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 |