Posts Tagged robotic devices

[Abstract + References] Design and Development of a Robotic Platform Based on Virtual Reality Scenarios and Wearable Sensors for Upper Limb Rehabilitation and Visuomotor Coordination – Conference paper

Abstract

The work reintegration following shoulder biomechanical overload illness is a multidimensional process, especially for those tasks requiring strength, movement control and arm dexterity. Currently different robotic devices used for upper limb rehabilitation are available on the market, but these devices are not based on activities focused on the work reintegration. Furthermore, the rehabilitation programmes aimed to the work reintegration are insufficiently focused on the recovery of the necessary skills for the re-employment.

In this study the details of the design of an innovative robotic platform integrated with wearable sensors and virtual reality scenarios for upper limbs motor rehabilitation and visuomotor coordination is presented. The design of control strategy will also be introduced. The robotic platform is based on a robotic arm characterized by seven degrees of freedom and by an adaptive control, wearable sensorized insoles, virtual reality (VR) scenarios and the Leap Motion device to track the hand gestures during the rehabilitation training. Future works will address the application of deep learning techniques for the analysis of the acquired big amount of data in order to automatically adapt both the difficulty level of the VR serious games and amount of motor assistance provided by the robot.

References

  1. 1.
    MacEachen, E., et al.: Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 32(4), 257–269 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Franche, R.-L., Krause, N.: Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of healthcare, workplace, and insurance factor. J. Occup. Rehabil. 12(4), 233–256 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hou, W.H., Chi, C.C., Lo, H.L.D., Kuo, K.N., Chuang, H.Y.: Vocational rehabilitation for enhancing return-to-work in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shi, Q., Sinden, K., Macdermid, J.C., Walton, D., Grewal, R.: A systematic review of prognostic factors for return to work following work-related traumatic hand injury. J. Hand Ther. 27(1), 55–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fadyl, J., McPherson, K.: Return to work after injury: a review of evidence regarding expectations and injury perceptions, and their influence on outcome. J. Occup. Rehabil. 18(4), 362–374 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krebs, H.I.: Twenty + years of robotics for upper-extremity rehabilitation following a stroke. In: Rehabilitation Robotics (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buongiorno, D., Sotgiu, E., Leonardis, D., Marcheschi, S., Solazzi, M., Frisoli, A.: WRES: a novel 3 DoF WRist exoskeleton with tendon-driven differential transmission for neuro-rehabilitation and teleoperation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3(3), 2152–2159 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krebs, H.I., et al.: Robotic applications in neuromotor rehabilitation. Robotica 21(1), 3–11 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, S.-S., Park, S.-A., Kwon, O.-Y., Song, J.-E., Son, K.-C.: Measuring range of motion and muscle activation of flower arrangement tasks and application for improving upper limb function. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 30(4), 449–462 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spreeuwers, D., et al.: Work-related upper extremity disorders: one-year follow-up in an occupational diseases registry. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 84(7), 789–796 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehrholz, J., Pohl, M., Platz, T., Kugler, J., Elsner, B.: Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lederer, V., Rivard, M., Mechakra-Tahiri, S.D.: Gender differences in personal and work-related determinants of return-to-work following long-term disability: a 5-year cohort study. J. Occup. Rehabil. 22(4), 522–531 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siciliano, B., Lorenzo, S., Villani, L., Orilo, G.: Robotics: Modelling, Planning and Control, 2nd edn. Springer, London (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-642-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balasubramanian, S., Melendez-Calderon, A., Roby-Brami, A., Burdet, E.: On the analysis of movement smoothness. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12, 112 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0090-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berger, D.J., d’Avella, A.: Effective force control by muscle synergies. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 8, 46 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2014.00046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holzbaur, K.R.S., Murray, W.M., Delp, S.L.: A model of the upper extremity for simulating musculoskeletal surgery and analyzing neuromuscular control. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 33(6), 829–840 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-005-3320-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delp, S.L., et al.: OpenSim: open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 54(11), 1940–1950 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buongiorno, D., et al.: Evaluation of a pose-shared synergy-based isometric model for hand force estimation: towards myocontrol. In: Biosystems and Biorobotics (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buongiorno, D., Barsotti, M., Barone, F., Bevilacqua, V., Frisoli, A.: A linear approach to optimize an EMG-driven neuromusculoskeletal model for movement intention detection in myo-control: a case study on shoulder and elbow joints. Front. Neurorobot. 12, 74 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

via Design and Development of a Robotic Platform Based on Virtual Reality Scenarios and Wearable Sensors for Upper Limb Rehabilitation and Visuomotor Coordination | SpringerLink

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[REVIEW] Self-Assisted Upper Limb Rehabilitation Devices, A Comprehensive Review – Full Text PDF

Abstract

For the purpose of Upper Limb rehabilitation, the use of mechanical and robot assisted rehabilitation the rapiesarenota new concept. Such system sallow patients to perform the rapies with minimalorno assistance. The complexity of such systems vary from being as simple as a custom made bars to highly so phisticated roboticexo skeletons. The advancement of robotics and motor control mechanisms has fueled interest in this domain and we see a lot of development in the field of robot assisted rehabilitation with in a comparatively short span of time. This paper presents a review and tabulates the results of a few selected rehabilitation devices. The devices include mechanical as well as intelligent robotics based rehabilitation devices.

INTRODUCTION

Self-assisted rehabilitation devices target those patients who are capable of carrying out upper limb rehabilitation routines themselves by using less impaired limb to control the most impaired one. The main advantage of self-performed rehabilitation exercises is that they allow a patient to vary thetrainingintensityandfrequencyofaparticularroutineasp ertherequirement and capability and hence increasing the effectiveness of that exercise in rehabilitation. The more robust and ergonomic a system is, the more effective will be there habilitation routines which in turn improve the recovery time of the patient. A patient with limited upper arm mobility can easily and efficiently operate a particular rehabilitation system only if it is: …

Download Full Text PDF

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Comparison of exercise training effect with different robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation: a retrospective study – Europe PMC

Several robotic devices have been proposed for upper limb rehabilitation, but they differ in terms of application fields and the technical solutions implemented. To compare the effectiveness of three different robotic devices for shoulder-elbow rehabilitation in reducing motor impairment and improving motor performance in post-stroke patients. Retrospective multi-center study.Inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Eighty-seven chronic and subacute post-stroke patients, aged 48-85 years. Data were obtained through a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent a 3- week rehabilitation program including robot-assisted therapy of the upper limb and conventional physical therapy. Patients were divided into three groups according to the robot device used for exercise training: ‘Braccio di Ferro” (BdF), InMotion2 (IMT), and MEchatronic system for MOtor recovery after Stroke (MEMOS). They were evaluated at the beginning and end of treatment using the Fugl-Meyer (FM) and Modified Ashworth (MAS) clinical scales and by a set of robot measured kinematic parameters. The three groups were homogeneous for age, level of impairment, time since the acute event, and spasticity level. A significant effect of time (p<0.001) was evident on FM and kinematic parameters across all groups. The average change in the FM score was 9.5, 7.3 and 7.1 points, respectively, for BdF, IMT and MEMOS. No significant between-group differences were observed at the MAS pre- vs. post-treatment. A significant interaction between time and groups resulted for the mean velocity (MV, p<0.005) and movement smoothness parameters (nPK, p<0.001 and SM, p<0.02). The effect size (ES) was large for the FM score and MV parameter, independently of the type of robot device used. Further, the ES ranged from moderate to large for the remaining kinematic parameters except for the movement accuracy (mean distance, MD), which exhibited a small ES in the BdF and MEMOS groups. The motor function gains obtained during robot-assisted therapy of stroke patients seem to be independent of the type of robot device used for the training program. All devices tested in this study were effective in improving the level of impairment and motor performance. This study could help rehabilitation professionals to set-up comparative studies involving rehabilitation technologies.

Source: Comparison of exercise training effect with different robotic devices for upper limb… – Abstract – Europe PMC

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Recent developments and challenges of lower extremity exoskeletons – Full Text HTML

Figure 2 Exoskeletons for locomotion assistance. (A) The ReWalk Wearable System (Image credit: ReWalk Robotics, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA). (B) The lower extremity exoskeleton developed at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong, China).

Summary

The number of people with a mobility disorder caused by stroke, spinal cord injury, or other related diseases is increasing rapidly. To improve the quality of life of these people, devices that can assist them to regain the ability to walk are of great demand.

Robotic devices that can release the burden of therapists and provide effective and repetitive gait training have been widely studied recently. By contrast, devices that can augment the physical abilities of able-bodied humans to enhance their performances in industrial and military work are needed as well. In the past decade, robotic assistive devices such as exoskeletons have undergone enormous progress, and some products have recently been commercialized. Exoskeletons are wearable robotic systems that integrate human intelligence and robot power.

This paper first introduces the general concept of exoskeletons and reviews several typical lower extremity exoskeletons (LEEs) in three main applications (i.e. gait rehabilitation, human locomotion assistance, and human strength augmentation), and provides a systemic review on the acquisition of a wearer’s motion intention and control strategies for LEEs.

The limitations of the currently developed LEEs and future research and development directions of LEEs for wider applications are discussed.

Continue —> Recent developments and challenges of lower extremity exoskeletons – Journal of Orthopaedic Translation

Figure 3 Exoskeletons to augment human strength. (A) The Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX) (Image credit: Professor Kazerooni of the University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA). (B) The HEXAR-HL35 Exoskeleton (Image credit: Seungnam Yu of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, Korea).

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Rehabilitation and plasticity following stroke: Insights from rodent models

Highlights

  • •Considerable map plasticity occurs spontaneously after an ischemic injury to the motor cortex.
  • •Physical rehabilitation impacts on spontaneous neuroplasticity and triggers restoration of function.
  • •It is critical to distinguish “true” recovery (i.e. re-establishment of original movement patterns) from compensation.
  • •Motor recovery can be boosted by a combination of rehabilitation and plasticizing drugs.

Abstract

Ischemic injuries within the motor cortex result in functional deficits that may profoundly impact activities of daily living in patients. Current rehabilitation protocols achieve only limited recovery of motor abilities. The brain reorganizes spontaneously after injury, and it is believed that appropriately boosting these neuroplastic processes may restore function via recruitment of spared areas and pathways.

Here I review studies on circuit reorganization, neuronal and glial plasticity and axonal sprouting following ischemic damage to the forelimb motor cortex, with a particular focus on rodent models. I discuss evidence pointing to compensatory take-over of lost functions by adjacent peri-lesional areas and the role of the contralesional hemisphere in recovery. One key issue is the need to distinguish “true” recovery (i.e. re-establishment of original movement patterns) from compensation in the assessment of post-stroke functional gains. I also consider the effects of physical rehabilitation, including robot-assisted therapy, and the potential mechanisms by which motor training induces recovery.

Finally, I describe experimental approaches in which training is coupled with delivery of plasticizing drugs that render the remaining, undamaged pathways more sensitive to experience-dependent modifications. These combinatorial strategies hold promise for the definition of more effective rehabilitation paradigms that can be translated into clinical practice.

Source: Rehabilitation and plasticity following stroke: Insights from rodent models

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: