Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a biological signal-based evaluator for robot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation: a pilot study

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bio-signal based assessment for upper-limb functions is an attractive technology for rehabilitation. In this work, an upper-limb function evaluator is developed based on biological signals, which could be used for selecting different robotic training protocols. Interaction force (IF) and participation level (PL, processed surface electromyography (sEMG) signals) are used as the key bio-signal inputs for the evaluator. Accordingly, a robot-based standardized performance testing (SPT) is developed to measure these key bio-signal data. Moreover, fuzzy logic is used to regulate biological signals, and a rules-based selector is then developed to select different training protocols. To the authors’ knowledge, studies focused on biological signal-based evaluator for selecting robotic training protocols, especially for robot-based bilateral rehabilitation, has not yet been reported in literature. The implementation of SPT and fuzzy logic to measure and process key bio-signal data with a rehabilitation robot system is the first of its kind. Five healthy participants were then recruited to test the performance of the SPT, fuzzy logic and evaluator in three different conditions (tasks). The results show: (1) the developed SPT has an ability to measure precise bio-signal data from participants; (2) the utilized fuzzy logic has an ability to process the measured data with the accuracy of 86.7% and 100% for the IF and PL respectively; and (3) the proposed evaluator has an ability to distinguish the intensity of biological signals and thus to select different robotic training protocols. The results from the proposed evaluator, and biological signals measured from healthy people could also be used to standardize the criteria to assess the results of stroke patients later.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sheng B, Zhang Y, Meng W, Deng C, Xie S (2016) Bilateral robots for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 38(7):587–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, Jansen-Troy A, Leonhardt S (2014) A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11(1):3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7(1):13–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohannon RW, Smith MB (1987) Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 67(2):206–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosecker C, Dipietro L, Volpe B, Igo Krebs H (2010) Kinematic robot-based evaluation scales and clinical counterparts to measure upper limb motor performance in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24(1):62–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Kan GA, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, Bauer J, Beauchet O, Bonnefoy M, Cesari M, Donini L, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Inzitari M (2009) Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an International Academy on Nutrition and Aging (IANA) Task Force. J Nutr Health Aging 13(10):881–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Otten P, Kim J, Son SH (2015) A framework to automate assessment of upper-limb motor function impairment: a feasibility study. Sensors 15(8):20097–20114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Balasubramanian S, Colombo R, Sterpi I, Sanguineti V, Burdet E (2012) Robotic assessment of upper limb motor function after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 91(11):S255–S269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. de los Reyes-Guzmán A, Dimbwadyo-Terrer I, Trincado-Alonso F, Monasterio-Huelin F, Torricelli D, Gil-Agudo A (2014) Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: a review. Clin Biomech 29(7):719–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wünsche B (2014) Assessment of movement quality in robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11(1):137

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Krebs HI, Hogan N, Aisen ML, Volpe BT (1998) Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 6(1):75–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Park H-S, Kim J, Damiano DL (2012) Development of a haptic elbow spasticity simulator (HESS) for improving accuracy and reliability of clinical assessment of spasticity. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 20(3):361–370

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ma Y, Xie S, Zhang Y (2016) A patient-specific EMG-driven neuromuscular model for the potential use of human-inspired gait rehabilitation robots. Comput Biol Med 70:88–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G, Disselhorst-Klug C, Hägg G (1999) European recommendations for surface electromyography. Roessingh Res Dev 8(2):13–54

    Google Scholar 

  15. De Luca CJ (1997) The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech 13(2):135–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rechy-Ramirez EJ, Hu H (2015) Bio-signal based control in assistive robots: a survey. Digital Commun Netw 1(2):85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cavanagh PR, Komi PV (1979) Electromechanical delay in human skeletal muscle under concentric and eccentric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 42(3):159–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shao Q, Bassett DN, Manal K, Buchanan TS (2009) An EMG-driven model to estimate muscle forces and joint moments in stroke patients. Comput Biol Med 39(12):1083–1088

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Au AT, Kirsch RF (2000) EMG-based prediction of shoulder and elbow kinematics in able-bodied and spinal cord injured individuals. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 8(4):471–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. James CJ, Jones RD, Bones PJ, Carroll GJ (1999) Detection of epileptiform discharges in the EEG by a hybrid system comprising mimetic, self-organized artificial neural network, and fuzzy logic stages. Clin Neurophysiol 110(12):2049–2063

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Si Y, Gotman J, Pasupathy A, Flanagan D, Rosenblatt B, Gottesman R (1998) An expert system for EEG monitoring in the pediatric intensive care unit. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 106(6):488–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang Z, Liparulo L, Panella M, Gu X, Fang Q (2015) A fuzzy kernel motion classifier for autonomous stroke rehabilitation. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 99:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  23. Letham B, Rudin C, McCormick TH, Madigan D (2015) Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: building a better stroke prediction model. Ann Appl Stat 9(3):1350–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheng B, Zhang Y, Tang L, Xie S, Deng C (2018) A bilateral training system for upper-limb rehabilitation: a follow-up study. In: 2018 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics (AIM). IEEE, pp 839–844

  25. Seeder L (1983) Muscle strength grading. Ann Emerg Med 12(6):407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Islam F, Shoilee SBA, Shams M, Rahman RM (2017) Potential risk factor analysis and risk prediction system for stroke using fuzzy logic. In: Computer science on-line conference. Springer, New York, pp 262–272

  27. Lilly JH (2011) Fuzzy control and identification. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  28. Musikasuwan S, Garibaldi J (2006) Exploring Gaussian and triangular primary membership functions in non-stationary fuzzy sets. In: Proceedings of information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge based systems

  29. Zhao J, Bose BK (2002) Evaluation of membership functions for fuzzy logic controlled induction motor drive. In: IECON 02 IEEE 2002 28th annual conference of the Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE, pp 229–234

  30. Mamdani EH, Assilian S (1975) An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int J Man Mach Stud 7(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brunnstrom S (1956) Associated reactions of the upper extremity in adult patients with hemiplegia: an approach to training. Phys Ther 36(4):225–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chatterjee S (2015) Brunnstrom concept. SlideShare. https://www.slideshare.net/Drsubhasishchatterje/brunnstrom

  33. Saebo (2015) The Brunnstrom stages of stroke recovery. Saebo movement. https://www.saebo.com/the-stages-of-stroke-recovery/

  34. Kronberg M, NÉmeth G, Broström L (1990) Muscle activity and coordination in the normal shoulder. An electromyographic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:76–85

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jobe FW, Tibone JE, Perry J, Moynes D (1983) An EMG analysis of the shoulder in throwing and pitching: a preliminary report. Am J Sports Med 11(1):3–5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moseley JRJB, Jobe FW, Pink M, Perry J, Tibone J (1992) EMG analysis of the scapular muscles during a shoulder rehabilitation program. Am J Sports Med 20(2):128–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu X, Tong K, Song R, Zheng X, Lui K, Leung W, Ng S, Au-Yeung S (2009) Quantitative evaluation of motor functional recovery process in chronic stroke patients during robot-assisted wrist training. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19(4):639–650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sharma N, Classen J, Cohen LG (2013) Neural plasticity and its contribution to functional recovery. Handbook of clinical neurology, vol 110. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  39. Carmichael ST (2016) Phases of stroke recovery: cellular and molecular mechanisms. American society of neurorehabilitation. https://www.asnr.com/files/2016%20Annual%20Meeting/Carmichel%20Phases%20of%20Stroke%20Recovery%20ASNR.pdf

  40. Volpe B, Krebs H, Hogan N, Edelstein L, Diels C, Aisen M (2000) A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation robot-aided sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology 54(10):1938–1944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pau JW, Xie SS, Pullan AJ (2012) Neuromuscular interfacing: establishing an EMG-driven model for the human elbow joint. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(9):2586–2593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Clarkson HM (2000) Musculoskeletal assessment: joint range of motion and manual muscle strength. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hu X, Tong K, Tsang VS, Song R (2006) Joint-angle–dependent neuromuscular dysfunctions at the wrist in persons after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87(5):671–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sheng B, Tang L, Xie S, Deng C, Zhang Y (2019) Alterations in muscle activation patterns during robot-assisted bilateral training: a pilot study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 233(2):219–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chan AD, Englehart KB (2004) Continuous myoelectric control for powered prostheses using hidden Markov models. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52(1):121–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ajiboye AB, Weir RF (2005) A heuristic fuzzy logic approach to EMG pattern recognition for multifunctional prosthesis control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13(3):280–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Huang H-P, Chen C-Y (1999) Development of a myoelectric discrimination system for a multi-degree prosthetic hand. In: Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288C). IEEE, pp 2392–2397

  48. Subasi A, Gursoy MI (2010) EEG signal classification using PCA, ICA, LDA and support vector machines. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):8659–8666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bu N, Okamoto M, Tsuji T (2009) A hybrid motion classification approach for EMG-based human–robot interfaces using Bayesian and neural networks. IEEE T Robot 25(3):502–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sabeti M, Boostani R, Katebi S, Price G (2007) Selection of relevant features for EEG signal classification of schizophrenic patients. Biomed Signal Process Control 2(2):122–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yom-Tov E, Inbar GF (2002) Feature selection for the classification of movements from single movement-related potentials. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 10(3):170–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wei L, Hu H (2010) EMG and visual based HMI for hands-free control of an intelligent wheelchair. In: 2010 8th world congress on intelligent control and automation. IEEE, pp 1027–1032

  53. Dzierzanowski JM, Bourne JR, Shiavi R, Sandell HS, Guy D (1985) GAITSPERT: an expert system for the evaluation of abnormal human locomotion arising from stroke. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 11:935–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Xu X, Zhang L, Wang Z (2015) Stroke risk prediction system based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Comput Simul 32(7):344–347

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research supported by the Faculty Research Development Fund of the University of Auckland under Grant No. 3717395, the International S&T Cooperation Program of China (ISTCP) under Grant No. 2016YFE0121700, the Science and Technology Development Fund of Macao S.A.R (FDCT) under MoST-FDCT joint Grant No. 015/2015/AMJ, and China Sponsorship Council under Grant No. 201508250001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Bo Sheng & Lihua Tang

  2. Department of Exercise Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Bo Sheng, Oscar Moroni Moosman & Yanxin Zhang

  3. School of Mechanical Science & Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China

    Chao Deng

  4. School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Shane Xie

Authors
  1. Bo Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lihua Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oscar Moroni Moosman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chao Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shane Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yanxin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanxin Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The ethical approval has been approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (reference 015256).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 640 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sheng, B., Tang, L., Moosman, O.M. et al. Development of a biological signal-based evaluator for robot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation: a pilot study. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 42, 789–801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00783-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00783-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation