Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 189–207 | Cite as

Gesture recognition for control of rehabilitation robots

  • L. Gerlich
  • B. N. Parsons
  • A. S. White
  • S. Prior
  • P. Warner
Original Article


This paper describes the development of a control user interface for a wheelchair-mounted manipulator for use by severely disabled persons. It explains the construction of the interface using tasks to define the user interface architecture. The prototype robot used several gesture recognition systems to achieve a level of usability better than other robots used for rehabilitation at the time. The use of neural networks and other procedures is evaluated. It outlines the experiments used to evaluate the user responses and draws conclusions about the effectiveness of the whole system. It demonstrates the possibility of control using a head mouse.


User interface Rehabilitation robotics Gesture recognition Neural networks 


  1. Batavia AI, Hammer GS (1990) Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. J Rehabil Res Dev 27(4):425–436Google Scholar
  2. Bishop CM (1995) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853864-2Google Scholar
  3. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell AL (1983) The psychology of human computer interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale. ISBN 0-898-592-437Google Scholar
  4. Dallaway J, Timmers P (1995) Rehabilitation robotics in Europe. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 3:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B (1996) Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology. Assist Technol 8(1):3–15Google Scholar
  6. Harrington ME, Daniel RW, Kyberd PJ (1995) A measurement system for the recognition of arm gestures using accelerometers. Proc Inst Mech Eng 209(2):129–134Google Scholar
  7. Harwin WS, Jackson RD (1990) Analysis of intentional head gestures to assist computer access by physically disabled people. J Biomed Eng 12:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hillman M (1992) Rehabilitation robotics. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 4(1):79–103Google Scholar
  9. Hillman M, Jepson J (1992) Evaluation of a robotic workstation for the disabled. J Biomed Eng 14:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hrycej T (1991) Back to single layer learning principles. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Seattle, 1991Google Scholar
  11. Hush DR, Horne BG (1993) Progress in supervised neural networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, January 1993, pp 8–39Google Scholar
  12. Kassler M (1993) Introduction to the special issue on robotics for health care. Robotica 11:493–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keates S, Langdon P, Clarkson PJ, Robinson P (2004) User models and user physical capability, User modelling and user adapted interaction 12(2–3):139–169Google Scholar
  14. Kieras DE (1988) Towards a practical GOMS model methodology for user interface design. Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 0444 705 368Google Scholar
  15. Kwee HH, Duimel JJ (1988) The MANUS Wheelchair-Borne manipulator: developments towards a production model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology, pp 440–461Google Scholar
  16. Mahoney RM (1997) Robotic products for rehabilitation: status and strategy. International Conference of Rehabilitation Robotics, Bath University, UK, pp 12–17Google Scholar
  17. McEachern W, Perricos C, Jackson R (1994) Head gesture assisted direct control of a rehabilitation manipulation system. ICORR 94:49–54Google Scholar
  18. Neilson J (1994) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York, pp 5–6. ISBN 04710 187 75Google Scholar
  19. Nielsen J, Phillips V (1993) Estimating the relative usability of two interfaces: heuristic, formal, and empirical methods compared. Human Factors in Computing Systems, Conf. Proc., pp 214–221Google Scholar
  20. Parsons B, White A, Prior S, Warner P (2005) The Middlesex university rehabilitation robot. J Med Eng Technol 29(4):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parsons B, White A, Warner P (2006) Validation of a user interface for a rehabilitation robot. Univers Access Inf Soc 5(3):306–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prior SD (1990) An electric wheelchair-mounted robotic arm—a survey of potential users. J Med Eng Technol 14(4):143–154Google Scholar
  23. Prior SD (1993) Investigations into the design of a wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation robotic manipulator, PhD thesis, Middlesex UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith J, Topping M (1997) Study to determine the main factors leading to the overall success of the Handy 1 robotic system. International Conference of Rehabilitation Robotics, Bath University, UK, pp 147–150Google Scholar
  25. Tew AI, Gray CJ (1993) A real-time gesture recognizer. J Biomed Eng 15:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Topping M (1995) The development of HANDY 1 a robotic aid to independence for the severely disabled. IEE Colloquium on Mechatronic Aids for the Disabled, University of Dundee, UK, pp 1–6. Digest No 1995/107Google Scholar
  27. Verburg G, Kwee H, Wisaksana A, Cheetham A, Woerden JA (1995) “Manus: the evolution of an assistive technology. Technol Disabil 5:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wasserman PD (1989) Neural computing-theory and practice. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. ISBN 0 442 20743 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Gerlich
    • 1
  • B. N. Parsons
    • 2
  • A. S. White
    • 3
  • S. Prior
    • 4
  • P. Warner
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering SystemsMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.Becrypt LtdWyrols CourtBerkshireUK
  3. 3.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  4. 4.Product Design and EngineeringMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations