Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 239–252 | Cite as

Design Issues for Therapeutic Robot Systems: Results from a Survey of Physiotherapists

  • Moonhee Lee
  • Matheson Rittenhouse
  • Hussein A. Abdullah


Over the years, research into rehabilitation robots has increased considerably. Using robots for rehabilitation can improve persons with physical disabilities to perform the basic activities of daily living. However, rehabilitation robots are not welcome yet in clinical environments. While surveys concerning how patients respond to robots used for rehabilitation have been conducted, no survey exists in the literature concerning how the therapists themselves think of these robotic devices, and what functionality they should possess in order to be effective. This paper presents a survey of physiotherapists concerning their thoughts, experience, and what functionality should be included in robots used for rehabilitation. In particular, the therapists were asked about the development of an intelligent robotic device capable of performing repetitive tasks for patients who suffer from reduced upper and lower limb mobility. In general, the results from this survey suggest that therapists respond positively to the idea of robotic devices in a clinical setting. Furthermore, the majority of respondents are interested in rehabilitation robotics. The results of the survey will be very helpful in the design of robotic systems for use during physiotherapy.


rehabilitation robotics limb injury physiotherapists design requirements survey therapeutic robot design usability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beer, R. F., Dewald, J. P., and Rymer, W. Z.: Deficits in the coordination of multijoint arm movement in patients with hemiparesis: Evidence for distributed control of limb dynamics, Experimental Brain Res. 131 (2000), 305–319. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgar, C. G., Lum, P. S., Shor, P. C., and Van der Loos, H. F. M.: Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: The Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 37(6) (2000), 663–674. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butefisch, C., Hummelsheim, H., Denzler, P., and Mauritz, K.: Repetitive training of isolated movement improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand, J. Neurological Sci. 130 (1995), 59–68. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Leon, R. D., Kubasak, M. D., Phelps, P. E., Timoszyk, W. K., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Roy, R. R., and Edgerton, V. R.: Using robotics to teach the spinal cord to walk, Brain Res. Rev. 40 (2002), 267–273. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkers, M. P., de Bear, P. C., Erlandson, R. F., Kristy, K., Geer, D. M., and Nichols, A.: Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: A pilot study, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 28(2) (1991), 33–44. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 13407: Human-centred design for interactive systems, International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jezernik, S., Scharer, R., Colombo, G., and Moraril, M.: Adaptive robotic rehabilitation of locomotion: A clinical study in spinally injured individuals, Spinal Cord 41 (2003), 657–666. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krebs, H. I., Hogan, N., Aisen, M. L., and Volpe, B. T.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation, IEEE Trans. Rehabilitation Engrg. 6(1)) (1998), 75–87. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krebs, H. I., Palazzolo, J. J., Dipietro, L., Vople, B. T., and Hogan, N.: Rehabilitation robotics: Performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy, Autonom. Robots 15 (2003), 7–20. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loureiro, R., Amirabdollahian, F., Topping, M., and Driessen, B.: Upper limb robot mediated stroke therapy – Gentle’s approach, Autonom. Robots 15 (2003), 35–51. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Napper, S. A. and Ronald, L.: Applications of robots in rehabilitation, Robotics Autonom. Systems 5 (1989), 227–239. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nudo, R. J., Wise, B. M., SiFuentes, F., and Milliken, G. W.: Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct, Science 272 (1996), 1791–1794. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction, Wiley, New York, 2002. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Emken, J. L., and Cramer, S. C.: Robotics, motor learning, and neurologic recovery, Ann. Rev. Biomed. Engrg. 6 (2004), 497–525. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Kahn, L. E., Averbuch, M., Mckenna-Cole, A., Schmit, B. D., and Zev Rymer, W.: Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: Progress with the arm guide, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 37(6) (2000), 653–662. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schleenbaker, R. E. and Mainous, A. G.: Electromyographic biofeedback for neuromuscular reeducation in the hemiplegic stroke patient: A meta-analysis, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilitation 14 (1993), 1301–1304. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanger, C. A., Anglin, C., Harwin, W. S., and Romilly, D. P.: Devices for assisting manipulation: A summary of user task priorities, IEEE Trans. Rehabilitation Engrg. 2(4) (1994), 256–265. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taub, E., Uswatte, G., and Pidikiti, R.: Constraint-induced movement therapy: A new family of techniques with broad application to physical rehabilitation – A clinical review, J. Rehabilitation Res. Development 36 (1999), 237–251. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tejima, N.: Rehabilitation robotics: A review, Advanced Robotics 14(7) (2000), 551–564. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Timoszyk, W. K., Merlo, M., De Leon, R. D., Emken, J. L., Roy, R. R., London, N., Fong, A., Edgerton, V. R., and Reinkensmeyer, D. J.: Second generation robotic systems for studying rodent locomotion following spinal cord injury, in: Second Joint EMBS-BMES Conference 2002, 24th Annual Internat. Conf. of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Houston, TX, USA, 2002, Vol. 3, pp. 2358–2359. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turczynski, B. E., Harjte, W., and Sturm, W.: Electromyographic feedback treatment of chronic hemiparesis: An attempt to quantify treatment effects, Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilitation 65 (1984), 526–528. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Harmelen, M.: Object Modeling and User Interface Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 2001. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Volpe, B. T., Krebs, H. I., Hogan, N., Edelstein, L., Diels, C., and Aisen, M.: A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation: Robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation, Neurology 54(10) (2000), 1938–1943. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolf, S. L.: Electromyographic biofeedback applications to stroke patients: A critical review, Phys. Ther. 63 (1983), 1448–1459. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moonhee Lee
    • 1
  • Matheson Rittenhouse
    • 1
  • Hussein A. Abdullah
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations