This paper is presenting video processing applications for determining anthropometric measurements used for developing robotic rehabilitation devices. This paper is part of an ongoing project of developing rehabilitation devices aimed for the human hand, mainly for regaining motor functions by the aid of robotics. This paper is presenting research using video processing software for data collecting. The focus of rehabilitation is aimed for the human hand, mainly for regaining motor functions by the aid of robotics. The area of application for the robotic rehabilitation devices are for patients suffering from paretic symptoms following stroke.
Posts Tagged robotic device
[ARTICLE] Anthropometric measurements for hand rehabilitation robotic devices using video processing -Full Text PDF
The use of a brain-machine interface shows potential for helping to restore function in stroke patients with hand paralysis, according to a study of healthy adults published in the Journal of Neuroscience.
According to the study, researchers note that the brain-machine interface, which is designed to combine brain stimulation with a robotic device that controls hand movement, increases the output of pathways connecting the brain and spinal cord.
Researchers Alireza Gharabaghi and colleagues asked participants to imagine opening their hand without actually making any movement while their hand was placed in a device that passively opened and closed their fingers as it received the necessary input from their brain activity. Stimulating the hand area of the motor cortex at the same time, but not after, the robotic device initiated hand movement increased the strength of the neural signal, most likely by harnessing the processing power of additional neurons in the corticospinal tract, explains a media release from the Society for Neuroscience.
However, the signal decreased when participants were not required to imagine moving their hand. Delivering brain stimulation and robotic motor feedback simultaneously during rehabilitation may therefore be beneficial for patients who have lost voluntary muscle control, the release continues.
[Source(s): Society for Neuroscience]
[Abstract+References] State-of-the-art robotic devices for ankle rehabilitation: Mechanism and control review
There is an increasing research interest in exploring use of robotic devices for the physical therapy of patients suffering from stroke and spinal cord injuries. Rehabilitation of patients suffering from ankle joint dysfunctions such as drop foot is vital and therefore has called for the development of newer robotic devices. Several robotic orthoses and parallel ankle robots have been developed during the last two decades to augment the conventional ankle physical therapy of patients. A comprehensive review of these robotic ankle rehabilitation devices is presented in this article. Recent developments in the mechanism design, actuation and control are discussed. The study encompasses robotic devices for treadmill and over-ground training as well as platform-based parallel ankle robots. Control strategies for these robotic devices are deliberated in detail with an emphasis on the assist-as-needed training strategies. Experimental evaluations of the mechanism designs and various control strategies of these robotic ankle rehabilitation devices are also presented.
|1.||De Ridder R, Willems T, Vanrenterghem J, et al. Multi-segment foot landing kinematics in subjects with chronic ankle instability. Clin Biomech 2015; 30: 585–592. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|2.||Nolan KJ, Yarossi M, McLaughlin P. Changes in center of pressure displacement with the use of a foot drop stimulator in individuals with stroke. Clin Biomech 2015; 30: 755–761. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|3.||Kluding PM, Dunning K, O’Dell MW, et al. Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30-week outcomes. Stroke 2013; 44: 1660–1669. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|4.||Roy A, Forrester LW, Macko RF, et al. Changes in passive ankle stiffness and its effects on gait function in people with chronic stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 2013; 50: 555–571. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|5.||Roy A, Krebs HI, Williams DJ, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a novel robot for ankle rehabilitation. IEEE T Robot 2009; 25: 569–582. Google Scholar Crossref|
|6.||Jamwal PK, Xie SQ, Hussain S, et al. An adaptive wearable parallel robot for the treatment of ankle injuries. IEEE/ASME T Mech 2014; 19: 64–75. Google Scholar Crossref|
|7.||Jamwal PK, Hussain S, Xie SQ. Review on design and control aspects of ankle rehabilitation robots. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2015; 10: 93–101. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|8.||Gordon KE, Sawicki GS, Ferris DP. Mechanical performance of artificial pneumatic muscles to power an ankle-foot orthosis. J Biomech 2006; 39: 1832–1841. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|9.||Blaya JA, Herr H. Adaptive control of a variable-impedance ankle-foot orthosis to assist drop-foot gait. IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2004; 12: 24–31. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|10.||Saglia JA, Tsagarakis NG, Dai JS, et al. A high-performance redundantly actuated parallel mechanism for ankle rehabilitation. Int J Robot Res 2009; 28: 1216–1227. Google Scholar Link|
|11.||Jamwal PK, Hussain S, Xie SQ. Three-stage design analysis and multicriteria optimization of a parallel ankle rehabilitation robot using genetic algorithm. IEEE T Autom Sci Eng 2015; 12: 1433–1446. Google Scholar Crossref|
|12.||Jamwal PK, Xie SQ, Aw KC. Kinematic design optimization of a parallel ankle rehabilitation robot using modified genetic algorithm. Robot Auton Syst 2009; 57: 1018–1027. Google Scholar Crossref|
|13.||Jamwal PK, Xie SQ, Tsoi YH, et al. Forward kinematics modelling of a parallel ankle rehabilitation robot using modified fuzzy inference. Mech Mach Theory 2010; 45: 1537–1554. Google Scholar Crossref|
|14.||Burdea GC, Cioi D, Kale A, et al. Robotics and gaming to improve ankle strength, motor control, and function in children with cerebral palsy—a case study series. IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2013; 21: 165–173. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|15.||Girone M, Burdea G, Bouzit M, et al. A Stewart platform-based system for ankle telerehabilitation. Auton Robot 2001; 10: 203–212. Google Scholar Crossref|
|16.||Bucca G, Bezzolato A, Bruni S, et al. A mechatronic device for the rehabilitation of ankle motor function. J Biomech Eng 2009; 131: 125001-1–125001-7. Google Scholar Crossref|
|17.||Michmizos KP, Rossi S, Castelli E, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a pediatric robot for ankle rehabilitation. IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2015; 23: 1056–1067. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|18.||Xie SQ, Jamwal PK. An iterative fuzzy controller for pneumatic muscle driven rehabilitation robot. Expert Syst Appl 2011; 38: 8128–8137. Google Scholar Crossref|
|19.||Jamwal PK, Hussain S, Ghayesh MH, et al. Impedance control of an intrinsically compliant parallel ankle rehabilitation robot. IEEE T Ind Electron 2016; 63: 3638–3647. Google Scholar Crossref|
|20.||Saglia JA, Tsagarakis NG, Dai JS, et al. Control strategies for patient-assisted training using the ankle rehabilitation robot (ARBOT). IEEE/ASME T Mech 2013; 18: 1799–1808. Google Scholar Crossref|
|21.||Colombo G, Joerg M, Schreier R, et al. Treadmill training of paraplegic patients using a robotic orthosis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000; 37: 693–700. Google Scholar Medline|
|22.||Banala SK, Kim SH, Agrawal SK, et al. Robot assisted gait training with active leg exoskeleton (ALEX). IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2009; 17: 2–8. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|23.||Melo PL, Silva MT, Martins JM, et al. Technical developments of functional electrical stimulation to correct drop foot: sensing, actuation and control strategies. Clin Biomech 2015; 30: 101–113. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|24.||Xu R, Jiang N, Mrachacz-Kersting N, et al. A closed-loop brain-computer interface triggering an active ankle-foot orthosis for inducing cortical neural plasticity. IEEE T Biomed Eng 2014; 61: 2092–2101. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|25.||Jamwal PK, Hussain S. Multicriteria design optimization of a parallel ankle rehabilitation robot: fuzzy dominated sorting evolutionary algorithm approach. IEEE T Syst Man Cy: S 2016; 46: 589–597. Google Scholar Crossref|
|26.||Park YL, Chen BR, Pérez-Arancibia NO, et al. Design and control of a bio-inspired soft wearable robotic device for ankle-foot rehabilitation. Bioinspir Biomim 2014; 9: 1–17. Google Scholar Crossref|
|27.||Ferris DP, Gordon KE, Sawicki GS, et al. An improved powered ankle-foot orthosis using proportional myoelectric control. Gait Posture 2006; 23: 425–428. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|28.||Veneman JF, Ekkelenkamp R, Kruidhof R, et al. A series elastic- and bowden-cable-based actuation system for use as torque actuator in exoskeleton-type robots. Int J Robot Res 2006; 25: 261–281. Google Scholar Link|
|29.||Kinnaird CR, Ferris DP. Medial gastrocnemius myoelectric control of a robotic ankle exoskeleton. IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2009; 17: 31–37. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|30.||Bharadwaj K, Sugar TG, Koeneman JB, et al. Design of a robotic gait trainer using spring over muscle actuators for ankle stroke rehabilitation. J Biomech Eng 2005; 127: 1009–1013. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|31.||Hollander KW, Ilg R, Sugar TG, et al. An efficient robotic tendon for gait assistance. J Biomech Eng 2006; 128: 788–791. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|32.||Ward J, Sugar T, Boehler A, et al. Stroke survivors’ gait adaptations to a powered ankle foot orthosis. Adv Robot 2011; 25: 1879–1901. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|33.||Shorter KA, Kogler GF, Loth E, et al. A portable powered ankle-foot orthosis for rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev 2011; 48: 459–472. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|34.||Malcolm P, Derave W, Galle S, et al. A simple exoskeleton that assists plantarflexion can reduce the metabolic cost of human walking. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: 1–7. Google Scholar Crossref|
|35.||Galle S, Malcolm P, Derave W, et al. Enhancing performance during inclined loaded walking with a powered ankle–foot exoskeleton. Eur J Appl Physiol 2014; 114: 2341–2351. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|36.||Erdogan A, Celebi B, Satici AC, et al. AssistOn-Ankle: a reconfigurable ankle exoskeleton with series-elastic actuation. Auton Robot 2016; 41: 1–16. Google Scholar|
|37.||Noël M, Cantin B, Lambert S, et al. An electrohydraulic actuated ankle foot orthosis to generate force fields and to test proprioceptive reflexes during human walking. IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2008; 16: 390–399. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|38.||Borràs J, Thomas F, Torras C. New geometric approaches to the analysis and design of Stewart–Gough platforms. IEEE/ASME T Mech 2014; 19: 445–455. Google Scholar Crossref|
|39.||Yoon J, Ryu J, Lim KB. Reconfigurable ankle rehabilitation robot for various exercises. J Robotic Syst 2006; 22: S15–S33. Google Scholar Crossref|
|40.||Karime A, Al-Osman H, Alja’Am JM, et al. Tele-wobble: a telerehabilitation wobble board for lower extremity therapy. IEEE T Instrum Meas 2012; 61: 1816–1824. Google Scholar Crossref|
|41.||Dai JS, Zhao T, Nester C. Sprained ankle physiotherapy based mechanism synthesis and stiffness analysis of a robotic rehabilitation device. Auton Robot 2004; 16: 207–218. Google Scholar Crossref|
|42.||Wang C, Fang Y, Guo S, et al. Design and kinematical performance analysis of a 3-RUS/RRR redundantly actuated parallel mechanism for ankle rehabilitation. J Mech Robot 2013; 5: 041003-1–041003-7. Google Scholar Crossref|
|43.||Rakhodaei H, Saadat M, Rastegarpanah A, et al. Path planning of the hybrid parallel robot for ankle rehabilitation. Robotica 2016; 34: 173–184. Google Scholar Crossref|
|44.||Vallés M, Cazalilla J, Valera Á, et al. A 3-PRS parallel manipulator for ankle rehabilitation: towards a low-cost robotic rehabilitation. Robotica 2017; 35: 1939–1957. Google Scholar Crossref|
|45.||Tsoi YH, Xie SQ. Design and control of a parallel robot for ankle rehabilitation. Int J Intell Syst Tech Appl 2010; 8: 100–113. Google Scholar|
|46.||Lin CCK, Ju MS, Chen SM, et al. A specialized robot for ankle rehabilitation and evaluation. J Med Biol Eng 2008; 28: 79–86. Google Scholar|
|47.||Agrawal A, Sangwan V, Banala SK, et al. Design of a novel two degree-of-freedom ankle-foot orthosis. J Mech Des: T ASME 2007; 129: 1137–1143. Google Scholar Crossref|
|48.||Wolbrecht ET, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Bobrow JE. Pneumatic control of robots for rehabilitation. Int J Robot Res 2010; 29: 23–38. Google Scholar Link|
|49.||Gordon KE, Ferris DP. Learning to walk with a robotic ankle exoskeleton. J Biomech 2007; 40: 2636–2644. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|50.||Forrester LW, Roy A, Krebs HI, et al. Ankle training with a robotic device improves hemiparetic gait after a stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011; 25: 369–377. Google Scholar Link|
|51.||Forrester LW, Roy A, Goodman RN, et al. Clinical application of a modular ankle robot for stroke rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation 2013; 33: 85–97. Google Scholar Medline|
|52.||Koller JR, Jacobs DA, Ferris DP, et al. Learning to walk with an adaptive gain proportional myoelectric controller for a robotic ankle exoskeleton. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2015; 12: 1–14. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|53.||Gordon KE, Kinnaird CR, Ferris DP. Locomotor adaptation to a soleus EMG-controlled antagonistic exoskeleton. J Neurophysiol 2013; 109: 1804–1814. Google Scholar Crossref, Medline|
|54.||Shorter KA, Xia J, Hsiao-Wecksler ET, et al. Technologies for powered ankle-foot orthotic systems: possibilities and challenges. IEEE/ASME T Mech 2013; 18: 337–347. Google Scholar Crossref|
|55.||Zanotto D, Akiyama Y, Stegall P, et al. Knee joint misalignment in exoskeletons for the lower extremities: effects on user’s gait. IEEE T Robot 2015; 31: 978–987. Google Scholar Crossref|
|56.||Cempini M, De Rossi SMM, Lenzi T, et al. Self-alignment mechanisms for assistive wearable robots: a kinetostatic compatibility method. IEEE T Robot 2013; 29: 236–250. Google Scholar Crossref|
|57.||Stienen AHA, Hekman EEG, van der Helm FCT, et al. Self-aligning exoskeleton axes through decoupling of joint rotations and translations. IEEE T Robot 2009; 25: 628–633. Google Scholar Crossref|
|58.||Tsoi YH, Xie SQ. Online estimation algorithm for a biaxial ankle kinematic model with configuration dependent joint axes. J Biomech Eng 2011; 133: 021005-1–021005-11. Google Scholar Crossref|
Source: State-of-the-art robotic devices for ankle rehabilitation: Mechanism and control reviewProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine – Shahid Hussain, Prashant K Jamwal, Mergen H Ghayesh, 2017
Stroke is a significant cause of disability in the population. When the arm is affected by stroke, functional recovery may be poor. The use of robotic aids to enhance arm recovery is a novel treatment adjunct. There is a growing support for using robots as an adjunct to therapy but there has been little translation from research into clinical use.
The investigations reported in this thesis aimed to bridge the gap between research and clinical use of these devices. To achieve this,five stages were carried out: Firstly a systematic literature review of outcomes measure used for the upper limb was conducted.to establish the most reliable, valid and responsive scales.
This review found a battery of measures (ABILHAND, CHAI, STREAM, FMA, ARAT, EQ5D, DASH, NIHSS). An evaluation of 125 consecutive acute stroke patients established the proportion of patients that potentially benefited from rehabilitation using a robotic device. This found that around 50% of subjects could use a robotic aid and that it was practically feasible to carry out the intervention.
A pilot RCT performed on 37 participants using the battery of measures found a significant difference with use of the robotic device on the ABILHAND, This was not seen with the other measures, however there was a trend towards improvement in motor performance and function in the robotic group. In depth interviews with participants found subjects perceived gains with using the robot but fatigue stopped them using it for longer periods.
Psychometric analysis of the outcome measures used found difficulties with the instruments in reflecting clinically change.
The studies showed that a robotic device could be used practically; however stratifying subjects into arm severity would help provide further information over who could benefit from the intervention. Identifying appropriate ways of measuring changes that are clinically meaningful would also be beneficial.