skip to main content
10.1145/3171221.3171262acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Iterative Design of an Upper Limb Rehabilitation Game with Tangible Robots

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 February 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Rehabilitation aims to ameliorate deficits in motor control via intensive practice with the affected limb. Current strategies, such as one-on-one therapy done in rehabilitation centers, have limitations such as treatment frequency and intensity, cost and requirement of mobility. Thus, a promising strategy is home-based therapy that includes task specific exercises. However, traditional rehabilitation tasks may frustrate the patient due to their repetitive nature and may result in lack of motivation and poor rehabilitation. In this article, we propose the design and verification of an effective upper extremity rehabilitation game with a tangible robotic platform named Cellulo as a novel solution to these issues. We first describe the process of determining the design rationales to tune speed, accuracy and challenge. Then we detail our iterative participatory design process and test sessions conducted with the help of stroke, brachial plexus and cerebral palsy patients (18 in total) and 7 therapists in 4 different therapy centers. We present the initial quantitative results, which support several aspects of our design rationales and conclude with our future study plans.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

fp1149.mp4

mp4

19.4 MB

References

  1. R. Aarhus, E. Grönvall, S.B. Larsen, and S. Wollsen. Turning training into play: Embodied gaming, seniors, physical training and motivation. Gerontechnology, 10(2):110--120, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. G. Alankus, A. Lazar, M. May, and C. Kelleher. Towards customizable games for stroke rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 2113--2122. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. T. Apted, J. Kay, and A. Quigley. Tabletop sharing of digital photographs for the elderly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pages 781--790. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. L. Axelrod, G. Fitzpatrick, J. Burridge, S. Mawson, P. Smith, T. Rodden, and I. Ricketts. The reality of homes fit for heroes: design challenges for rehabilitation technology at home. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 3(2):35--43, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. B. Bonnechère, B. Jansen, L. Omelina, J. Van Sint, et al. The use of commercial video games in rehabilitation: a systematic review. International journal of rehabilitation research, 39(4):277--290, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. B. Bonnechère, B. Jansen, L. Omelina, and S. Van Sint Jan. Do patients perform their exercises at home and why (not)? a survey on patients' habits during rehabilitation exercises. Ulutas Med J, 2:41--6, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J.W. Burke, M. McNeill, D. Charles, P.J. Morrow, J. Crosbie, and S. McDonough. Augmented reality games for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. In Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES), 2010 Second International Conference on, pages 75--78. IEEE, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J.W. Burke, M. McNeill, D.K. Charles, P.J. Morrow, J.H. Crosbie, and S.M. McDonough. Optimising engagement for stroke rehabilitation using serious games. The Visual Computer, 25(12):1085, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M.S. Cameirao, I.B.S. Bermúdez, E. Duarte Oller, and P.F. Verschure. The rehabilitation gaming system: a review. Stud Health Technol Inform, 145(6), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M.S. Cameirão, S.B. i Badia, E.D. Oller, and P.F. Verschure. Neurorehabilitation using the virtual reality based rehabilitation gaming system: methodology, design, psychometrics, usability and validation. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 7(1):48, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M.S. Cameirão, S.B. i Badia, L. Zimmerli, E.D. Oller, and P.F. Verschure. The rehabilitation gaming system: a virtual reality based system for the evaluation and rehabilitation of motor deficits. In Virtual Rehabilitation, 2007, pages 29--33. IEEE, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J.H. Cauraugh and J.J. Summers. Neural plasticity and bilateral movements: a rehabilitation approach for chronic stroke. Progress in neurobiology, 75(5):309--320, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. Crosbie, S. Lennon, M. McGoldrick, M. McNeill, and S. McDonough. Virtual reality in the rehabilitation of the arm after hemiplegic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(9):798--806, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J.J. Daly, N. Hogan, E.M. Perepezko, H.I. Krebs, et al. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 42(6):723, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M.P. Dijkers, R. Erlandson, K. Kristy, D. Geer, A. Nichols, et al. Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 28(2):33, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. L.R.A. Dos Santos, A.A. Carregosa, M.R. Masruha, P.A. Dos Santos, M.L.D.S. Coêlho, D.D. Ferraz, and N.M.D.S. Ribeiro. The use of nintendo wii in the rehabilitation of poststroke patients: a systematic review. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 24(10):2298--2305, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. S.E. Fasoli, H.I. Krebs, J. Stein, W.R. Frontera, and N. Hogan. Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 84(4):477--482, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S.E. Fasoli, H.I. Krebs, J. Stein, W.R. Frontera, R. Hughes, and N. Hogan. Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: Follow-up results. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 85(7):1106--1111, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. G. Fitzpatrick, M. Balaam, and S.R. Egglestone. Involving stroke survivors in designing for rehabilitation at home. Therapeutic Strategies A Challenge for User Involvement in Design, page 13, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. F. Garcia-Sanjuan, J. Jaen, and V. Nacher. Tangibot: a tangible-mediated robot to support cognitive games for ageing people usability study. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 34:91--105, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. K.M. Gerling, F.P. Schulte, and M. Masuch. Designing and evaluating digital games for frail elderly persons. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology, page 62. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Grefkes and N.S. Ward. Cortical reorganization after stroke: how much and how functional? The Neuroscientist, 20(1):56--70, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. M.K. Holden. Virtual environments for motor rehabilitation. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 8(3):187--211, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. J.A. Hosp and A.R. Luft. Cortical plasticity during motor learning and recovery after ischemic stroke. Neural plasticity, 2011, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J.K. Hsu, R. Thibodeau, S.J. Wong, D. Zukiwsky, S. Cecile, and D.M. Walton. A "wii" bit of fun: The effects of adding nintendo wii® bowling to a standard exercise regimen for residents of long-term care with upper extremity dysfunction. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 27(3):185--193, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. M. Hudson. Applying exergaming input to standard commercial digital games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1886--1895. ACM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Y.-X. Hung, P.-C. Huang, K.-T. Chen, and W.-C. Chu. What do stroke patients look for in game-based rehabilitation: a survey study. Medicine, 95(11), 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M.J. Johnson. Recent trends in robot-assisted therapy environments to improve real-life functional performance after stroke. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 3(1):29, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. L.Y. Joo, T.S. Yin, D. Xu, E. Thia, P.F. Chia, C.W.K. Kuah, and K.K. He. A feasibility study using interactive commercial off-the-shelf computer gaming in upper limb rehabilitation in patients after stroke. Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 42(5):437--441, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. Kim, L.M. Miller, I. Fedulow, M. Simkins, G.M. Abrams, N. Byl, and J. Rosen. Kinematic data analysis for post-stroke patients following bilateral versus unilateral rehabilitation with an upper limb wearable robotic system. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 21(2):153--164, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. H.I. Krebs, S. Mernoff, S.E. Fasoli, R. Hughes, J. Stein, and N. Hogan. A comparison of functional and impairment-based robotic training in severe to moderate chronic stroke: a pilot study. NeuroRehabilitation, 23(1):81--87, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. H.I. Krebs, B.T. Volpe, M. Ferraro, S. Fasoli, J. Palazzolo, B. Rohrer, L. Edelstein, and N. Hogan. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Topics in stroke rehabilitation, 8(4):54--70, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. J.A. Kumar, M. Binal Motawar PT, and K. Lakshminarayanan. Usability evaluation of low-cost virtual reality hand and arm rehabilitation games. Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 53(3):321, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. K.E. Laver, S. George, S. Thomas, J.E. Deutsch, and M. Crotty. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. The Cochrane Library, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. A.C. Lo, P.D. Guarino, L.G. Richards, J.K. Haselkorn, G.F. Wittenberg, D.G. Federman, R.J. Ringer, T.H. Wagner, H.I. Krebs, B.T. Volpe, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(19):1772--1783, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. M. Ma and K. Bechkoum. Serious games for movement therapy after stroke. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2008. SMC 2008. IEEE International Conference on, pages 1872--1877. IEEE, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. P. Maciejasz, J. Eschweiler, K. Gerlach-Hahn, A. Jansen-Troy, and S. Leonhardt. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 11(1):3, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. T. Nef, G. Quinter, R. Müller, and R. Riener. Effects of arm training with the robotic device armin i in chronic stroke: three single cases. Neurodegenerative diseases, 6(5--6):240--251, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Nintendo. Wii health and safety precautions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. D. Novak, A. Nagle, U. Keller, and R. Riener. Increasing motivation in robot-aided arm rehabilitation with competitive and cooperative gameplay. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 11(1):64, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. O. ONeil, C. Gatzidis, and I. Swain. A state of the art survey in the use of video games for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. In Virtual, Augmented Reality and Serious Games for Healthcare 1, pages 345--370. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. A. Özgür, W. Johal, F. Mondada, and P. Dillenbourg. Haptic-enabled handheld mobile robots: Design and analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 2449--2461. ACM, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. T. Park, C. Yoo, S.P. Choe, B. Park, and J. Song. Transforming solitary exercises into social exergames. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pages 863--866. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. D. Rand, R. Kizony, and P.T.L. Weiss. The sony playstation ii eyetoy: low-cost virtual reality for use in rehabilitation. Journal of neurologic physical therapy, 32(4):155--163, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. R. Sanchez, D. Reinkensmeyer, P. Shah, J. Liu, S. Rao, R. Smith, S. Cramer, T. Rahman, and J. Bobrow. Monitoring functional arm movement for home-based therapy after stroke. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2004. IEMBS'04. 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, volume 2, pages 4787--4790. IEEE, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. G. Saposnik, M. Levin, S.O.R.C.S.W. Group, et al. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 42(5):1380--1386, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. G. Saposnik, R. Teasell, M. Mamdani, J. Hall, W. McIlroy, D. Cheung, K.E. Thorpe, L.G. Cohen, M. Bayley, et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality using wii gaming technology in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 41(7):1477--1484, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. M. Shaughnessy, B.M. Resnick, and R.F. Macko. Testing a model of post-stroke exercise behavior. Rehabilitation nursing, 31(1):15--21, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. M.M. Shoja, R.S. Tubbs, A. Malekian, A.H.J. Rouhi, M. Barzgar, and W.J. Oakes. Video game epilepsy in the twentieth century: a review. Child's Nervous System, 23(3):265--267, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. P. Staubli, T. Nef, V. Klamroth-Marganska, and R. Riener. Effects of intensive arm training with the rehabilitation robot armin ii in chronic stroke patients: four single-cases. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 6(1):46, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. K. Thomson, A. Pollock, C. Bugge, and M. Brady. Commercial gaming devices for stroke upper limb rehabilitation: a systematic review. International Journal of Stroke, 9(4):479--488, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. K. Thomson, A. Pollock, C. Bugge, and M.C. Brady. Commercial gaming devices for stroke upper limb rehabilitation: a survey of current practice. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(6):454--461, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. B. Ullmer and H. Ishii. Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM systems journal, 39(3.4):915--931, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. A. Van Delden, C.L.E. Peper, G. Kwakkel, and P.J. Beek. A systematic review of bilateral upper limb training devices for poststroke rehabilitation. Stroke research and treatment, 2012, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. J.H. Van der Lee, R.C. Wagenaar, G.J. Lankhorst, T.W. Vogelaar, W.L. Devillé, and L.M. Bouter. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients. Stroke, 30(11):2369--2375, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. M. Vandermaesen, T. De Weyer, K. Luyten, and K. Coninx. Physicube: providing tangible interaction in a pervasive upper-limb rehabilitation system. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, pages 85--92. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. P. Wang, G.C.H. Koh, C.G. Boucharenc, T.M. Xu, C.C. Yen, et al. Developing a tangible gaming board for post-stroke upper limb functional training. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pages 617--624. ACM, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. J. Whitall, S.M. Waller, K.H. Silver, and R.F. Macko. Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke, 31(10):2390--2395, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. H. Woldag and H. Hummelsheim. Evidence-based physiotherapeutic concepts for improving arm and hand function in stroke patients: a review. Journal of neurology, 249(5), 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. G. Yavuzer, A. Senel, M. Atay, and H. Stam. "playstation eyetoy games" improve upper extremity-related motor functioning in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled clinical trial. European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 44(3):237--244, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Iterative Design of an Upper Limb Rehabilitation Game with Tangible Robots

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Conferences
                  HRI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
                  February 2018
                  468 pages
                  ISBN:9781450349536
                  DOI:10.1145/3171221

                  Copyright © 2018 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 26 February 2018

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  HRI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate49of206submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader