MAGNI: A Real-Time Robot-Aided Game-Based Tele-Rehabilitation System

  • Srujana GattupalliEmail author
  • Alexandros Lioulemes
  • Shawn N. Gieser
  • Paul Sassaman
  • Vassilis Athitsos
  • Fillia Makedon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9739)


During the last two decades, robotic rehabilitation has become widespread, particularly for upper limb physical rehabilitation. Major findings prove that the efficacy of robot-assisted rehabilitation can be increased by motivation and engagement, which is offered by exploiting the opportunities of gamification and exergaming. This paper presents a tele-rehabilitation framework to enable interaction between therapists and patients and is a combination of a graphical user interface and a high dexterous robotic arm. The system, called MAGNI, integrates a 3D exercise game with a robotic arm, operated by therapist in order to assign in real-time the prerecorded exercises to the patients. We propose a game that can be played by a patient who has suffered an injury to their arm (e.g. Stroke, Spinal Injury, or some physical injury to the shoulder itself). The experimental results and the feedback from the participants show that the system has the potential to impact how robotic physical therapy addresses specific patient’s needs and how occupational therapists assess patient’s progress over time.


HCI Upper-limb rehabilitation Gamification 



This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under award numbers NSF-1338118 and NSF-1055062. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank Dr. Fillia Makedon who taught the Special Topics in HCI Course, in which this project was a part of.


  1. 1.
    Lloyd-Jones, D., Adams, R., Carnethon, M., De Simone, G., Ferguson, T.B., Flegal, K., Ford, E., Furie, K., Go, A., Greenlund, K., et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics—2009 update a report from the american heart association statistics committee and stroke statistics subcommittee. Circulation 119(3), e21–e181 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolf, S.L., Winstein, C.J., Miller, J.P., Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Morris, D., Giuliani, C., Light, K.E., Nichols-Larsen, D., Investigators, E., et al.: Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the excite randomized clinical trial. JAMA 296(17), 2095–2104 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green, J.B.: Brain reorganization after stroke. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 10(3), 1–20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, T.A., Allred, R.P., Adkins, D.L., Hsu, J.E., O’Bryant, A., Maldonado, M.A.: Remodeling the brain with behavioral experience after stroke. Stroke 40(3 suppl. 1), S136–S138 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwakkel, G., van Peppen, R., Wagenaar, R.C., Dauphinee, S.W., Richards, C., Ashburn, A., Miller, K., Lincoln, N., Partridge, C., Well-wood, I., et al.: Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke a meta-analysis. Stroke 35(11), 2529–2539 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teasell, R., Bitensky, J., Salter, K., Bayona, N.A.: The role of timing and intensity of rehabilitation therapies. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 12(3), 46–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riener, R., Nef, T., Colombo, G.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper extremities. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 43(1), 2–10 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N., Aisen, M.L., Volpe, B.T.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 6(1), 75–87 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burgar, C.G., Lum, P.S., Shor, P.C., Van der Loos, H.M.: Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the palo alto va/stanford experience. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 37(6), 663–674 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Celik, O., O’Malley, M.K., Boake, C., Levin, H., Fischer, S., Reistetter, T.: Comparison of robotic and clinical motor function improvement measures for sub-acute stroke patients. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2008, pp. 2477–2482. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Celik, O., O’Malley, M.K., Boake, C., Levin, H.S., Yozbatiran, N., Reistetter, T.A.: Normalized movement quality measures for therapeutic robots strongly correlate with clinical motor impairment measures. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18(4), 433–444 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klamroth-Marganska, V., Blanco, J., Campen, K., Curt, A., Dietz, V., Ettlin, T., Felder, M., Fellinghauer, B., Guidali, M., Kollmar, A., et al.: Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 13(2), 159–166 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phan, S., Lioulemes, A., Lutterodt, C., Makedon, F., Metsis, V.: Guided physical therapy through the use of the barrett wam robotic arm. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Haptic, Audio and Visual Environments and Games (HAVE), pp. 24–28. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perry, J.C., Rosen, J., Burns, S.: Upper-limb powered exoskeleton design. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 12(4), 408–417 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, A., O’Malley, M.K.: Design of a haptic arm exoskeleton for training and rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 11(3), 280–289 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maclean, N., Pound, P., Wolfe, C., Rudd, A.: Qualitative analysis of stroke patients’ motivation for rehabilitation. BMJ 321(7268), 1051–1054 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Balaam, M., Rennick Egglestone, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Rodden, T., Hughes, A.M., Wilkinson, A., Mawson, S.: Motivating mobility: designing for lived motivation in stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3073–3082. ACM, May 2011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alankus, G., Lazar, A., May, M., Kelleher, C.: Towards customizable games for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2113–2122. ACM, April 2010Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohammadi, A., Tavakoli, M., Marquez, H., Hashemzadeh, F.: Non-linear disturbance observer design for robotic manipulators. Control Eng. Pract. 21(3), 253–267 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lioulemes, A., Sassaman, P., Gieser, S.N., Makedon, F., Metsis, V.: Self-managed patient-game interaction using the barrett wam arm for motion analysis. In: 8th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Technologies, PETRA. ACM, July 2015Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    1st Providers Choice, “Physical therapy emr”.
  23. 23.
    Goodrich, M.A., Colton, M., Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., Atherton, J.A., Robinson, L., Ricks, D., Maxfield, M.H., Acerson, A.: Incorporating a robot into an autism therapy team. IEEE Intell. Syst. 27(2), 52–60 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kruskall, J., Liberman, M.: The symmetric time warping algorithm: from continuous to discrete time warps, string edits and macro-molecules (1983)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, H., Stefan, A., Moradi, S., Athitsos, V., Neidle, C., Kamangar, F.: A system for large vocabulary sign search. In: Kutulakos, K.N. (ed.) ECCV 2010 Workshops, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6553, pp. 342–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matthews, M., Gay, G., Doherty, G.: Taking part: role-play in the design of therapeutic systems. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 643–652. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lioulemes, A.: Adaptive user and haptic interfaces for smart assessment and training. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2016 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion. ACM (2016) (manuscript has been accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McMurrough, C.D., Lioulemes, A., Phan, S., Makedon, F.: 3D mapping of visual attention for smart rehabilitation. In: 8th Interational Conference on Pervasisve Technologies Related to Assistive Technologies, PETRA. ACM, July 2015Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Product. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
  30. 30.
    Theofanidis, M., Lioulemes, A., Makedon, F.: A motion and force analysis system for human upper-limb exercises. In: 9th Interational Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Technologies, PETRA. ACM, July 2015Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Srujana Gattupalli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandros Lioulemes
    • 2
  • Shawn N. Gieser
    • 2
  • Paul Sassaman
    • 2
  • Vassilis Athitsos
    • 1
  • Fillia Makedon
    • 2
  1. 1.VLM - The Vision-Learning-Mining Research Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.HERACLEIA - Human-Center Computing Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations