Robot-mediated post-stroke therapy for the upper-extremity dates back to the 1990s. Since then, a number of robotic devices have become commercially available. There is clear evidence that robotic interventions improve upper limb motor scores and strength, but these improvements are often not transferred to performance of activities of daily living. We wish to better understand why. Our systematic review of 74 papers focuses on the targeted stage of recovery, the part of the limb trained, the different modalities used, and the effectiveness of each. The review shows that most of the studies so far focus on training of the proximal arm for chronic stroke patients. About the training modalities, studies typically refer to active, active-assisted and passive interaction. Robot-therapy in active assisted mode was associated with consistent improvements in arm function. More specifically, the use of HRI features stressing active contribution by the patient, such as EMG-modulated forces or a pushing force in combination with spring-damper guidance, may be beneficial.Our work also highlights that current literature frequently lacks information regarding the mechanism about the physical human-robot interaction (HRI). It is often unclear how the different modalities are implemented by different research groups (using different robots and platforms). In order to have a better and more reliable evidence of usefulness for these technologies, it is recommended that the HRI is better described and documented so that work of various teams can be considered in the same group and categories, allowing to infer for more suitable approaches. We propose a framework for categorisation of HRI modalities and features that will allow comparing their therapeutic benefits.

Background and Purpose-In the Western world, the Bobath Concept or neurodevelopmental treatment is the most popular treatment approach used in stroke rehabilitation, yet the superiority of the Bobath Concept as the optimal type of treatment has not been established. This systematic review of randomized, controlled trials aimed to evaluate the available evidence for the effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in stroke rehabilitation. Method-A systematic literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE and CENTRAL (March 2008) and by screening the references of selected publications (including reviews). Studies in which the effects of the Bobath Concept were investigated were classified into the following domains: sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb; sitting and standing, balance control, and dexterity; mobility; activities of daily living; health-related quality of life; and cost-effectiveness. Due to methodological heterogeneity within the selected studies, statistical pooling was not considered. Two independent researchers rated all retrieved literature according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale from which a best evidence synthesis was derived to determine the strength of the evidence for both effectiveness of the Bobath Concept and for its superiority over other approaches. Results-The search strategy initially identified 2263 studies. After selection based on predetermined criteria, finally, 16 studies involving 813 patients with stroke were included for further analysis. There was no evidence of superiority of Bobath on sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb, dexterity, mobility, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Only limited evidence was found for balance control in favor of Bobath. Because of the limited evidence available, no best evidence synthesis was applied for the health-related quality-of-life domain and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions-This systematic review confirms that overall the Bobath Concept is not superior to other approaches. Based on best evidence synthesis, no evidence is available for the superiority of any approach. This review has highlighted many methodological shortcomings in the studies reviewed; further high-quality trials need to be published. Evidence-based guidelines rather than therapist preference should serve as a framework from which therapists should derive the most effective treatment. (Stroke. 2009;40:e89-e97.)

The center of mass (CoM) and the center of pressure (CoP) are two variables that are crucial in assessing energy expenditure and stability of human walking. The purpose of this study is to estimate the CoM displacement continuously using an ambulatory measurement system. The measurement system consists of instrumented shoes with 6 DOF force/moment sensors beneath the heels and the forefeet. Moreover, two inertial sensors are rigidly attached to the force/moment sensors for the estimation of position and orientation. The estimation of CoM displacement is achieved by fusing low-pass filtered CoP data with high-pass filtered double integrated CoM acceleration, both estimated using the instrumented shoes. Optimal cutoff frequencies for the low-pass and high-pass filters appeared to be 0.2 Hz for the horizontal direction and 0.5 Hz for the vertical direction. The CoM estimation using this ambulatory measurement system was compared to CoM estimation using an optical reference system based on the segmental kinematics method. The rms difference of each component of the CoM displacement averaged over a hundred trials obtained from seven stroke patients was ( 0.020 +/-0.007 ) m (mean +/- standard deviation) for the forward x-direction, ( 0.013 +/-0.005) m for the lateral y-direction, and ( 0.007 +/-0.001) m for the upward z-direction. Based on the results presented in this study, it is concluded that the instrumented shoe concept allows accurate and continuous estimation of CoM displacement under ambulatory conditions.

Both interventions were accepted. An additional benefit of technology-supported arm and hand training over conventional arm and hand exercises at home was not demonstrated. Training duration in itself is a major contributor to arm and hand function improvements.