International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 89–103 | Cite as

SAM, an Assistive Robotic Device Dedicated to Helping Persons with Quadriplegia: Usability Study

  • Charles FattalEmail author
  • Violaine Leynaert
  • Isabelle Laffont
  • Axelle Baillet
  • Michel Enjalbert
  • Christophe Leroux


The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the technology readiness level of a prototype named “SAM” that consists of a robotic arm mounted on a mobile base. Usability and acceptance assessments were performed in patients with high-level quadriplegia. Seventeen patients with quadriplegia were trained to pick up three different objects in three different situations amounting to scenarios 1, 2 and 3. Each scenario was observed over the 5 steps of its execution. For each step, usability and acceptability parameters were measured. The success rate was optimal or acceptable (70–100%) for (step 1) identifying the room where the object was located, (step 2) directing SAM towards the object and (step 5) monitoring the return of SAM and dropping the object. Designating and validating the object (step 3), approaching and grasping the object (step 4) were rarely completed without any mistake. A majority of patients (70.6%) saw the usage of SAM as an interesting perspective for daily tasks (58.8%) as well as in the potential reorganising of the caregivers’ time (47%). This study suggests that the usage of SAM allows patients with quadriplegia to grab objects both within and out of their field of view. Possibilities allowing the act of seizure are increased via a user-friendly interface which is yet to be improved. Its technology readiness level has been estimated 5.


Robotics Human machine interface Usability Acceptability Disability Quadriplegia 



Activities of daily living


Assistive robotics to maintain individuals in their natural environment


Human machine interface


Physical medicine and rehabilitation


Technology readiness level



Translation Benedicte Clement and Noor Riazul. Prototype development Partners: CEA List, LASMEA, CNRS-LIMSI, VOXLER, ROBOSOFT and APPROCHE.


This study was funded by the French National Research Agency (TecSan Project Technologies for health and autonomy).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee on April 9th, 2013 (ref # 13 03 04).

Informed Consent

All study participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment.


  1. 1.
    United Nations (2015) World population prospects: the 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jackson AB, Dijkers M, Devivo MJ, Poczatek RB (2004) A demographic profile of new traumatic spinal cord injuries: change and stability over 30 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:1740–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fragonard B (2011) Stratégie pour la couverture de la dépendance des personnes âgées. Ministère des Solidarités et de la Cohésion Sociale, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bien ZZ, Lee H-E, Do J-H et al (2008) Intelligent interaction for human-friendly service robot in smart house environment. Int J Comput Intell Syst 1:77–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsui KM, Feil-Seifer DJ, Matarić MJ, Yanco HA (2009) Performance evaluation methods for assistive robotic technology. In: Madhavan R, Tunstel E, Messina E (eds) Performance evaluation and benchmarking of intelligent systems. Springer, US, Boston, MA, pp 41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Hsieh JTC et al (2012) The health and life priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma 29:1548–1555. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balaguer C, Gimenez A, Jardon A, et al (2005) Live experimentation of the service robot applications for elderly people care in home environments. In: 2005 IEEERSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2345–2350Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bai J, Song A, Xu B et al (2017) A novel human–robot cooperative method for upper extremity rehabilitation. Int J Soc Robot 9:265–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brose SW, Weber DJ, Salatin BA et al (2010) The role of assistive robotics in the lives of persons with disability. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 89:509–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maheu V, Frappier J, Archambault PS, Routhier F (2011) Evaluation of the JACO robotic arm: clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities. In: IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot Proc 2011, p 5975397.
  11. 11.
    Pazzaglia M, Molinari M (2016) The embodiment of assistive devices-from wheelchair to exoskeleton. Phys Life Rev 16:163–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song A, Wu C, Ni D et al (2016) One-therapist to three-patient telerehabilitation robot system for the upper limb after stroke. Int J Soc Robot 8:319–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang PH, Park H-S (2003) Development of a robotic arm for handicapped people: a task-oriented design approach. Auton Robots 15:81–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coignard P, Departe JP, Remy Neris O et al (2013) ANSO study: evaluation in an indoor environment of a mobile assistance robotic grasping arm. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 56:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen JR, Karchak A, Bontrager EL (1972) Final project report: design and fabricate a pair of rancho anthropomorphic manipulator. Rancho Los Amigos Hospital, DowneyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guittet J, Kwee H, Quetin N, Yclon J (1979) The Spartacus telethesis: manipulator control studies. Bull Prosth Res 10–13:69–105Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Busnel M, Cammoun R, Coulon-Lauture F et al (1999) The robotized workstation “MASTER” for users with tetraplegia: description and evaluation. J Rehabil Res Dev 36:217–229Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagner JJ, Van der Loos HF (2004) Training strategies for the user interface of vocational assistive robots. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 7:5423–5425. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topping M (2002) An overview of the development of Handy 1, a rehabilitation robot to assist the severely disabled. J Intell Robot Syst 34:253–263. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Driessen BJ, Evers HG, van Woerden JA (2001) MANUS-a wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation robot. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 215:285–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dune C, Leroux C, Marchand E (2007) Intuitive human interaction with an arm robot for severely handicapped people—a one click approach—IEEE Xplore DocumentGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahoney R (2001) The Raptor wheelchair robot system. In: Integration of Assistive Technology in the Information Age ICORR 2001, pp 135–141Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Graf B, Hans M, Schraft RD (2004) Care-O-bot II—development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Auton Robots 16:193–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bedaf S, Marti P, Amirabdollahian F, de Witte L (2017) A multi-perspective evaluation of a service robot for seniors: the voice of different stakeholders. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lebec O, Ben Ghezala MW, Leynart V et al (2013) High level functions for the intuitive use of an assistive robot. In: IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot Proc 2013, p 6650374.
  26. 26.
    Dario P, Guglielmelli E, Genovese V, Toro M (1996) Robot assistants: applications and evolution. Robot Auton Syst 18:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Fattal
    • 1
    • 2
    • 8
    Email author
  • Violaine Leynaert
    • 3
  • Isabelle Laffont
    • 4
  • Axelle Baillet
    • 5
  • Michel Enjalbert
    • 6
  • Christophe Leroux
    • 7
  1. 1.CRF COS DivioDijonFrance
  2. 2.APPROCHEPloemeurFrance
  3. 3.APPROCHEMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.CHU Lapeyronie Service MPRMontpellierFrance
  5. 5.CENTRE Jacques CalvéBerck-sur-MerFrance
  6. 6.USSAP, Centre Bouffard-VercelliCerbèreFrance
  7. 7.Interactive Robotics LabCEA LIST DIASIGif Sur YvetteFrance
  8. 8.CRF La ChâtaigneraieMenucourtFrance

Personalised recommendations