Comparative Study of Tangible Tabletop and Computer-Based Training Interfaces for Cognitive Rehabilitation

  • Kyuye Song
  • Sekwang Lee
  • Sung-Bom Pyun
  • Laehyun KimEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9739)


Computer-based training (CBT) has lately been applied for the cognitive rehabilitation of stroke patients. However, most CBT programs do not consider body movement, which is important for cognitive rehabilitation because body movement (action) and thought (mind) are deeply correlated. Based on the coupling of action and mind, we propose a tangible tabletop-based training (TTBT) platform, E-CORE. We conducted a comparative study between E-CORE (TTBT) and RehaCom (CBT), for which we recruited eight patients as participants. We used the performance score yielded by the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), the System Usability Scale (SUS), and the Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (QUIS) for quantitative analysis, and observation and semi-structured interviews as tools for qualitative analysis. Even though the user group was comparatively small, we found that E-CORE (TTBT) increases patients’ motivation for rehabilitation.


Cognitive rehabilitation Stroke User interfaces Tangible tabletop Computer-based training 



Authors would like to thank the volunteers for participating in this study. This study was partly supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP, 10045452), and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea and the Korea government (MSIP, NRF-2015M3C7A1065049).


  1. 1.
    National Stroke Association (2000). Accessed 28 July 2015
  2. 2.
    Belleville, S.: Cognitive training for persons with mild cognitive impairment. Int. Psychogeriatr. 20, 57–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diller, L., Weinberg, J.: Differential aspects of attention in brain-damaged persons. Percept. Mot. Skills 35, 71–81 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diller, L., Weinberg, J.: Hemi-inattention in rehabilitation and the evolution of a rational remediation program. In: Weinstein, E.A., Freidland, R.P. (eds.) Advances in Neurology. Raven Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belleville, S.: Cognitive training for persons with mild cognitive impairment. Int. Psychogeriatr. 20, 57–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faucounau, V., Wu, Y.H., Boulay, M., De Rotrou, J., Rigaud, A.S.: Cognitive intervention programmes on patients affected by mild cognitive impairment: a promising intervention tool for MCI? J. Nutr. Health Aging 14, 31–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nudo, R.J.: Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarction. Science 272, 1791–1794 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maclean, N., Pound, P., Wolfe, C., Rudd, A.: Qualitative analysis of stroke patients’ motivation for rehabilitation. BMJ 321(7268), 1051–1054 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jack, D., Boian, R., Merians, A., Tremaine, M., Burdea, G., Adamovich, S., et al.: Virtual reality -enhanced stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neurol. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 9, 308–318 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klemmer, S.R., Hartmann, B., Takayama, L.: How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 140–149. ACM, June 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reis, A., Petersson, K.M., Castro-Caldas, A., Ingvar, M.: Formal schooling influences two-but not three dimensional naming skills. Brain Cogn. 47, 397–411 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herrera, C., Chambon, C., Michel, B.F., Paban, V., Alescio-Lautier, B.: Positive effects of computer-based cognitive training in adults with mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia 50(8), 1871–1881 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barnes, D.E., Yaffe, K., Belfor, N., Jagust, W.J., DeCarli, C., Reed, B.R., Kramer, J.H.: Computer-based cognitive training for mild cognitive impairment: results from a pilot randomized, controlled trial. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 23(3), 205 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lányi, C.S., Geiszt, Z., Magyar, V.: Using IT to inform and rehabilitate aphasic patients. Inf. Sci. J. 9, 163–179 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuhfried GmbH: RehaCom catalogue. GmbH, December 2009.
  16. 16.
    Ullmer, B., Ishii, H.: Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Syst. J. 39, 915–931 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sitdhisanguan, K., Dechaboon, A., Chotikakamthorn, N., Out, P.: Comparative study of WIMP and tangible user interfaces in training shape matching skill for autistic children. In: TENCON 2007 IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp. 1-4. IEEE, October 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Annett, M., Anderson, F., Goertzen, D., Halton, J., Ranson, Q., Bischof, W.F., Boulanger, P.: Using a multi-touch tabletop for upper extremity motor rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7, pp. 261–264. ACM, November 2009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung, J., Kim, L., Park, S., Kwon, G.H.: E-CORE (Embodied COgnitive REhabilitation): a cognitive rehabilitation system using tangible tabletop interface. In: Pons, J.L., Torricelli, D., Pajaro, M. (eds.) Converging Clinical & Engi. Research on NR, vol. 1, pp. 893–897. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Verbal reports data. Psychol. Rev. 1980(87), 215–251 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 213–218. ACM, May 1988Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leitner, M., Tomitsch, M., Költringer, T., Kappel, K., Grechenig, T.: Designing tangible table-top interfaces for patients in rehabilitation. In: CVHI (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marques, T., Nunes, F., Silva, P., Rodrigues, R.: Tangible interaction on tabletops for elderly people. In: Anacleto, J.C., Fels, S., Graham, N., Kapralos, B., Saif El-Nasr, M., Stanley, K. (eds.) ICEC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6972, pp. 440–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arsic, S., Konstantinovic, L., Eminovic, F., Pavlovic, D., Popovic, M.B., Arsic, V.: Correlation between the quality of attention and cognitive competence with motor action in stroke patients. BioMed Res. Int. 2015 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyuye Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sekwang Lee
    • 3
  • Sung-Bom Pyun
    • 3
  • Laehyun Kim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Bionics Korea Institute of Science and TechnologySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of HCI and RoboticsUniversity of Science and TechnologyDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationKorea University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations