Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study of end-effector and exoskeleton type rehabilitation robots in human upper extremity rehabilitation

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Human-Intelligent Systems Integration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rehabilitation programs promote functional recovery among disabled individuals. Robot-aided rehabilitation is a systematic way to use robotics systems for rehabilitation purposes. Recently it has received much research attention due to its efficacy in tirelessly offering various types of physical therapies. Robot-assisted rehabilitation technology is advancing at such a high pace that it may replace human-assisted physical therapy in the future. Currently, robot-assisted rehabilitation is dominated by end-effector-type and exoskeleton-type rehabilitation robots. Understanding both types of systems is essential to escalating the development and use of robot-assisted rehabilitation technologies. This paper presented the broad categorization, comparisons, and overview of the end-effector type and exoskeleton type rehabilitation robots based on the recently developed human upper extremity rehabilitation robots. By contrasting the available options, the major challenges associated with developing and commercializing assistive upper extremity robots are brought to light. While reviewing the articles, the focus is given to the robots’ mechanical design and control architecture. Current advancements and future directions are logically evaluated regarding their standard features and functional variances.

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AbdulKareem AH, AS Adila G Husi (2018) Recent trends in robotic systems for upper-limb stroke recovery: a low-cost hand and wrist rehabilitation device. In: 2018 2nd International symposium on small-scale intelligent manufacturing systems (SIMS)

  • Amirabdollahian F et al (2007) Multivariate analysis of the Fugl-Meyer outcome measures assessing the effectiveness of GENTLE/S robot-mediated stroke therapy. J NeuroEng Rehabil 4(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  • ANYexo (2019) A versatile and dynamic upper-limb rehabilitation robot [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1zXnPDfTgM. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • ArmeoPower (n.d.). https://www.hocoma.com/us/solutions/armeo-power/. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Bai S, Virk GS, Sugar T (2018) Wearable exoskeleton systems: design, control and applications. 2018: Institution of Engineering and Technology

  • Balasubramanian S, Klein J, Burdet E (2010) Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. Curr Opinion Neurol 23(6):61–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertani R et al (2017) Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Neurol Sci 38(9):1561–1569

    Google Scholar 

  • Bi-Manu-Track (n.d.). https://www.neurorehabdirectory.com/rehab-products/bi-manu-track/. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Bouteraa Y, Ben Abdallah I, Elmogy A (2020) Design and control of an exoskeleton robot with EMG-driven electrical stimulation for upper limb rehabilitation. Ind Robot: Int J Robot Res App 47(4):489–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower KJ et al (2014) Clinical feasibility of the Nintendo Wii™ for balance training post-stroke: a phase II randomized controlled trial in an inpatient setting. Clin Rehabil 28(9):912–923

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundy DT et al (2017) Contralesional brain–computer interface control of a powered exoskeleton for motor recovery in chronic stroke survivors. Stroke 48(7):1908–1915

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgar CG (2000) Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. J Rehabil Res Dev 37(6):663–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpino G et al (2012) A Novel compact torsional spring for series elastic actuators for assistive wearable robots. J Mech Design 134(12)

  • Castro MN et al (2019) A compact 3-DOF shoulder mechanism constructed with scissors linkages for exoskeleton applications. Mech Mach Theory 132:264–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang WH, Kim YH (2013) Robot-assisted therapy in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke 15(3):174–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen S, Bai S (2018) Kinematic analysis and design of a novel shoulder exoskeleton using a double parallelogram linkage. J Mech Robot

  • Coote S et al (2008) The effect of the GENTLE/s robot-mediated therapy system on arm function after stroke. Clin Rehabil 22(5):395–405

    Google Scholar 

  • De Oliveira AC, Sulzer JS, Deshpande AD (2021) Assessment of upper-extremity joint angles using harmony exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 29:916–925

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovat L et al (2009) HandCARE: A cable-actuated rehabilitation system to train hand function after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 16:582–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Effects of Stroke (2015). https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/effects-of-stroke. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Farzaneh MM (2021) A review study on the design of an exoskeleton robot. Int J Sci Tech Res Eng 6:10–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigin VL et al (2022) World Stroke Organization (WSO): Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2022. Int J Stroke 17(1):18–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini M et al (2020) Upper limb robot-assisted rehabilitation versus physical therapy on subacute stroke patients: a follow-up study. J Bodyw Mov Ther 24(1):194–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Gull MA, Bai S, Bak T (2020) A review on design of upper limb exoskeletons. Robotics 9:16

  • Gupta A, Malley MKO (2006) Design of a haptic arm exoskeleton for training and rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 11(3):280–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadi A et al (2017) ASR glove: a wearable glove for hand assistance and rehabilitation using shape memory alloys. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 29(8):1575–1585

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse S et al (2003) Robot-assisted arm trainer for the passive and active practice of bilateral forearm and wrist movements in hemiparetic subjects11An organization with which 1 or more of the authors is associated has received or will receive financial benefits from a commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(6):915–920

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse S et al (2008) A new electromechanical trainer for sensorimotor rehabilitation of paralysed fingers: a case series in chronic and acute stroke patients. J NeuroEng Rehabil 5(1):21

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidler J et al (2005) Advances in the understanding and treatment of stroke impairment using robotic devices. Top Stroke Rehabil 12:22–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan N et al (1992) MIT-MANUS: a workstation for manual therapy and training. I. In [1992] Proceedings IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication

  • Holmes CD et al (2012) IpsiHand Bravo: an improved EEG-based brain-computer interface for hand motor control rehabilitation. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2012:1749–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh H et al (2017) Design of a parallel actuated exoskeleton for adaptive and safe robotic shoulder rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 22(5):2034–2045

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt J, Artemiadis P, Lee H (2016) Development of a novel shoulder exoskeleton using parallel actuation and slip. In ASME 2016 Dynamic systems and control conference

  • Hutter M et al (2016) ANYmal - a highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ International conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 38–44

  • InMotion Arm (n.d.). https://www.bioniklabs.com/products/inmotion-arm. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • InMotion Arm/Hand (n.d.). https://www.bioniklabs.com/products/inmotion-arm-hand. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Ipsihand (2017) A Stroke Rehab Device That Deduces Intention Directly from Brain. https://www.medgadget.com/2017/06/ipsihand-stroke-rehab-device-deduces-intention-directly-brain.html. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Islam MR et al (2017) A Brief review on robotic exoskeletons for upper extremity rehabilitation to find the gap between research porotype and commercial type. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation

  • Islam MR et al (2020) Chapter 9 - Exoskeletons in upper limb rehabilitation: a review to find key challenges to improve functionality. In: Boubaker O (ed) Control Theory in Biomedical Engineering. Academic Press, pp 235–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson A et al (2007) Initial patient testing of iPAM - a robotic system for Stroke rehabilitation. In 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics

  • Kahn LE et al (2006) Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired arm: Does it matter what the robot does? J Rehabil Res Dev 43(5):619–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim B, Deshpande AD (2017) An upper-body rehabilitation exoskeleton Harmony with an anatomical shoulder mechanism: design, modeling, control, and performance evaluation. Int J Robot Res 36(4):414–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs HI et al (1998) Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 6(1):75–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs HI et al (1999) Overview of clinical trials with MIT-MANUS: a robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation facility. Technol Health Care 7:419–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs HI et al (2000) Increasing productivity and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev 37(6):639–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs HI et al (2007) Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a robot for wrist rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 15(3):327–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Jobe C, Saha S (1995) Location of the instantaneous center of rotation for shoulder motion. In: Proceedings of the 1995 Fourteenth Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference

  • Lambelet C et al (2017) The eWrist — a wearable wrist exoskeleton with sEMG-based force control for stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot 2017:726–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambercy O et al (2007) A haptic knob for rehabilitation of hand function. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 15(3):356–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Laut J, Porfiri M, Raghavan P (2016) The Present and future of robotic technology in rehabilitation. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep 4(4):312–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H et al (2012) The technical trend of the exoskeleton robot system for human power assistance. Int J Precision Eng Manuf 13(8):1491–1497

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KS et al (2018) Design and evaluation of passive shoulder joint tracking module for upper-limb rehabilitation robots. Front Neurorobot 12

  • Lee PKW (2011) Defining physiatry and future scope of rehabilitation medicine. Ann Rehabil Med 35(4):445–449

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S et al (2020) Comparisons between end-effector and exoskeleton rehabilitation robots regarding upper extremity function among chronic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Sci Rep 10

  • Li Z et al (2017) Adaptive Impedance control for an upper limb robotic exoskeleton using biological signals. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 64(2):1664–1674

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Q et al (2021) Design and control of a reconfigurable upper limb rehabilitation exoskeleton with soft modular joints. IEEE Access 9:166815–166824

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Ji L (2016) A hybrid Force position control for a upper limb rehabilitation robot of series mechanism. MATEC Web Confe 40:03002

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo HS, Xie SQ (2012) Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 34(3):261–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro R et al (2003) Upper limb robot mediated stroke therapy—GENTLE/s approach. Auton Robot 15(1):35–51

    Google Scholar 

  • ltd P ArmAssist (n.d.) http://armassist.eu/. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC (2004) Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 12(2):186–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Lum PS et al (2002) Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(7):952–959

    Google Scholar 

  • Maciejasz P et al (2014) A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J NeuroEng Rehabil 11(1):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchal-Crespo L, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2009) Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury. J NeuroEng Rehabil 6(1):20

    Google Scholar 

  • Masia L et al (2007) Design and characterization of hand module for whole-arm rehabilitation following stroke. IIEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 12(4):399–407

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Masiero S et al (2006) A novel robot device in rehabilitation of post-stroke hemiplegic upper limbs. Aging Clin Exp Res 18(6):531–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauk KL (2011) Overview of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation nursing: A contemporary approach to practice

  • Mohebbi A (2020) Human-robot interaction in rehabilitation and assistance: a review. Curr Robot Rep 1(3):131–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Molteni F et al (2018) Exoskeleton and end-effector robots for upper and lower limbs rehabilitation: narrative review. PM&R 10(9, Supplement 2):S174–S188

    Google Scholar 

  • Montagner A et al (2007) A pilot clinical study on robotic assisted rehabilitation in VR with an arm exoskeleton device. 2007 Virtual Rehabilitation, pp 57–64

  • Nef T, Guidali M, Riener R (2009) ARMin III – arm therapy exoskeleton with an ergonomic shoulder actuation. Appl Bionics Biomech 6:962956

    Google Scholar 

  • Nef T, Mihelj M, Riener R (2007) ARMin: a robot for patient-cooperative arm therapy. Med Bio Eng Comput 45(9):887–900

    Google Scholar 

  • Oblak J, Cikajlo I, Matjačić Z (2010) Universal Haptic drive: a robot for arm and wrist rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 18(3):293–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden EM et al (2017) Evaluation of the harmony exoskeleton as an upper extremity rehabilitation tool after stroke. In: 2017 International Symposium on Wearable Robotics and Rehabilitation (WeRob)

  • Oguntosin VW et al (2017) Design and validation of exoskeleton actuated by soft modules toward neurorehabilitation—vision-based control for precise reaching motion of upper limb. Front Neurosci 11:352

  • Passon A, Schauer T, Seel T (2020) Inertial-robotic motion tracking in end-effector-based rehabilitation robots. Front Robot AI 7:554639

  • Perry JC, Rosen J, Burns S (2007) Upper-limb powered exoskeleton design. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 12(4):408–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry JC et al (2009) ARMassist: A low-cost device for telerehabiltation of post-stroke arm deficits. In: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry JC et al (2012) ArmAssist: Development of a functional prototype for at-home telerehabilitation of post-stroke arm impairment. In: 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob)

  • Perry JC et al (2016) Design of a spring-assisted exoskeleton module for wrist and hand rehabilitation. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2016:594–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Qassim HM, Wan Hasan WZ (2020) A review on upper limb rehabilitation robots. Appl Sci 10(19):6976

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehabilitation (2021). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rehabilitation. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Rehmat N et al (2018) Upper limb rehabilitation using robotic exoskeleton systems: a systematic review. Int J Int Robot Appl 2(3):283–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinkensmeyer DJ et al (2014) Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: progress with the ARM guide. J Rehabil Res Dev 37(6):653–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripel T et al (2014) Active elbow orthosis. Int J Adv Robot Syst 11(9):143

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati G et al (2005) Design of a new 5 d.o.f. wire-based robot for rehabilitation. In: 9th International conference on rehabilitation robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005

  • Sanchez-Villamañan MC et al (2019) Compliant lower limb exoskeletons: a comprehensive review on mechanical design principles. J NeuroEng Rehabil 16(1):55

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng B et al (2016) Bilateral robots for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 38(7):587–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi K et al (2021) A cable-driven three-DOF Wrist rehabilitation exoskeleton with improved performance. Front Neurorobot 15:664062

  • Singh RM, Chatterji S, Kumar A (2012) Trends and challenges in EMG based control scheme of exoskeleton robots-a review. Int J Sci Eng Res 3(8):933–940

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence J (2018) I-Corps arms students with skills for success. https://engineering.tamu.edu/news/2018/06/I-Corpsarmsstudentswithskillsforsuccess.html. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Spencer SJ et al (2008) A low cost parallel robot and trajectory optimization method for wrist and forearm rehabilitation using the Wii. In: 2008 2nd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics

  • Staubli P et al (2009) Effects of intensive arm training with the rehabilitation robot ARMin II in chronic stroke patients: four single-cases. J Neuroeng Rehabil 6(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Sukal TM, Ellis MD, Dewald JPA (2006) Source of work area reduction following hemiparetic stroke and preliminary intervention using the ACT 3D SYSTEM. In: 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society

  • TAMU (2021) CLEVERarm [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATCSF0nU4bE. Accessed 7 Nov 2022

  • Tsagarakis NG, Caldwell DG (2003) Development and control of a ‘soft-actuated’ exoskeleton for use in physiotherapy and training. Auton Robots 15(1):21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallery H et al (2008) Compliant actuation of rehabilitation robots. IEEE Robot Autom Magazine 15(3):60–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Delden L et al (2012) A Systematic review of bilateral upper limb training devices for poststroke rehabilitation. Stroke Res Treat 2012:972069

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderborght B et al (2013) Variable impedance actuators: a review. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1601–1614

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitiello N et al (2013) NEUROExos: a powered elbow exoskeleton for physical rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Robot 29(1):220–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Vong SK et al (2011) Motivational Enhancement therapy in addition to physical therapy improves motivational factors and treatment outcomes in people with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 92(2):176–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Washabaugh EP et al (2018) Self-powered robots to reduce motor slacking during upper-extremity rehabilitation: a proof of concept study. Restor Neurol Neurosci 36:693–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolbrecht ET et al (2007) Real-time computer modeling of weakness following stroke optimizes robotic assistance for movement therapy. In: 2007 3rd International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering

  • Yeong CF et al (2009) ReachMAN: a personal robot to train reaching and manipulation. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems

  • Zeiaee A et al (2022) CLEVERarm: a lightweight and compact exoskeleton for upper-limb rehabilitation. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 7(2):1880–1887

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J-F et al (2008) Modeling and control of a curved pneumatic muscle actuator for wearable elbow exoskeleton. Mechatronics 18(8):448–457

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Guo S, Sun Q (2020) Development and assist-as-needed control of an end-effector upper limb rehabilitation robot. Appl Sci 10(19):6684

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann Y et al (2019) ANYexo: a versatile and dynamic upper-limb rehabilitation robot. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 4(4):3649–3656

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Subodh Bhujel & SK Hasan

Authors
  1. Subodh Bhujel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. SK Hasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to SK Hasan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhujel, S., Hasan, S. A comparative study of end-effector and exoskeleton type rehabilitation robots in human upper extremity rehabilitation. Hum.-Intell. Syst. Integr. 5, 11–42 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42454-023-00048-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42454-023-00048-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation