Publication:
Social Human-Robot Interaction for Gait Rehabilitation

Thumbnail Image
Files

Files

Social_Human-Robot_Interaction_for_Gait_Rehabilitation.pdf (2.15 MB)
View Statistics
Reference Managers
Mendeley
Indexers
Google Scholar CORE
QR Code
QR Code
Authors

Authors

Céspedes, Nathalia
Múnera, Marcela
Gómez, Catalina
Cifuentes, Carlos A.
Abstract (Spanish)
La terapia asistida por robot para la rehabilitación de la marcha de pacientes con trastornos neurológicos suele combinar un sistema de soporte del peso corporal con un sistema de cinta rodante. Lokomat es uno de los dispositivos más utilizados para la rehabilitación de la marcha. Este dispositivo permite a los terapeutas centrarse en el paciente y la terapia. Sin embargo, esta sesión de terapia se basa en procesos multitarea, que a menudo resultan difíciles de gestionar para un terapeuta. En este trabajo, se integró un robot de asistencia social (SAR) en un programa de neurorrehabilitación como agente colaborador para promover el compromiso y el desempeño del paciente durante la terapia. Este estudio a corto plazo presenta los efectos comparando la condición de robot social y la condición de control con un grupo de cuatro pacientes neurológicos utilizando un diseño de medición repetida. Como resultado notable, los pacientes mejoraron la postura torácica en un 18,44 % y la cervical en un 32,23 % en promedio con asistencia SAR. Este estudio demostró la viabilidad de la integración de un robot social como complemento de los programas de rehabilitación de la marcha.
Abstract (English)
Robot-assisted therapy for gait rehabilitation of patients with neurological disorders usually combines a body weight support system with a treadmill system. Lokomatis oneof the most useddevicesforgait rehabilitation. This device allows therapists to focus on the patient and the therapy. However, this therapy session is based on multi-tasking processes, which are often difficult for a therapist to manage. In this work, a Socially Assistive Robot (SAR) was integrated into a neurorehabilitation programasacollaboratoragenttopromotepatientengagement and performance during the therapy. This short-term study presents the effects comparing the social robot condition and control condition with a group of four neurological patients using repeated measurementdesign. As a remarkable result, patients improved thoracic 18.44% and cervical 32.23%postureonaveragewithSARassistance.Thisstudy demonstrated the feasibility of the integration of a social robot as a complement of gait rehabilitation programs.
Extent
9 páginas
URI: https://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/3309
Collections

Collections

AA. Gibiome
References

T. Dua, A. Janca, and A. Muscetta, “Public health principles and neurological disorders,” Neurological Disorders: Public Health Challenges, no. 2, pp. 7–25, 2006.

WHO What are Neurological Disorders? WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.

S. B. O’Sullivan, T. J. Schmitz, and G. D. Fulk, Physical Rehabilitation. Philadelphia, PA, USA: F. A. Davis Company, 2014.

M. Visintin, H. Barbeau, N. Korner-Bitensky, and N. E. Mayo, “A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through body weight support and treadmill stimulation,” Stroke, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1122–1128, 1998.

World Health Organization. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies— Evidence for Action: Section I—Setting the Scene: Chapter I—Defining Adherence: 1. What is Adherence? Accessed: Sep. 17, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/es/d/Js4883e/6.html

S. Fisher, L. Lucas, and T. A. Thrasher, “Robot-assisted gait training for patients with hemiparesis due to stroke,” Topics Stroke Rehabil., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 269–276, May 2011.

S. Hussain, S. Q. Xie, and G. Liu, “Robot assisted treadmill training: Mechanisms and training strategies,” Med. Eng. Phys., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 527–533, Jun. 2011.

C. Werner, S. von Frankenberg, T. Treig, M. Konrad, and S. Hesse, “Treadmill training with partial body weight support and an electromechanical gait trainer for restoration of gait in subacute stroke patients: A randomized crossover study,” Stroke, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 2895–2901, Dec. 2002.

D. A. Winter, “Biomechanics of normal and pathological gait: Implications for understanding human locomotor control,” J. Motor Behav., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 337–355, Dec. 1989.

Lokomat-Hocoma. Accessed: Jan. 20, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.hocoma.com/solutions/lokomat/

B. Husemann, F. Müller, C. Krewer, S. Heller, and E. Koenig, “Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: A randomized controlled pilot study,” Stroke, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 349–354, Feb. 2007.

C. Krewer, F. Müller, B. Husemann, S. Heller, J. Quintern, and E. Koenig, “The influence of different lokomat walking conditions on the energy expenditure of hemiparetic patients and healthy subjects,” Gait Posture, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 372–377, Sep. 2007.

A. Mayr, M. Kofler, E. Quirbach, H. Matzak, K. Fröhlich, and L. Saltuari, “Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the lokomat gait orthosis,” Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 307–314, Jul. 2007.

D.-H. Bang and W.-S. Shin, “Effects of robot-assisted gait training on spatiotemporal gait parameters and balance in patients with chronic stroke: A randomized controlled pilot trial,” NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 343–349, Jun. 2016.

R. Banz, M. Bolliger, G. Colombo, V. Dietz, and L. Lünenburger, “Computerized visual feedback: An adjunct to robotic-assisted gait training,” Phys. Therapy, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1135–1145, Oct. 2008.

S. Hwang et al., “Improved gait speed after robot-assisted gait training in patients with motor incomplete spinal cord injury: A preliminary study,” Ann. Rehabil. Med., vol. 41, no. 1, p. 34, 2017.

M. Munera et al., “Lokomat therapy in colombia: Current state and cognitive aspects,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. (ICORR), Jul. 2017, pp. 394–399.

K. Jack, S. M. McLean, J. K. Moffett, and E. Gardiner, “Barriers to treatment adherence in physiotherapy outpatient clinics: A systematic review,” Manual Therapy, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 220–228, Jun. 2010.

H. E. Douglas, M. Z. Raban, S. R. Walter, and J. I. Westbrook, “Improving our understanding of multi-tasking in healthcare: Drawing together the cognitive psychology and healthcare literature,” Appl. Ergonom., vol. 59, pp. 45–55, Mar. 2017.

S. H. Appelbaum, A. Marchionni, and A. Fernandez, “The multi-tasking paradox: Perceptions, problems and strategies,” Manage. Decis., vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1313–1325, Oct. 2008.

H. Pashler, P. Jolicæur, R. Dell’Acqua, J. Crebolder, T. Goschke, R. De Jong, N. Meiran, R. B. Ivry, and E. Hazeltine, “Task switching and multitask performance,” in Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII, S. Monsell and J. Driver, Eds. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2000, pp. 275–423.

B. J. Kalisch and M. Aebersold, “Interruptions and multitasking in nursing care,” Joint Commission J. Qual. Patient Saf., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 126–132, Mar. 2010.

M. Alkahtani, T. Aziz, A. Ahmad, and S. Darmoul, “Multitasking in healthcare systems,” in Proc. IIE Annu. Conf. Expo, May 2015, pp. 2146–2155.

W. Moyle et al., “Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial,” J. Gerontological Nursing, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 46–53, May 2013.

B. Robins, K. Dautenhahn, R. T. Boekhorst, and A. Billard, “Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills?” Universal Access Inf. Soc., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 105–120, Dec. 2005.

K. Il Kang, S. Freedman, M. J. Mataric, M. J. Cunningham, and B. Lopez, “A hands-off physical therapy assistance robot for cardiac patients,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. (ICORR), 2005, pp. 337–340.

E. Short et al., “How to train your DragonBot: Socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play,” in Proc. 23rd IEEE Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., Aug. 2014, pp. 924–929.

S. Jeong, “Developing a social robotic companion for stress and anxiety mitigation in pediatric hospitals,” Massachusetts Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep., 2014.

P. Marti, M. Bacigalupo, L. Giusti, C. Mennecozzi, and T. Shibata, “Socially assistive robotics in the treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia,” in Proc. 1st IEEE/RAS-EMBS Int. Conf. Biomed. Robot. Biomechatron. (BioRob), 2006, pp. 483–488.

M. J. Matari´ c, J. Eriksson, D. J. Feil-Seifer, and C. J. Winstein, “Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation,” J. NeuroEng. Rehabil., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 5, 2007.

R. Mead, E. Wade, P. Johnson, A. St. Clair, S. Chen, and M. J. Mataric, “An architecture for rehabilitation task practice in socially assistive human-robot interaction,” in Proc. 19th Int. Symp. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., Sep. 2010, pp. 404–409.

H.-T. Jung, J. Baird, Y.-K. Choe, and R. A. Grupen, “Upper-limb exercises for stroke patients through the direct engagement of an embodied agent,” in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Hum.-Robot Interact. (HRI), 2011, p. 157.

D. L. Recio, L. M. Segura, E. M. Segura, and A. Waern, “The NAO models for the elderly,” in Proc. 8th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interact. (HRI), Mar. 2013, pp. 187–188.

J. C. Pulido, J. C. González, and F. Fernández, “NAOTherapist: Autonomous assistance of physical rehabilitation therapies with a social humanoid robot,” in Proc. Int. Workshop Assistive Rehabil. Technol. (IWART), 2016, pp. 15–16.

C. D. Kidd and C. Breazeal, “Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., Sep. 2008, pp. 3230–3235.

T. W. Bickmore and R. W. Picard, “Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships,” ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 293–327, Jun. 2005.

B. Görer, A. A. Salah, and H. L. Akin, A Robotic Fitness Coach for the Elderly (Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 8309. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2013, pp. 124–139.

P. Gadde, H. Kharrazi, H. Patel, and K. F. MacDorman, “Toward monitoring and increasing exercise adherence in older adults by robotic intervention: A proof of concept study,” J. Robot., vol. 2011, pp. 1–11, May 2011.

M. Bremer. (2005). What is Gait and Balance Training? What Can Gait and Balance Training Do For Me. Accessed: Apr. 19, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://wellness.unl.edu/pdf/physicalactivity/Gait and Balance Training.pdf

L. J. Weaver and A. L. Ferg, Therapeutic Measurement and Testing: The Basics of ROM, MMT, Posture, and Gait Analysis. Delmar Cengage Learning, 2010.

W. G. W. G. Bradley, Neurology in Clinical Practice. London, U.K.: Butterworth, 2004.

J. Achten and A. E. Jeukendrup, “Heart rate monitoring: Applications and limitations,” Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 517–538, 2003.

H. Kim, S.-H. Shin, J.-K. Kim, Y.-J. Park, H.-S. Oh, and Y.-B. Park, “Cervical coupling motion characteristics in healthy people using a wireless inertial measurement unit,” Evidence-Based Complementary Alternative Med., vol. 2013, pp. 1–8, 2013.

J. Fasola and M. J. Matari´ c, “Using socially assistive human-robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 2512–2526, Jul. 2012.

P. Masvaure and A. Maharaj, “Work engagement, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction among employees of a diamond mining company in zimbabwe,” J. Econ. Behav. Stud., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 488–499, 2014.

W. D. McArdle, F. I. Katch, and V. L. Katch, Exercise Physiology: Nutrition, Energy, and Human Performance. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010.

Lumbar (L1-L5) Spinal Cord Injuries | SpinalCord.com. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.spinalcord.com/lumbarl1-l5-vertebrae-spinal-cord-injury

Spinal Cord Injury Levels & Classification | Travis Roy Foundation. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www. travisroyfoundation.org/sci/resources/spinal-cord-injury-levelsclassification/

WHO. (2015). WHO | Stroke, Cerebrovascular Accident. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/topics/cerebrovascular_accident/en/

Guillain-Barré. Syndrome Fact Sheet | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/FactSheets/Guillain-Barré-Syndrome-Fact-Sheet