The Mechatronic Device for the Hand and Forearm Rehabilitation
The mechatronic device has been designed and implemented based on the comprehensive rehabilitation of the paretic upper limb. This system has been prepared for an individual approach to the recovery process including diagnostics, passive or active exercises with biofeedback and reports. The mechatronic device consists of a three basic cooperating parts: mechatronic frame with module for hand and forearm rehabilitation, glove for the hand rehabilitation and module for health hand. This mechatronic device was developed in order to realize a passive exercises and active exercises with paralysed limb using the healthy limb to conduct these exercises. A very important part of rehabilitation is to introduce biofeedback (e.g. visual and auditory) to motion exercises. This paper presents the main technical characteristics of the project, especially design, kinematics and dynamics of the device and the details of the hardware/software system. This paper suggests a new approach to the rehabilitation device for the spastic upper limb of stroke survivors. The functionality of the mechatronic device for hand and forearm rehabilitation have been presented during the first tests, and preliminary assessment of usability and acceptance is promising.
KeywordsRehabilitation device Hardware and software system Biofeedback
The innovative features and the unconventional way of running exercises with the presented device is further proven by the fact that a patent application No P.419380 and P. 419381 for this device to rehabilitate one’s physical and learning abilities has been filed.
This work was supported in part the Vice-Rector for Research the Rzeszow University of Technology (DS/M.MA.17.001).
- 2.Stroke Association, Research Spend in the UK: Comparing stroke, cancer, coronary heart disease and dementia 2014. http://www.stroke.org.uk/research-spend-uk. Accessed 9 Jan 2017
- 4.Tutak, J.S.: Virtual reality and exercises for paretic upper limb of stroke survivors. TV-TG 24(2), 451–458 (2017)Google Scholar
- 7.Fazekas, G., Horvath, M., Troznai, T., et al.: Robot-mediated upper limb physiotherapy for patients with spastic hemiparesis: a preliminary study. JJRM 39(7), 580–582 (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Gunasekara, M., Gopura, R., Jayawardena, S.: 6-REXOS: upper limb exoskeleton robot with improved pHRI. IJARS 4, 1–13 (2015)Google Scholar
- 10.Kudasik, T., Libura, M., Markowska, O., Miechowicz, S.: Methods of reconstructing complex multi-structural anatomical objects with RP techniques. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Techn. Sci. 64(2), 315–323 (2016)Google Scholar
- 11.Hesse, S.: Recovery of gait and other motor functions after stroke: novel physical and pharmacological treatment strategies. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 22(3–5), 359–369 (2004)Google Scholar
- 13.Pistohl, T., Joshi, D., Ganesh, G., et al.: Artificial proprioceptive feedback for myoelectric control. TNSRE 3, 498–507 (2015)Google Scholar
- 14.Ozkul, F., Barkana, D.E.: Upper-extremity rehabilitation robot RehabRoby: methodology, design, usability and validation. IJARS 10, 1–13 (2013)Google Scholar
- 20.Szuster, M., Gierlak, P.: Approximate dynamic programming in tracking control of a robotic manipulator. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 13(16), 1–18 (2016)Google Scholar
- 21.Dong-Yuan, G., Xi-Fan, Y., Qing-He, Y., et al.: Robot sensor calibration via neural network and particle swarm optimization enhanced with crossover and mutation. TV-TG 21(5), 1025–1033 (2014)Google Scholar
- 26.Hendzel, Z., Burghardt, A., Szuster, M.: Reinforcement learning in discrete neural control of the underactuated system. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, Lotfi A., Zurada, Jacek M. (eds.) ICAISC 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7894, pp. 64–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38658-9_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar