A Human–Robot Interaction Perspective on Assistive and Rehabilitation Robotics

Abstract

Assistive and rehabilitation devices are a promising and challenging field of recent robotics research. Motivated by societal needs such as aging populations, such devices can support motor functionality and subject training. The design, control, sensing, and assessment of the devices become more sophisticated due to a human in the loop. This paper gives a human–robot interaction perspective on current issues and opportunities in the field. On the topic of control and machine learning, approaches that support but do not distract subjects are reviewed. Options to provide sensory user feedback that are currently missing from robotic devices are outlined. Parallels between device acceptance and affective computing are made. Furthermore, requirements for functional assessment protocols that relate to real-world tasks are discussed. In all topic areas, the design of human-oriented frameworks and methods is dominated by challenges related to the close interaction between the human and robotic device. This paper discusses the aforementioned aspects in order to open up new perspectives for future robotic solutions.

Robotic interfaces for cognitive psychology and embodiment research: A research roadmap

“…A better understanding of the fundamental cognitive mechanisms of the bodily experience of wearable robotic devices seems to be a very promising way to improve the design of prosthetic hardware and the related bHMIs (Christ et al, 2012;Rognini & Blanke, 2016;Beckerle et al, 2017). Research on embodiment also potentially sheds light on how to design novel experimental and functional assessment protocols: prosthetics research must get out of the laboratories and dive deep into daily living activities.…”

“…Through the robot and the interface, co‐adaptive processes might thus influence both the perception of and the interaction with the environment and the operator. Co‐adaptation hence exhibits a great potential to alter the sense of a bodily self and consequently embodied cognition (Rosen et al, ; Hara et al, ; Rognini & Blanke, ; Beckerle et al, ).…”

“…As stated above, we necessarily see a dexterous, transparent HMI that carries information in both ways (Beckerle et al, ; Castellini et al, ) as the core aspect of technical integration. Via an efferent channel, human intent needs to be detected through biosignals and communicated to the robotic device.…”

“…Obviously, a significant research effort is still required: there is neither any agreement on the ideal intent‐detection and feedback method, nor does research sufficiently consider how to reliably and unobtrusively connect the hardware to the human body (Castellini et al, ; Rognini & Blanke, ). This is ultimately irrespective of the application and applies to prosthetics and teleoperation as well as to many other assistive robotic devices, for example, exoskeletons (Beckerle et al, ). Besides sensory substitution, this might extend HRI in terms of nonverbal communication since force and tactile information can support contact/motion analysis and planning (Beckerle et al, ).…”

“…This is ultimately irrespective of the application and applies to prosthetics and teleoperation as well as to many other assistive robotic devices, for example, exoskeletons (Beckerle et al, ). Besides sensory substitution, this might extend HRI in terms of nonverbal communication since force and tactile information can support contact/motion analysis and planning (Beckerle et al, ). Many crucial issues are by far not solved, for example, commercial upper‐limb prostheses only restore extremely limited functionality, which might impede embodiment.…”