Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 258–268 | Cite as

Architectural Design of a Cloud Robotic System for Upper-Limb Rehabilitation with Multimodal Interaction

Regular Paper
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

The rise in the cases of motor impairing illnesses demands the research for improvements in rehabilitation therapy. Due to the current situation that the service of the professional therapists cannot meet the need of the motor-impaired subjects, a cloud robotic system is proposed to provide an Internet-based process for upper-limb rehabilitation with multimodal interaction. In this system, therapists and subjects are connected through the Internet using client/server architecture. At the client site, gradual virtual games are introduced so that the subjects can control and interact with virtual objects through the interaction devices such as robot arms. Computer graphics show the geometric results and interaction haptic/force is fed back during exercising. Both video/audio information and kinematical/physiological data are transferred to the therapist for monitoring and analysis. In this way, patients can be diagnosed and directed and therapists can manage therapy sessions remotely. The rehabilitation process can be monitored through the Internet. Expert libraries on the central server can serve as a supervisor and give advice based on the training data and the physiological data. The proposed solution is a convenient application that has several features taking advantage of the extensive technological utilization in the area of physical rehabilitation and multimodal interaction.

Keywords

cloud robot multimodal interaction motor rehabilitation haptic/force feedback 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2017_1720_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (49 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 49 kb)

References

  1. [1]
    Van Elk M G, Driessen B J F, Dorrepaal M, van der Werff J J, van der Meche E G, Aulbers A P. A motorized gravity compensation mechanism used for active rehabilitation of upper limbs. In Proc. the 9th IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 28-July 1, 2005, pp.152-155.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Hussain S, Xie S Q, Jamwal P K. Effect of cadence regulation on muscle activation patterns during robot-assisted gait: A dynamic simulation study. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform., 2013, 17(2): 442-451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Riener R, Nef T, Colombo G. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation of the upper extremities. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 2005, 43(1): 2-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Kan P, Huq R, Hoey J, Goetschalckx R, Mihailidis A. The development of an adaptive upper-limb stroke rehabilitation robotic system. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 2011, 8: 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Stein J. Robotics in rehabilitation: Technology as destiny. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 2012, 91(11 Suppl. 3): S199-S203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Jeon B J, Kim W H, Park E Y. Effect of task-oriented training for people with stroke: A meta-analysis focused on repetitive or circuit training. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 2015, 22(1): 34-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Burgar C G, Lum P S, Shor P C, Machiel Van der Loos H F. Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: The Palo Alto VA/Stanford experience. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 2000, 37(6): 663-673.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Reinkensmeyer D J, Kahn L E, Arerbuch M, McKenna-Cole A, Schmit B D, Rymer W Z. Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: Progress with the arm guide. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 2000, 37(6): 653-662.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Krebs H I, Volpe B T, Aisen M L, Hogan N. Increasing productivity and quality of care: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 2000, 37(6): 639-652.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Zhang Y B, Wang Z X, Ji L H, Bi S. The clinical application of the upper extremity compound movements rehabilitation training robot. In Proc. the 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 28-July 1, 2005, pp.91-94.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Hesse S, Hess A, Werner C C, Kabbert N, Buschfort R. Effect on arm function and cost of robot-assisted group therapy in subacute patients with stroke and a moderately to severely affected arm: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 2014, 28(7): 637-647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Daly J J, Hogan N, Perepezko E M, Krebs H I, Rogers J M, Goyal K S, Dohring M E, Fredrickson E, Nethery J, Ruff R L. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2005, 42(6): 723-736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Xu G S, Song A G, Li H J. Control system design for an upper-limb rehabilitation robot. Adv. Robot., 2011, 25(1): 229-251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Pan L Z, Song A G, Xu G Z, Li H J, Xu B G, Xiong P W. Hierarchical safety supervisory control strategy for robot-assisted rehabilitation exercise. Robotica, 2013, 31(5): 757-766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Sivan M, O’Connor R J, Makower S, Levesley M, Bhakta B. Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J. Rehabil. Med., 2011, 43(3): 181-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Krebs H I, Hogan N, Aisen M L, Volpe B T. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng., 1998, 6(1): 75-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Lum P S, Burgar C G, Loos M V. The use of a robotic device for post-stroke movement therapy. In Proc. the Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, April 1997, pp.107-110.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Abuarqub S, Ferrarin M. Robot-based rehabilitation of the upper limbs in multiple sclerosis: Feasibility and preliminary results. J. Rehabil. Med., 2009, 41(12): 966-970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Shahbazi M, Atashzar S F, Patel R V. A framework for supervised robotics-assisted mirror rehabilitation therapy. In Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sept. 2014, pp.3567-3572.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Huijgen B C, Vollenbroek-Hutten M M, Zampolini M, Opisso E, Bernabeu M, van Nieuwenhoven J, Ilsbroukx S, Magni R, Giacomozzi C, Marcellari V, Marchese S S, Hermens H J. Feasibility of a home-based telerehabilitation system compared to usual care: Arm/hand function in patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury and multiple sclerosis. J. Telemed. Telecare, 2008, 14(5): 249-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Forducey P G, Ruwe W D, Dawson S J, Scheideman-Miller C, McDonald N B, Hantla M R. Using telerehabilitation to promote TBI recovery and transfer of knowledge. NeuroRehabilitation, 2003, 18(2): 103-111.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Zou T, Wang J C, Zhang F Y. Information service model with mobile agent supported. J. Comput. Sci. Technol., 2000, 15(2): 150-157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Jadhav C, Nair P, Krovi V. Individualized interactive home-based haptic telerehabilitation. IEEE MultiMedia, 2006, 13(3): 32-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Reinkensmeyer D J, Pang C T, Nessler J A, Painter C C. Web based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., 2002, 10(2): 102-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Song A G, Wu J, Qin G, Huang WY. A novel self-decoupled four degree-of-freedom wrist force/torque sensor. Measurement, 2007, 40(9/10): 883-891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Instrument Science and EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations