Assessing the Involvement of Users During Development of Lower Limb Wearable Robotic Exoskeletons: A Survey Study

Objective To explore user-centered design methods currently implemented during development of lower limb wearable robots and how they are utilized during different stages of product development. Background Currently, there appears to be a lack of standardized frameworks for evaluation methods and design requirements to implement effective user-centered design for safe and effective clinical or ergonomic system application. Method Responses from a total of 191 experts working in the field of lower limb exoskeletons were analyzed in this exploratory survey. Descriptive statistics were used to present responses and measures of frequency, and chi-square tests were used to contrast the answers of respondents who identified as clinicians versus engineers. Results A vast majority of respondents involve users in their development, in particular at the initial and iterative stages, although some differences were found between disciplines. A variety of methods and metrics are used to capture feedback from users and test devices, and although valuable, some methods used may not be based on validated measures. Guidelines regarding tests on safety of exoskeletons also lack standardization. Conclusion There seems to be a consensus among experts regarding the importance of a user-centered approach in exoskeleton development; however, standardized frameworks with regard to appropriate testing methods and design approaches are lacking. Such frameworks should consider an interdisciplinary focus on the needs and safety of the intended user during each iteration of the process. Application This exploratory study provides an overview of current practice among engineers and clinicians regarding the user-centered design of exoskeletons. Limitations and recommendations for future directions are identified.

[1]  Dirk Lefeber,et al.  Emerging directions in lower limb externally wearable robots for gait rehabilitation and augmentation: A review , 2016 .

[2]  Leonard O'Sullivan,et al.  The potential and acceptance of exoskeletons in industry , 2017 .

[3]  M. de Looze,et al.  The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  Frank Krause,et al.  Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load , 2016, Ergonomics.

[5]  Idsart Kingma,et al.  Effects of a passive exoskeleton on the mechanical loading of the low back in static holding tasks. , 2019, Journal of biomechanics.

[6]  José Luis Pons Rovira,et al.  Benchmarking lower limb wearable robots: emerging approaches and technologies , 2015, PETRA.

[7]  Philipp Beckerle,et al.  Active lower limb prosthetics: a systematic review of design issues and solutions , 2016, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.

[8]  Matteo Bianchi,et al.  A Human–Robot Interaction Perspective on Assistive and Rehabilitation Robotics , 2017, Front. Neurorobot..

[9]  Shuo-Hsiu Chang,et al.  User satisfaction with lower limb wearable robotic exoskeletons , 2020, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[10]  Yiannis Koumpouros,et al.  A Systematic Review on Existing Measures for the Subjective Assessment of Rehabilitation and Assistive Robot Devices , 2016, Journal of healthcare engineering.

[11]  A. Boonen,et al.  The international classification for functioning, disability and health , 2007, Clinical Rheumatology.

[12]  Alberto Jardón,et al.  Benchmarking Usability of Assistive Robotic Systems : Methodology and Application , 2010 .

[13]  Stefano Federici,et al.  The effectiveness of powered, active lower limb exoskeletons in neurorehabilitation: A systematic review. , 2015, NeuroRehabilitation.

[14]  S. Amatachaya,et al.  Reliability and validity of three functional tests in ambulatory patients with spinal cord injury , 2012, Spinal Cord.

[15]  Oskar von Stryk,et al.  A human-machine-centered design method for (powered) lower limb prosthetics , 2017, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[16]  R. Livingstone,et al.  Systematic review and clinical recommendations for dosage of supported home-based standing programs for adults with stroke, spinal cord injury and other neurological conditions , 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[17]  David Putrino,et al.  Robotic Rehabilitation and Spinal Cord Injury: a Narrative Review , 2018, Neurotherapeutics.

[18]  Rezaul K Begg,et al.  Consensus paper on testing and evaluation of military exoskeletons for the dismounted combatant. , 2018, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[19]  Daniel P. Ferris,et al.  State of the Art and Future Directions for Lower Limb Robotic Exoskeletons , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[20]  Maury A Nussbaum,et al.  Influences of different exoskeleton designs and tool mass on physical demands and performance in a simulated overhead drilling task. , 2019, Applied ergonomics.

[21]  M. de Looze,et al.  Assessment of an active industrial exoskeleton to aid dynamic lifting and lowering manual handling tasks. , 2018, Applied Ergonomics.

[22]  M. Berteanu,et al.  Towards a Model of Rehabilitation Technology Acceptance and Usability , 2022 .

[23]  Song Han,et al.  Advances in Automation Technologies for Lower Extremity Neurorehabilitation: A Review and Future Challenges , 2018, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[24]  François Michaud,et al.  Exoskeletons' design and usefulness evidence according to a systematic review of lower limb exoskeletons used for functional mobility by people with spinal cord injury , 2016, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[25]  Trieu Phat Luu,et al.  Risk management and regulations for lower limb medical exoskeletons: a review , 2017, Medical devices.

[26]  Philipp Beckerle,et al.  User Involvement, Device Safety, and Outcome Measures During Development of Walking Exoskeletons: Current Practices , 2018 .

[27]  Dennis R. Louie,et al.  Gait speed using powered robotic exoskeletons after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and correlational study , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[28]  A. Gorgey Robotic exoskeletons: The current pros and cons , 2018, World journal of orthopedics.

[29]  Deborah Hill,et al.  WHAT ARE USER PERSPECTIVES OF EXOSKELETON TECHNOLOGY? A LITERATURE REVIEW , 2017, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.