Human-Robot Interaction in Rehabilitation and Assistance: a Review

Mohebbi, Abolfazl

doi:10.1007/s43154-020-00015-4

Cited by 93 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While it remains uncontroversial that social robots do not (yet) offer the same opportunities as humans for social interactions [33], they can nonetheless afford valuable opportunities for social engagement with human users when introduced in specific contexts, and in careful, ethically responsible ways [83,84]. A growing evidence base documents how social robots might function as autonomous tools to support psychological health interventions [42,85], physical therapy and physical health [86][87][88], and other means to amplify or support human therapeutic efforts (see [89•, 90]). Moreover, social robots are being equipped with technologies such as sensors, cameras, and processors, which promote the collection of human data (such as where a person is standing, where they are looking, what they are saying, etc.)…”

Section: Social Robots Deployed In the Wildmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social robots with more degrees of freedom in terms of their movement and behavioural repertoire can provide more advanced assistance, for example, by demonstrating complex physical movements to assist with rehabilitation, build physical fitness, and help people cope with injury and illness [88]. A recent study by Feingold-Polak and Levi-Tzedek [97] reported positive outcomes for a long-term upper limb rehabilitation intervention delivered via the humanoid social robot Pepper for post-stroke patients in a rehabilitation facility.…”

Section: Social Robots Deployed In the Wildmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Makes a Robot Social? A Review of Social Robots from Science Fiction to a Home or Hospital Near You

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review We provide an outlook on the definitions, laboratory research, and applications of social robots, with an aim to understand what makes a robot social—in the eyes of science and the general public. Recent Findings Social robots demonstrate their potential when deployed within contexts appropriate to their form and functions. Some examples include companions for the elderly and cognitively impaired individuals, robots within educational settings, and as tools to support cognitive and behavioural change interventions. Summary Science fiction has inspired us to conceive of a future with autonomous robots helping with every aspect of our daily lives, although the robots we are familiar with through film and literature remain a vision of the distant future. While there are still miles to go before robots become a regular feature within our social spaces, rapid progress in social robotics research, aided by the social sciences, is helping to move us closer to this reality.

show abstract

Section: Social Robots Deployed In the Wildmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Robots Deployed In the Wildmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Makes a Robot Social? A Review of Social Robots from Science Fiction to a Home or Hospital Near You

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 provides a summary of some recent surveys regarding assistive and rehabilitative HMIs. As an example, Mohebbi et al [21] proposed a review about human-robot interaction in assistive and rehabilitation robotics, while Frisoli et al [22] focused on wearable technologies and, in particular, on a robotic exoskeleton for assistance in performing activities of daily living (ADL). Baniqued et al [7] presented a review study on BCI robotics for motor rehabilitation of hand movements after stroke.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosignal-Based Human–Machine Interfaces for Assistance and Rehabilitation: A Survey

Esposito

Centracchio

Andreozzi

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a definition, Human–Machine Interface (HMI) enables a person to interact with a device. Starting from elementary equipment, the recent development of novel techniques and unobtrusive devices for biosignals monitoring paved the way for a new class of HMIs, which take such biosignals as inputs to control various applications. The current survey aims to review the large literature of the last two decades regarding biosignal-based HMIs for assistance and rehabilitation to outline state-of-the-art and identify emerging technologies and potential future research trends. PubMed and other databases were surveyed by using specific keywords. The found studies were further screened in three levels (title, abstract, full-text), and eventually, 144 journal papers and 37 conference papers were included. Four macrocategories were considered to classify the different biosignals used for HMI control: biopotential, muscle mechanical motion, body motion, and their combinations (hybrid systems). The HMIs were also classified according to their target application by considering six categories: prosthetic control, robotic control, virtual reality control, gesture recognition, communication, and smart environment control. An ever-growing number of publications has been observed over the last years. Most of the studies (about 67%) pertain to the assistive field, while 20% relate to rehabilitation and 13% to assistance and rehabilitation. A moderate increase can be observed in studies focusing on robotic control, prosthetic control, and gesture recognition in the last decade. In contrast, studies on the other targets experienced only a small increase. Biopotentials are no longer the leading control signals, and the use of muscle mechanical motion signals has experienced a considerable rise, especially in prosthetic control. Hybrid technologies are promising, as they could lead to higher performances. However, they also increase HMIs’ complexity, so their usefulness should be carefully evaluated for the specific application.

show abstract

“…Recent advancements in sensor technology and artificial intelligence mechanisms have led to a rapid increase in research and development of robotic orthoses or exoskeletons to support people with mobility problems (1). These efforts have largely focused on technological progress to increasingly match the robot to the physical and motor characteristics of the human body (2)(3)(4). Whilst such developments are important, the psychosocial and cultural challenges of embedding such technology within patients' everyday lives have been overlooked, including physical, communication, learning, emotional, and motivational factors (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to consider how the technology relates to patients' everyday needs and priorities and how wider social and psychological issues influence the effective integration and use of the technology (9). While the repertoire of factors that intervene in human-machine interaction in the clinical setting [for a review, see (2)] is widely detailed, very little is known about what happens outside the walls of hospitals, laboratories, and research centres.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living With Assistive Robotics: Exploring the Everyday Use of Exoskeleton for Persons With Spinal Cord Injury

Lusardi¹,

Tomelleri²,

Wherton³

2021

Front. Med. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recent advancements in sensor technology and artificial intelligence mechanisms have led to a rapid increase in research and development of robotic orthoses or “exoskeletons” to support people with mobility problems. The purpose of this case study was to provide insight into the lived reality of using the assistive robotic exoskeleton ReWalk.Method: We used ethnographic techniques to explore the everyday experience and use of the assistive robotic device.Results: We found that the appropriation and integration of the technology within the patient's everyday lives required a social and collaborative effort, which continued into use. The decisions to utilise the technology (or not) was closely tied to physical, social, cultural, environmental, and psychological factors. Consequently, there was much variation in patients' perception of the technology and opportunities for support. Four themes emerged:(a) Meaning of mobility—physical mobility represents more than functional ability. Its present socio-cultural meaning is associated with an individual's self-identity and life priorities.(b) Accomplishing body-technique—integration with the body requires a long process of skill acquisition and re-embodiment.(c) Adaptation and adjustment in use—successful use of the technology was characterised by ongoing adjustment and adaptation of the technology and ways of using it.(d) Human element—introduction and sustained use of the exoskeleton demand a social and collaborative effort across the user's professional and lay resources.Conclusions: This study highlights that the development and implementation of the technology need to be grounded in a deep understanding of the day-to-day lives and experiences of the people that use them.

show abstract

Human-Robot Interaction in Rehabilitation and Assistance: a Review

Cited by 93 publications

References 98 publications

What Makes a Robot Social? A Review of Social Robots from Science Fiction to a Home or Hospital Near You

What Makes a Robot Social? A Review of Social Robots from Science Fiction to a Home or Hospital Near You

Biosignal-Based Human–Machine Interfaces for Assistance and Rehabilitation: A Survey

Living With Assistive Robotics: Exploring the Everyday Use of Exoskeleton for Persons With Spinal Cord Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About