Developing a user interface for the iPAM stroke rehabilitation system

The increasing population of older people is leading to growing healthcare demands. Stroke is the commonest cause of severe disability in developed countries leaving one third of patients with long term disability. Rehabilitation is the cornerstone of recovery. Lack of rehabilitation manpower resources can limit recovery of limb function. However, technology can assist rehabilitation staff to deliver greater intensity of treatment. Robotic systems such as the iPAM robot can provide semi-automated arm exercises for people with complex impairments leading to loss of functional arm movement. Feedback to the patient about their performance, usability of the exercise “workspace” and motivating exercises are key aspects of the successful deployment of robotic systems within routine clinical use. We describe the development of the patient interface for the iPAM robotic system. Central to this development is user involvement (with rehabilitation professionals and people with stroke). Using user centred design methods which included use of questionnaires and one to one discussions, the user interface was changed from a simple screen showing a stick figure of the arm to a 3D scene with simplified indicators and feedback screens, providing feedback about performance and feedback about the quality of the movement. Patients were positive about the changes to the user interface, confirming that the feedback screens were clear, useful and motivating. The user interface can further be improved by adding more feedback about the quality of the movement.

[1]  C. Burgar,et al.  Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robotic therapy for chronic motor impairments after stroke: Follow-up results. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  N. Hogan,et al.  Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. , 1998, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  H. F. Machiel Van der Loos,et al.  Robotic stroke therapy assistant , 2003, Robotica.

[5]  U Talvitie,et al.  Socio-affective characteristics and properties of extrinsic feedback in physiotherapy. , 2000, Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy.

[6]  Peter R. Culmer,et al.  Dual robot system for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: The design process , 2007 .

[7]  L. Carlton,et al.  Information feedback and the learning multiple-degree-of-freedom activities. , 1992, Journal of motor behavior.

[8]  Margaret A. Finley,et al.  Short-duration robotic therapy in stroke patients with severe upper-limb motor impairment. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[9]  G. Wulf,et al.  Enhancing the Learning of Sport Skills Through External-Focus Feedback , 2002, Journal of motor behavior.

[10]  D. Wade,et al.  Recovery after stroke , 1983, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[11]  Hermano Igo Krebs,et al.  Rehabilitation Robotics: Performance-Based Progressive Robot-Assisted Therapy , 2003, Auton. Robots.

[12]  R. Magill Motor learning and control : concepts and applications , 2004 .

[13]  M Hillman,et al.  Prevalence of self reported stroke in a population in northern England. , 1996, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[14]  R. Richardson,et al.  Initial patient testing of iPAM - a robotic system for Stroke rehabilitation , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.