Quantitative Evaluation of Performance during Robot-assisted Treatment

Summary

Introduction: This article is part of the Focus Theme of Methods of Information in Medicine on “Methodologies, Models and Algorithms for Patients Rehabilitation”. Objectives: The great potential of robots in extracting quantitative and meaningful data is not always exploited in clinical practice. The aim of the present work is to describe a simple parameter to assess the performance of subjects during upper limb robotic training exploiting data automatically recorded by the robot, with no additional effort for patients and clinicians. Methods: Fourteen children affected by cerebral palsy (CP) performed a training with Armeo^®Spring. Each session was evaluated with P, a simple parameter that depends on the overall performance recorded, and median and interquartile values were computed to perform a group analysis. Results: Median (interquartile) values of P significantly increased from 0.27 (0.21) at T₀ to 0.55 (0.27) at T₁ . This improvement was functionally validated by a significant increase of the Melbourne Assessment of Unilateral Upper Limb Function. Conclusions: The parameter described here was able to show variations in performance over time and enabled a quantitative evaluation of motion abilities in a way that is reliable with respect to a well-known clinical scale.

Keywords

Assessment - robotics - rehabilitation - upper limb - cerebral palsy

• References

• 1 Lo HS, Xie SQ. Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: State of the art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 2012; 34 (Suppl. 03) 261-268.
• 2 Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, Zelezny M, Sherwin FS. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1986; 1 (Suppl. 03) 59-74.
• 3 Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Fasoli S. et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2002; 8 (Suppl. 04) 54-70.
• 4 Fardoun HM, Mashat AS, Lange B. New Methodologies for Patients Rehabilitation. Methods Inf Med 2015; 54 (Suppl. 02) 111-113.
• 5 Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, Jansen-Toy A, and Leonhardt S. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2014; 11: 3.
• 6 Gilliaux M, Renders A, Dispa D, Holvoet D, Sapin J, Dehez B. et al. Upper Limb Robot-Assisted Therapy in Cerebral Palsy A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehab Neural Re. 2014 1545968314541172.
• 7 Celik O, O’Malley MK, Boake C, Levin HS, Yozbatiran N, Reistetter TA. Normalized movement quality measures for therapeutic robots strongly correlate with clinical motor impairment measures. IEEE T Neur Sys Reh 2010; 18 (Suppl. 04) 433-444.
• 8 Brewer BR, McDowell SK, Worthen-Chaudhari LC. Poststroke upper extremity rehabilitation: a review of robotic systems and clinical results. Top stroke rehabil 2007; 14 (Suppl. 06) 22-44.
• 9 Amirabdollahian F, Munih M, Kouris F, Laudanna E, Stokes E, and Johnson G. The I-match project: A VR based system to allow matching of an optimum interface to a user of assistive technology. In: ICORR 2005. 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. 2005. pp 526-529 IEEE.;
• 10 Merlo A, Longhi M, Giannotti E, Prati P. et al. Upper limb evaluation with robotic exoskeleton. Normative values for indices of accuracy, speed and smoothness. NeuroRehabil 2013; 33 (Suppl. 04) 523-530.
• 11 Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Carrozza MC. et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2005; 13 (Suppl. 03) 311-324.
• 12 Peri E, Biffi E, Maghini C, Iammarrone Servodio F, Gagliardi C, Germiniasi C. et al. A new quantitative performance parameter for monitoring robotics rehabilitation treatment. In: Proc of the 8th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth ’14). ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social- Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), ICST; Brussels, Belgium, Belgium: 2014. pp 373-376.
• 13 Randall M, Carlin JB, Chondros P, Reddihough D. Reliability of the Melbourne assessment of unilateral upper limb function. Dev Med Child Neurol 2001; 43 (Suppl. 11) 761-767.
• 14 Dancey C, Reidy J. Statistics without Maths for Psychology: using SPSS for Windows. London: Prentice Hall; 2004