Mechatronic Design of a Robot for Upper Limb Rehabilitation at Home
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This paper addresses the design of a novel bionic robotic device for upper limb rehabilitation tasks at home. The main goal of the design process has been to obtain a rehabilitation device, which can be easily portable and can be managed remotely by a professional therapist. This allows to treat people also in regions that are not easily reachable with a significant cost reduction. Other potential benefits can be envisaged, for instance, in the possibility to keep social distancing while allowing rehabilitation treatments even during a pandemic spread. Specific attention has been devoted to design the main mechatronic components by developing specific kinematics and dynamics models. The design process includes the implementation of a specific control hardware and software. Preliminary experimental tests are reported to show the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed design solution.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics · Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery · Muscle activation and electromyography studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. Lum P S, Burgar C G, Van der Loos M, Shor P C, Majmundar M, Yap R. MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: A follow-up study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 2006, 43, 631–642.10.1682/JRRD.2005.02.0044 ↗
2. Hogan N, Krebs H I, Charnnarong J, Srikrishna P, Sharon A. MIT-MANUS: A workstation for manual therapy and training. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, Tokyo, Japan, 1992, 161–165.10.1117/12.142124 ↗
3. Duret C, Courtial O, Grosmaire A G, Hutin E. Use of a robotic device for the rehabilitation of severe upper limb paresis in subacute stroke: Exploration of patient/robot interactions and the motor recovery process. BioMed Research International, 2015, 482389.10.1155/2015/482389 ↗
4. Colomer C, Baldoví A, Torromé S, Navarro M D, Moliner B, Ferri J, Noé E. Efficacy of armeo spring during the chronic phase of stroke. Study in mild to moderate cases of hemiparesis. Neurologia, 2013, 28, 261–267.10.1016/j.nrl.2012.04.017 ↗
5. Takebayashi T, Takahashi K, Amano S, Uchiyama Y, Gosho M, Domen K, Hachisuka K. Assessment of the efficacy of ReoGo-J robotic training against other rehabilitation therapies for upper-limb Hemiplegia after stroke: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Neurology, 2018, 9, 730.10.3389/fneur.2018.00730 ↗
6. Iosa M, Morone G, Fusco A, Bragoni M, Coiro P, Multari M, Paolucci S. Seven capital devices for the future of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke Research and Treatment, 2012, 187965.10.1155/2012/187965 ↗
7. Frisoli A, Salsedo F, Bergamasco M, Rossi B, Carboncini M C. A force-feedback exoskeleton for upper-limb rehabilitation in virtual reality. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2009, 6, 115–126.10.1155/2009/378254 ↗
8. Islam M, Rahmani M, Rahman M. A novel exoskeleton with fractional sliding mode control for upper limb rehabilitation. Robotica, 2020, 38, 2099–2120.10.1017/S0263574719001851 ↗
9. Zeiaee A, Soltani-Zarrin R, Langari R, Tafreshi R. Kinematic design optimization of an eight degree-of-freedom upper-limb exoskeleton. Robotica, 2019, 37, 2073–2086.10.1017/S0263574719001085 ↗
10. Ercolini G, Trigili E, Baldoni A, Crea S, Vitiello N. A novel generation of ergonomic uper-limb wearable robots: Design challenges and solutions. Robotica, 2019, 37, 2056–2072.10.1017/S0263574718001340 ↗
11. Yue Z, Zhang X, Wang J. Hand rehabilitation robotics on poststroke motor recovery. Behavioral Neurology, 2017, 3908135.10.1155/2017/3908135 ↗
12. Tucan P, Vaida C, Plitea N, Pisla A, Carbone G, Pisla D. Risk-based assessment engineering of a parallel robot used in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation. Sustainability, 2019, 11, 1–28.10.3390/su11102893 ↗
13. Basteris A, Nijenhuis S M, Stienen A H, Buurke J H, Prange G B, Amirabdollahian F. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: A framework for classification based on a systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 2014, 11, 111.10.1186/1743-0003-11-111 ↗
14. Ceccarelli M, Problems and experiences on cable-based service robots for physiotherapy applications. In: Pisla D, Bleuler H, Rodic A, Vaida C, Pisla A. (eds) New Trends in Medical and Service Robots, Mechanisms and Machine Science, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2014, 16, 27–42.10.1007/978-3-319-01592-7_3 ↗
15. Hernandez E, Valdez S I, Carbone G, Ceccarelli M. Design optimization of a cable-driven parallel robot in upper arm training-rehabilitation processes. In: Carvalho J, Martins D, Simoni R, Simas H. (eds) Multibody Mechatronic Systems, Mechanisms and Machine Science, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018, 54, 413–423.10.1007/978-3-319-67567-1_39 ↗
16. Carbone G, Gherman B, Ulinici I, Vaida C, Pisla D. Design issues for an inherently safe robotic rehabilitation device. In: Ferraresi C, Quaglia G, eds., Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics. RAAD 2017. Mechanisms and Machine Science, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018, 49, 1025–1032.
17. Cafolla D, Russo M, Carbone G. Design and validation of an inherently safe cable-driven assisting device. International Journal of Mechanics and Control, 2018, 19, 23–32.
18. Cafolla D, Russo M, Carbone G. CUBE, a cable-driven device for limb rehabilitation. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2019, 16, 492–502.10.1007/s42235-019-0040-5 ↗
19. Laribi M A, Carbone G, Zeghloul S. On the optimal design of cable driven parallel robot with a prescribed workspace for upper limb rehabilitation tasks. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2019, 16, 503–513.10.1007/s42235-019-0041-4 ↗
20. Oyman E, Korkut M, Ylmaz C, Bayraktaroglu Z, Arslan M. Design and control of a cable-driven rehabilitation robot for upper and lower limbs. Robotica, 2021, 1–37.10.1017/S0263574721000357 ↗
21. Laribi M A, Romdhane L, Zeghloul S. Advanced synthesis of the DELTA parallel robot for a specified workspace. In Huapeng Wu (ed.), Parallel Manipulators, Towards New Applications, I-Tech Education and Publishing, Vienna, Austria, 2008, 506.
22. Uicker J J, Pennock G R, Shigley J E. Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 2017.
23. Flores-Ortiz R, Malta D C, Velasquez-Melendez G. Adult body weight trends in 27 urban populations of Brazil from 2006 to 2016: A population-based study. PLoS ONE, 2019, 14, e0213254.10.1371/journal.pone.0213254 ↗
24. Major K A, Major Z Z, Carbone G, Pîslă A, Vaida C, Gherman B, Pîslă D L. Ranges of motion as basis for robot-assisted poststroke rehabilitation. Human and Veterinary Medicine, 2016, 8, 192–196.
25. Martinez C, Tavakoli M. Learning and reproduction of therapist’s semi-periodic motions during robotic rehabilitation. Robotica, 2020, 38, 337–349.10.1017/S0263574719000651 ↗
26. Brahmi B, Saad M, Luna C, Archambault P, Rahman M. Passive and active rehabilitation control of human upper-limb exoskeleton robot with dynamic uncertainties. Robotica, 2018, 36, 1757–1779.10.1017/S0263574718000723 ↗
27. Xu Z J, Tian Y T, Li Y. sEMG pattern recognition of muscle force of upper arm for intelligent bionic limb control. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2015, 12, 316–323.10.1016/S1672-6529(14)60124-4 ↗
28. Ferigo D, Merhi L K, Pousett B, Zhen G X, Menon C. A case study of a force-myography controlled bionic hand mitigating limb position effect. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2017, 14, 692–705.10.1016/S1672-6529(16)60435-3 ↗