Advances in upper limb stroke rehabilitation: a technology push

  • Rui C. V. Loureiro
  • William S. Harwin
  • Kiyoshi Nagai
  • Michelle Johnson
Special Issue - Review

Abstract

Strokes affect thousands of people worldwide leaving sufferers with severe disabilities affecting their daily activities. In recent years, new rehabilitation techniques have emerged such as constraint-induced therapy, biofeedback therapy and robot-aided therapy. In particular, robotic techniques allow precise recording of movements and application of forces to the affected limb, making it a valuable tool for motor rehabilitation. In addition, robot-aided therapy can utilise visual cues conveyed on a computer screen to convert repetitive movement practice into an engaging task such as a game. Visual cues can also be used to control the information sent to the patient about exercise performance and to potentially address psychosomatic variables influencing therapy. This paper overviews the current state-of-the-art on upper limb robot-mediated therapy with a focal point on the technical requirements of robotic therapy devices leading to the development of upper limb rehabilitation techniques that facilitate reach-to-touch, fine motor control, whole-arm movements and promote rehabilitation beyond hospital stay. The reviewed literature suggest that while there is evidence supporting the use of this technology to reduce functional impairment, besides the technological push, the challenge ahead lies on provision of effective assessment of outcome and modalities that have a stronger impact transferring functional gains into functional independence.

Keywords

Stroke Neurorehabilitation Sensorimotor control Upper limb Rehabilitation robotics 

References

  1. 1.
    Adamnovich SV, Fluet GG, Mathai A et al (2009) Design of a complex virtual reality simulation to train finger motion for persons with hemiparesis: a feasibility study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 6:28. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aisen ML, Krebs HI, Hogan N, McDowell F, Volpe BT (1997) The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following a stroke. Arch Neurol 54:443–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro R, Harwin W (2002) Minimum jerk trajectory control for rehabilitation and haptic applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2002), May 2002, Washington DC, USA, IEEE, pp 3380–3385Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amirabdollahian F, Gradwell E, Loureiro R, Collin C, Harwin W (2003) Effects of the gentle/s robot mediated therapy on the outcome of upper limb rehabilitation post-stroke: analysis of the battle hospital data. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2003), KAIST, Republic of Korea, pp 55–58Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amirabdollahian F, Harwin WS, Loureiro RCV (2007b). Analysis of the fugl-meyer outcome measures assessing the effectiveness of robot-mediated stroke therapy. In: Proceedings of IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2007), 12–14 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp 729–735Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amirabdollahian F, Loureiro RCV, Collin C, Harwin WS, Johnson G (2007) Analysis of the fugl-meyer measures assessing the effectiveness of the GENTLE/s rehabilitation robotics system delivering upper limb therapies. In special issue on rehabilitation robotics. J Neuroeng Rehabil 4:4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bach-y-Rita P, Wood S, Leder R, Paredes O, Bahr D, Bach-y-Rita EW (2002) Computer assisted motivating rehabilitation for institutional, home, and educational late stroke programs. Top Stroke Rehabil 8(4):1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balasubramanian S, Klein J, Burdet E (2010) Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. Curr Opin Neurol 23(6):661–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barreca S, Wolf S, Fasoli S, Bohannon R (2003) Treatment interventions for the paretic upper limb of stroke survivors: a critical review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 17(4):220–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brewer BR, Klatzky R, Matsuoka Y (2006) Initial therapeutic results of visual feedback manipulation in robotic rehabilitation. International workshop on virtual rehabilitation, pp 160–166Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K, Prevo AJ (1999) The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow up study. Disabil Rehabil 21(8):357–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carignan C, Krebs HI (2006) Telerehabilitation robotics: bright lights, big future? J Rehabil Res Dev 43(5):695–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carignan C, Tang J, Roderick S, Naylor M (2007) A configuration-space approach to controlling a rehabilitation arm exoskeleton. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 12–15 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp 179–187Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Casadio M, Sanguineti V, Morasso PG, Arrichiello V (2006) Braccio di Ferro: a new haptic workstation for neuromotor rehabilitation. Technol Health Care 14(3):123–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Celestino J, Krebs HI, Hogan N (2003) A robot for wrist rehabilitation: characterization and initial results. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Daejon, South KoreaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charles SK, Krebs HI, Volpe B, Lynch D, Hogan N (2005) Wrist rehabilitation following a stroke: initial clinical results. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 9th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 13–16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colombo R, Pisano F, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Micera S, Carrozza MC, Dario P, Minuco G (2007) Design strategies to improve patient motivation during robot-aided rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 4:3. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-4-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Carrozza MC, Dario P, Minuco G (2005) Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. In: Proceedings of IEEE 9th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, June 28–July 1, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 515–518Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coote S, Stokes E, Murphy B, Harwin W (2003) The effect of GENTLE/S robot-mediated therapy on upper extremity dysfunction post stroke, In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2003), KAIST, Republic of Korea, pp 59–61Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cozens JA (1999) Robotic assistance of an active upper limb exercise in neurologically impaired patients. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7(2):254–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cramer SC (2010) Brain repair after stroke. N Engl J Med. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1003399. 16 April, pp 1–3
  22. 22.
    Dijkers MP, deBear PC, Erlandson RF, Kristy K, Geer DM, Nichols A (1991) Patient and staff acceptance of robot technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 28(2):33–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hughes R, Hogan N (2004) Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: follow-up results. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85(7):1106–1111 [PMID: 15241758]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feng X, Winters JM (2006) Emerging personalized home rehabilitation: integrating service with interface, in medical instrumentation: accessibility and usability considerations. In: Winters JM and Story MF (eds) Chapter 27, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 355–372Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feng X, Winters JM (2007) An interactive framework for personalized computer-assisted neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 518–526Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feng X, Ellsworth C, Johnson L, Winters JM (2004) UniTherapy: software design and hardware tools of teletherapy. RESNA, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT (2003) Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology 61:1604–1607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Finley MA, Fasoli SE, Dipietro L, Ohlhoff J, MacClellan L, Meister C, Whitall J, Macko R, Bever CT, Krebs HI, Hogan N (2005) Short-duration robotic therapy in stroke patients with severe upper-limb motor impairment. J Rehabil Res Dev 42(5):683–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fisher BE, Sullivan KJ (2001) Activity-dependent factors affecting poststroke functional outcomes. Top Stroke Rehabil 8(3):31–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Galvin R, Murphy B, Cusack T, Stokes E (2008) The impact of increased duration of exercise therapy on functional recovery following stroke—what is the evidence? Top Stroke Rehabil 15(4):365–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gockley R, Mataric MJ (2006) Encouraging physical therapy compliance with a hands-off mobile robot. HRI 150–155Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gresham GE, Duncan PW, Stason WB, Adams HP, Adelman AM, Alexander DN, Bishop DS, Diller L, Donaldson NE, Granger CV, Holland AL, Kelly-Hayes M, McDowell FH, Myers L, Phipps MA, Roth EJ, Siebens HC, Tarvin GA, Trombly CA (1995) Post-stroke rehabilitation. Clinical practice guideline. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and ResearchGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gritsenko V, Prochazka A (2004) A functional electric stimulation-assisted exercise therapy system for hemiplegic hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:881–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harwin W, Loureiro R, Amirabdollahian F, Taylor M, Johnson G, Stokes E, Coote S, Topping M, Collin C, Tamparis S, Kontoulis J, Munih M, Hawkins P, Driessen B (2001) The GENTLES/S project: a new method of delivering neuro-rehabilitation. In: Marincek Crt, Buhler C, Knops H, Andrich R (eds) proceedings association for the advancement of assistive technology in Europe (AAATE 2001), Assistive technology—added value to the quality of life, assistive technology research series, vol 10. IOS Press, pp 36–41Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harwin WS, Patton JL, Edgerton VR (2006) Challenges and opportunities for robot-mediated neurorehabilitation. Proc IEEE 94(9):1717–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    He J, Koeneman EJ, Schultz RS, Huang H, Wanberg J, Herring DE, Sugar T, Herman R, Koeneman JB (2005) Design of a robotic upper extremity repetitive therapy device. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, June 28–July 1, Chicago, USA, pp 95–98Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hesse S, Schmidt H, Werner C (2006) Machines to support motor rehabilitation after stroke: 10 years of experience in Berlin. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(5):671–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hesse S, Schulte-Tigges G, Konrad M, Bardeleben A, Werner C (2003) Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(6):915–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hesse S, Werner C, Pohl M, Rueckriem S, Mehrholz J, Lingnau ML (2005) Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers. Stroke 36(9):1960–1966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hogan N, Krebs HI, Charnnarong J, Srikrishna P, Sharon A (1992) MIT-MANUS: a workstation for manual therapy and training. IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication, pp 161–165Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Housman SJ, Le V, Rahman T, Sanchez RJ, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2007) Arm-training with T-WREX after chronic stroke: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 12–15 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp 562–568Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ikegami Y, Nagai K, Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS (2009) “Design of redundant drive joint with adjustable stiffness and damping mechanism to improve joint admittance”. In: Proceedings of international conference on rehabilitation robotics 2009 (ICORR 2009), pp 202–210Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jackson AE, Holt RJ, Culmer PR, Makower SG, Levesley MC, Richardson RC, Cozens JA, Williams MM, Bhakta BB (2007) Dual robot system for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: the design process. Proc IMechE Part C: J. Mech Eng Sci 1–13Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnson MJ, Van der Loos HFM, Burgar CG, Shor P, Leifer LJ (2001) Designing a robotic therapy device to motivate use of the impaired limb. In: Mounir Mokhtari (ed) Integration of assistive technology in the information age, vol 9. IOS Press, pp 123–132Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Johnson MJ, Wisneski HJ, Anderson J, Nathan D, Smith R (2006) Development of ADLER: the activities of the daily living exercise robot. IEEE-EMBS Biomedical Robotics (BioRob 2006), February 2006. Pisa, Italy, pp 881–886Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johnson MJ, Feng X, Johnson LM, Winters J (2007) Potential of a suite of robot/computer-assisted motivating systems for personalized, home-based, stroke rehabilitation. Neuroeng Rehabil 4:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Johnson MJ, Van der Loos HFM, Burgar CG, Leifer LJ (1999) Driver’s SEAT: simulation environment for arm therapy. In: International conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 1999), Stanford, CA, USA, pp 227–234Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnson MJ, Shakya Y, Strachota E, Ahamed SI (2011) Low-cost monitoring of patients during unsupervised robot/computer assisted motivating stroke rehabilitation. Biomed Tech 56:5–9. doi:10.1515/BMT.2010.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jovanov E, Milenkovic A, Otto C, Groen PC (2005) A wireless body area network of intelligent motion sensors for computer assisted physical rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2:6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kahn LE, Zygman ML, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2001) Effect of robot-assisted reaching and unassisted exercise on functional reaching in chronic hemiparesis. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, Instanbul, Turkey, pp 1344–1347Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kim YS, Lee J, Lee S, Kim M (2005) A force reflected exoskeleton-type masterarm for human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A, Syst Humans 35(2):198–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kinsman Enterprises (2007) Product catalog, pp 11. Available at: http://www.kinsmanenterprises.com/
  53. 53.
    Koeneman EJ, Schultz RS, Wolf SL, Herring DE, Koeneman JB (2004) A pneumatic muscle hand therapy device. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference of the IEEE EMBS, 1–5 September, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 2711–2713Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kowalczewski J, Gritsenko V, Ashworth N, Ellaway P, Prochazka A (2007) Upper-extremity functional electric stimulation-assisted exercises on a workstation in the subacute phase of stroke recovery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88:833–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Krebs HI (2007) Robot-mediated movement therapy: a tool for training and evaluation. European symposium technical aids for rehabilitation, TAR 2007, 25–26 January, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT, Aisen ML, Edelstein L, Diels C (1999) Robot-aided neuro- rehabilitation in stroke: three-year follow-up. In: International conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 1999), Stanford, CA, USA, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lambercy O, Dovat L, Johnson V, Salman B, Wong S, Gassert R, Milner T, Leong TC, Burdet E (2007). Development of a robot-assisted rehabilitation therapy to train hand function for activities of daily living. In: Proceedings of IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2007), 12–14 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp 678–82Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lo A, Guarino P et al. (2010) Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 1–13. 16 April, doi:10.1056/nejmoa0911341
  59. 59.
    Loureiro R, Amirabdollahian F, Coote S, Stokes E, Harwin W (2001a). Using haptics technology to deliver motivational therapies in stroke patients: concepts and initial pilot studies. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on haptics (EuroHaptics 2001), educational technology research paper series, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, pp 1–6, ISSN 1463-9394Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Loureiro R, Amirabdollahian F, Driessen B, Harwin W (2001). A novel method for computing natural path for robot assisted movements in synthetic worlds. In: Marincek Crt, Buhler C, Knops H, Andrich R (eds) proceedings association for the advancement of assistive technology in Europe (AAATE 2001), Assistive technology—added value to the quality of life, Assistive technology research series, vol 10. IOS Press, pp 262–267Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Loureiro R, Amirabdollahian F, Topping M, Driessen B, Harwin W (2003) Upper limb mediated stroke therapy—GENTLE/s approach. In special issue on rehabilitation robotics, J Autono Robots, Springer, 15(1):35–51, ISSN: 0929-5593Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS, Collin CF, Johnson M (2005) Technology driven therapy for stroke rehabilitation: beyond hospital treatment. Int J Dis Human Dev 4(3):169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS (2007) Reach and grasp therapy: design and control of a 9-DOF robotic neuro-rehabilitation system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 10th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 12–15 June, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp 757–762Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Loureiro RCV, Johnson M, Harwin WS (2006) Collaborative tele-rehabilitation: a strategy for increasing engagement. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE/RAS-EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics. 20–22 February, Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Loureiro RCV, Lamperd B, Collin C, Harwin WS (2009) Reach and grasp therapy: effects of the Gentle/G system assessing sub-acute stroke whole-arm rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of IEEE 11th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2009), 23–26 June, Kyoto, Japan, pp 755–760Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Kenney DE, Van der Loos MHF (2002) Quantification of force abnormalities during passive and active-assisted upper-limb reaching movements in post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46(6):652–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Van der Loos M (2002) Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(7):952–957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lum PS, Burgar CG, Van der Loos M, Shor PC, Majmundar M, Yap R (2006) MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(5):631–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lum PS, Lehman SL, Reinkensmeyer DJ (1995) The bimanual lifting rehabilitator: an adaptive machine for therapy of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng 3:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lum PS, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Lehman SL (1993) Robotic assist devices for bimanual physical therapy: preliminary experiments. IEEE Trans Rehab Eng 1:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lum PS, Van der Loos M, Shor P, Burgar CG (1999) A robotic system for upper limb exercises to promote recovery of motor function following stroke. In: International conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 1999), Stanford, CA, USA, pp 235–239Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Luo X, Kenyon RV, Kline T, Waldinger HC, Kamper DG (2005) An augmented reality training environment for post-stroke finger extension rehabilitation. Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, June 28–July 1, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 329–32Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Maclean N, Pound P (2000) A critical review of the concept of patient motivation in the literature on physical rehabilitation. Soc Sci Med 50(4):495–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Maclean N, Pound P, Wolfe C, Rudd A (2000) Qualitative analysis of stroke patients’ motivation for rehabilitation. Br Med J 321:1051–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Masiero S, Celia A, Rosati G, Armani M (2007) Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88:142–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mataric MJ, Eriksson J, Fiel-Seifer DJ, Winstein CJ (2007) Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 4:5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Merians A, Poizner H, Boian R, Burdea G, Adamovich S (2006) Sensorymotor training in a virtual environment: does it improve functional recovery post-stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 20(2):252–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Montagner A, Frisoli A, Borelli L, Procopio C, Bergamasco M, Carboncini MC, Rossi B (2007) A pilot clinical study on robotic assisted rehabilitation in VR with an arm exoskeleton.In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual rehabilitation, 27–29 September, Venice, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nagai K, Dake Y, Shiigi Y, Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS (2010) Design of redundant drive joints with double actuation using springs in the second actuator to avoid excessive active torques. In: Proceedings of international conference on robotics and automation 2010 (ICRA 2010), pp 805–812Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nagai K, Kojima Y, Yonemoto S, Okubo T, Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS (2007) Structural design of an escort type rehabilitation robot for post-stroke therapies of upper-limb. In: Proceedings of international conference on rehabilitation robotics 2007 (ICORR 2007), pp 1121–1128Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nagai K, Shiigi Y, Ikegami Y, Loureiro RCV, Harwin WS (2009). Impedance control of redundant drive joints with double actuation. In: Proceedings of international conference on robotics and automation 2009 (ICRA 2009), pp 1528–1534Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nathan D, Johnson MJ (2008) Feasibility of integrating FES grasp assistance with a task-oriented robot-assisted therapy environment: a case study. In: Second annual international conference on biomedical robotics (BioRob 2008), October 2008, Scottsdale, AZGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nathan DE, Johnson MJ, McGuire JM (2009) Design and validation of a low-cost assistive glove for assessment and therapy of the hand during ADL-focused robotic stroke therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev 46(5):587–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nef T, Riener R (2005). ARMin—design of a novel arm rehabilitation robot. In: 9th IEEE conference on rehabilitation robotics, Chicago, USA, pp 57–60Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nef T, Mihelj M, Kiefer G, Pemdl C, Muller R, Riener R (2007) ARMin—exoskeleton arm therapy in stroke patients. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE conference on rehabilitation robotics, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Otto C, Milenkovic A, Sanders C, Jovanov E (2006) System architecture of a wireless body sensor network for ubiquitous health monitoring. J Mobile Multimed 1(4):307–326Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Patton JL, Stoykov ME, Kovic M, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2006) Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors. Exp Brain Res 168(3):368–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Platz T (2003) Evidence-based arm rehabilitation—a systematic review of the literature. Nervenartz 74(10):841–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mehrholz J, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M (2008) Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving arm function and activities of daily living after stroke. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Issue 4. Art. no.: CD006876. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub2
  90. 90.
    Popescu VG, Burdea GC, Bouzit M, Hentz VR (2000) A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 3(1):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Prange G, Jannink M, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Hermens H, IJzerman M (2006) Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(2):171–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Reinkensmeyer DJ, Dewald JP, Rymer WZ (1999) Guidance-based quantification of arm impairment following brain injury: a pilot study. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7(1):1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Reinkensmeyer DJ, Kahn LE, Averbuch M, McKenna-Cole A, Schmit BD, Rymer WZ (2000) Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: progress with the ARM guide. J Rehabil Res Dev 37:653–662PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Reinkensmeyer DJ, Pang CT, Nessler JA, Painter CC (2001) Java therapy: web-based robotic rehabilitation. In: Mounir Mokhtari (ed) Integration of assistive technology in the information age, vol 9. IOS Press, pp 66–71Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Reinkensmeyer DJ, Housman SJ (2007) If I can’t do it once, why do it a hundred times?: Connecting volition to movement success in a virtual environment motivates people to exercise the arm after stroke”. IEEE virtual rehabilitation, 27–29 September, Venice, Italy, pp 44–48Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Riener R (2007) Robot-aided rehabilitation of neural function in the upper extremities. Acta Neurochir Suppl 97(1):465–471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sanchez R, Reinkensmeyer D, Shah P, Liu J, Rao S, Smith R, Cramer S, Rahman T, Bobrow J (2004) Monitoring functional arm movement for home-based therapy after stroke. IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Meeting, San Francisco, CA, September 1–5:4787–4790Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sanchez R, Wolbrecht R, Smith R, Liu J, Rao S, Cramer S, Rahman T, Bobrow J, Reinkensmeyer D (2005) A pneumatic robot for re-training arm movement after stroke: rationale and mechanical design. In: 9th IEEE conference on rehabilitation robotics, June 28–July 1, Chicago, USA, pp 500–504Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Seifer DF, Skinner K, Mataric MJ (2007) Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics, interaction studies: psychological benchmarks of human-robot interaction. 8:3, 423–439Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shakya Y, Johnson MJ (2008) A mobile robot therapist for under-supervised training with robot/computer assisted motivating systems. IEEE EMBS international conference, pp 4511–4514Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Stein J, Narendran K, Mcbean J, Krebs K, Hughes R (2007) Electromyography-controlled exoskeletal upper-limb-powered orthosis for exercise training after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 86:255–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sterr A, Freivogel S, Schmalohr D (2002) Neurobehavioral aspects of recovery: assessment of the learned non-use phenomenon in hemiparetic adolescents. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(12):1726–1731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Sukal TM, Ellis MD, Dewald JPA (2005). Dynamic characterization of upper limb discoordination following hemiparetic stroke. In: 9th IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Chicago, USA, pp 519–521Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sveistrup H (2004). Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J NeuroEng Rehabil 1(10)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le VH, Cramer SC (2005) A robotic device for hand motor therapy after stroke. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, June 28–July 1, Chicago, IL, USA, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Tapus A, Mataric MJ (2006) Towards socially assistive robotics. Int J Robotics Soc 24:5Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Taub E, Wolf SL (1997) Constraint induced movement techniques to facilitate upper extremity use in stroke patients. Topics Stroke Rehabil 3:38–61Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Timmermans A, Seelen H, Willmann RD, Kingma H (2009) Technology-assisted training of arm-hand skills in stroke: concepts on reacquisition of motor control and therapist guidelines for rehabilitation technology design. J NeuroEng Rehabil 6:1. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Toth A, Arz G, Fazekas G, Bratanov D, Zlatov N (2004) Post stroke shoulder-elbow physiotherapy with industrial robots. In: Zenn Bien Z, Dimitar Stefanov (eds) Advances in rehabilitation robotics, human-friendly technologies on movement assistance and restoration for people with disabilities. LNCIS series, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 391–411, ISBN: 3-540-21986-2Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Van der Lee J, Snels I, Beckerman H, Lankhorst G, Wagenaar R, Bouter L (2001) Exercise therapy for arm function in stroke patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil 15(1):20–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Van der Linde RQ, Lammertse P, Frederikson E, Ruiter B (2002) The haptic master, a new high- performance haptic interface. EUROHAPTICS 2002, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Volpe BT, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Edelstein L, Diels CM, Aisen ML (1999) Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years. Neurology 53(8):1874–1876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ziherl J, Novak D, Olen!ek A, Mihelj M, Munih M (2010) Evaluation of upper extremity robot-assistances in subacute and chronic stroke subjects. J Neuroeng Rehabil 7:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rui C. V. Loureiro
    • 1
  • William S. Harwin
    • 2
  • Kiyoshi Nagai
    • 3
  • Michelle Johnson
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Information Sciences, Middlesex UniversityThe Burroughs, Hendon, LondonUK
  2. 2.School of Systems Engineering, The University of ReadingReadingUK
  3. 3.Department of RoboticsCollege of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan UniversityShigaJapan
  4. 4.Medical College of Wisconsin, Physical, Medicine and Rehabilitation MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  5. 5.Biomedical Engineering, Olin Engineering CenterMarquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations