Skip to main content

Table 3 Usability test for each intervention from the patients with stroke, physiatrists, and therapists

From: A comparison of the effects and usability of two exoskeletal robots with and without robotic actuation for upper extremity rehabilitation among patients with stroke: a single-blinded randomised controlled pilot study

ACT PSV
Patients with stroke
 Pros
  Assistive force-as-needed function of the ACT robot facilitated the strengthening of the upper limb and increased smoothness of movement   The spontaneous and voluntary control of the robot seems to be linked to functional improvement in ADL
  The voluntary control of the robot without any external assistance leads to a feeling of achievement
 Cons
  Assistive force sometimes gave the resistance for the intended voluntary movement
The robotic exoskeleton was too heavy and bulky hampering arm movement
  Assistive force-as-needed function might allow more optimal movement or the movement that was not possible without any assistance
Physiatrists and therapists
 Pros
  ACT robot seems to be better for introducing “ideal smooth and efficient” upper limb movement   More efforts were required from the participants; thus, self-motivated voluntary training was fulfilled
 Cons
  Assistive force sometimes was not coordinated in terms of timing and context of the virtual environment
  The assistive force caused conflict with the spasticity of participants
  The inertia caused by manipulator was too high for the patients feeling heavier, paradoxically hampering upper limb movement
  Compensatory movements were aggravated, such as abnormal posture or overuse of trunk instead of limb use, because of no assistance from the robots
  1. ACT, active-assistive robotic intervention; PSV, passive robotic intervention; ADLs, activities of daily living