Robotic rehabilitation opened another way of rehabilitation training and its efficacy has been validated in clinical trials [3], [4]. Many upper-limb robot devices have been developed for rehabilitation or assistance in various forms. One of the famous devices was MIT-MANUS developed by MIT. This kind of devices are stationary external system where the patient inserts their hand or arm and is robotically assisted or resisted in completing predetermined tasks [3], [5]. Other examples of this type of devices include Lum et al.^{\prime}s MIME [6], Kahn et al.’s ARM Guide [7] and a 2-DOF upper-limb rehabilitation robot developed by Tsinghua



1. M. Hallett, “Plasticity of the human motor cortex and recovery from stroke”, Brain Research Reviews, vol. 36, pp. 169-174, 2001.

2. J. D. Schaechter, “Motor rehabilitation and brain plasticity after hemiparetic stroke”, Progress in Neurobiology, vol. 73, pp. 61-72, 2004.

3. Q. Yang, D. Cao, J. Zhao, “Analysis on State of the Art of upper-limb Rehabilitation Robots”, Jiqiren/robot, vol. 35, pp. 630, 2013.

4. P. Maciejasz, J. Eschweiler, K. Gerlach-Hahn, A. Jansen-Troy, S. Leonhardt, “A survey on robotic devices for upper-limb rehabilitation”, Journal of Neuroengineering & Rehabilitation, vol. 11, pp. 3, 2014.

5. C. J. Nycz, M. A. Delph, G. S. Fischer, “Modeling and design of a tendon actuated flexible robotic exoskeleton for hemiparetic upper-limb rehabilitation”, International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 3889-3892, 2015.

6. P. S. Lum, C. G. Burgar, P. C. Shor, “Use of the MIME robotic system to retrain multijoint reaching in post-stroke hemiparesis: why some movement patterns work better than others”, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2003. Proceedings of the International Conference of the IEEE, vol. 2, pp. 1475-1478, 2003.

7. D. J. Reinkensmeyer, L. E. Kahn, M. Averbuch, A. Mckenna-Cole, B. D. Schmit, W. Z. Rymer, “Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: progress with the ARM guide”, Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, vol. 37, pp. 653-662.

8. Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, L. Ji, S. Bi, “The clinical application of the upper extremity compound movements rehabilitation training robot”, International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 91-94, 2005.

9. H. Fukushima, “Health and wellbeing in the 21st century (No. 4): Early rehabilitation and conditions for which it is appropriate [J]” in Social-human environmentology, pp. 6, 2004.

10. T. G. Sugar, J. He, E. J. Koeneman, J. B. Koeneman, R. Herman, H. Huang et al., “Design and control of RUPERT: a device for robotic upper extremity repetitive therapy”, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems & Rehabilitation Engineering a Publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 336-46, 2007.

11. J. C Perry, J. Rosen, S. Burns, “Upper-Limb Powered Exoskeleton Design”, Mechatronics IEEE/ASME Transactions on, vol. 12, pp. 408-417, 2007.

12. A. U. Pehlivan, O. Celik, M. K. O’Malley, “Mechanical design of a distal arm exoskeleton for stroke and spinal cord injury rehabilitation”, IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot, pp. 5975428, 2011.

13. S Koo, T. P. Andriacchi, “The Knee Joint Center of Rotation is Predominantly on the Lateral Side during Normal Walking[J]”, Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1269, 2008.

14. Y. Mao, S. K. Agrawal, “Transition from mechanical arm to human arm with CAREX: A cable driven ARm EXoskeleton (CAREX) for neural rehabilitation”, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., pp. 2457-2462, 2012.

15. Y. Mao, X. Jin, G. G. Dutta, J. P. Scholz, S. K. Agrawal, “Human movement training with a cable driven ARm EXoskeleton (CAREX)”, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 84-92, Jan. 2015.

16. DJ Reinkensmeyer, JL Emken, SC. Cramer, “Robotics motor learning and neurologic recovery”, Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 497-525, 2004.

17. QZ Yang, CF Cao, JH. Zhao, “Analysis of the status of the research of the upper-limb rehabilitative robot”, Robot, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 630-640, 2013.

18. XZ Jiang, XH Huang, CH Xiong et al., “Position Control of a Rehabilitation Robotic Joint Based on Neuron Proportion-Integral and Feedforward Control”, Journal of Computational & Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 024502, 2012.

19. ZC Chen, Z. Huang, “Motor relearning in the application of the rehabilitation therapy for stroke”, Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1053-1056, 2007.

20. JC Perry, J Rosen, S. Burns, “Upper-Limb Powered Exoskeleton Design[J]”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 408-417, 2007.

21. C LV, Research on rehabilitation robot for upper-limb hemiplegia, Shanghai China:, 2011.

22. Y K Woo, G H Cho, E Y. Yoo, Effect of PNF Applied to the Unaffected Side on Muscle Tone of Affected Side in Patients with Hemiplegia[J], vol. 9, no. 2, 2002.

23. JH Liang, JP Tong, X. Li, “Observation of the curative effect of continuous passive movement of joints in the treatment of lower limb spasticity”, Theory and practice of rehabilitation in China, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1067-1067, 2008.


via A Tendon-driven Upper-limb Rehabilitation Robot – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Design and development of an upper limb rehabilitation robotic system – IEEE Conference Publication


This paper presents ongoing research activities for the designing and development of an upper limb rehabilitation robotic system needed by the Prokinetic Rehabilitation Clinic. Prokinetic therapists identified the need of a passive rehabilitation robotic system (RRS) with 3 degrees of freedom for upper limb. The medical and technical requirements analysis for an upper limb rehabilitation robotic system, the video motion analysis were carried out, and the mechanical, actuation, control systems and human-machine interface of the RRS were designed and developed. The results of designing and developing an upper limb rehabilitation robotic system are presented here.
Date of Conference: 28-31 May 2018


via Design and development of an upper limb rehabilitation robotic system – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Kinematic analysis and control for upper limb robotic rehabilitation system – IEEE Conference Publication


Present physical rehabilitation practice implies one-to-one therapist — patient interactions. This leads to shortage of therapists and high costs for patient or healthcare insurance systems. Along with Prokinetic Rehabilitation Clinic, we proposed a new intelligent, adaptive robotic system (RAPMES), which can provide the rehabilitation protocols, defined by a therapist, for the wrist and elbow of upper limb, considering the patient reactions and based on real-time feedback. RAPMES is a passive rehabilitation robotic system (RRS) with 3 degrees of freedom, and assists the rehabilitation process for elbow, forearm and wrist movements. Computation of the kinematic model for the RAPMES robotic device is required in order to determine the parameters associated with the mechanical joints, so that the experimental model executes certain trajectories in space. In this paper, we will present both forward and inverse kinematics determined for the experimental model. The kinematic model was implemented in Matlab environment, and we present a series of simulations, conducted in order to validate the proposed kinematic model. Then, we impose the functional movements (determined using the real-time video motion analysis system, as polynomial movement functions) as input to the kinematic model, and we present a series of simulations and results. The RAPMES control algorithm includes the kinematic model, and uses the polynomial movement functions as control input.
Date of Conference: 28-31 May 2018


I. Introduction

Statistics shows that, at European Union level, the upper limb is second common body part injured, as a result of unintentional physical injury [1]. Also, one can note the shortage of therapists and high costs for patient or healthcare insurance systems. Current development in robotics may offer a solution for this problem [2], allowing the creation of robotic devices to support the rehabilitation process, in a supervised or unsupervised way, in physiotherapy clinics or at home. In this context, we proposed RAPMES, a new intelligent, adaptive robotic system, which can provide the rehabilitation protocols, defined by a therapist, for the wrist and elbow of upper limb, considering the patient reactions and based on real-time feedback. RAPMES robotic system is designed on an ongoing research project, which implies several stages of development. In a first stage, we conducted a study involving therapists, the personnel and devices existent in a physiotherapy clinic. The role of this study was to determine the requirements for the robotic device, and to reveal the specific therapeutic needs of patients with rehabilitation indications at wrist and elbow level. On a second stage, we used a real-time video motion analysis system, to determine and understand specific functional movements frequently made with the dominant upper limb, by healthy persons. One of our research objectives is to include these movements as a part of RAPMES control algorithm, as they may offer a better rehabilitation of the upper limb, for specific moves. Next, we designed the robotic device, based on findings described above, and realized an experimental model of the robotic device.

via Kinematic analysis and control for upper limb robotic rehabilitation system – IEEE Conference Publication

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: