Advertisement

The Mechatronic Device for the Hand and Forearm Rehabilitation

  • Jacek S. TutakEmail author
  • Wojciech Kłos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 548)

Abstract

The mechatronic device has been designed and implemented based on the comprehensive rehabilitation of the paretic upper limb. This system has been prepared for an individual approach to the recovery process including diagnostics, passive or active exercises with biofeedback and reports. The mechatronic device consists of a three basic cooperating parts: mechatronic frame with module for hand and forearm rehabilitation, glove for the hand rehabilitation and module for health hand. This mechatronic device was developed in order to realize a passive exercises and active exercises with paralysed limb using the healthy limb to conduct these exercises. A very important part of rehabilitation is to introduce biofeedback (e.g. visual and auditory) to motion exercises. This paper presents the main technical characteristics of the project, especially design, kinematics and dynamics of the device and the details of the hardware/software system. This paper suggests a new approach to the rehabilitation device for the spastic upper limb of stroke survivors. The functionality of the mechatronic device for hand and forearm rehabilitation have been presented during the first tests, and preliminary assessment of usability and acceptance is promising.

Keywords

Rehabilitation device Hardware and software system Biofeedback 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The innovative features and the unconventional way of running exercises with the presented device is further proven by the fact that a patent application No P.419380 and P. 419381 for this device to rehabilitate one’s physical and learning abilities has been filed.

This work was supported in part the Vice-Rector for Research the Rzeszow University of Technology (DS/M.MA.17.001).

References

  1. 1.
    Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B.J., Grond, J., et al.: Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34(9), 2181–2186 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stroke Association, Research Spend in the UK: Comparing stroke, cancer, coronary heart disease and dementia 2014. http://www.stroke.org.uk/research-spend-uk. Accessed 9 Jan 2017
  3. 3.
    Dobkin, B.H.: Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 3(9), 528–536 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tutak, J.S.: Virtual reality and exercises for paretic upper limb of stroke survivors. TV-TG 24(2), 451–458 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hesse, S., Schmidt, H., Werner, C.: Machines to support motor rehabilitation after stroke: 10 years of experience in Berlin. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 43(5), 671–678 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Budzik, G., Turek, P., Traciak, J.: The influence of change in slice thickness on the accuracy of reconstruction of cranium geometry. J Eng. Med. 231(3), 197–202 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fazekas, G., Horvath, M., Troznai, T., et al.: Robot-mediated upper limb physiotherapy for patients with spastic hemiparesis: a preliminary study. JJRM 39(7), 580–582 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lum, P., Burger, C.G., Van der Loos, M., et al.: MIME robotic device for upper-limb neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: a follow-up study. JRRD 43(5), 631–642 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gunasekara, M., Gopura, R., Jayawardena, S.: 6-REXOS: upper limb exoskeleton robot with improved pHRI. IJARS 4, 1–13 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kudasik, T., Libura, M., Markowska, O., Miechowicz, S.: Methods of reconstructing complex multi-structural anatomical objects with RP techniques. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Techn. Sci. 64(2), 315–323 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hesse, S.: Recovery of gait and other motor functions after stroke: novel physical and pharmacological treatment strategies. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 22(3–5), 359–369 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lo, H.S., Xie, S.Q.: Exoskeleton robots for upper-limb rehabilitation: state of the art and future prospects. Med. Eng. Phys. 34(3), 261–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pistohl, T., Joshi, D., Ganesh, G., et al.: Artificial proprioceptive feedback for myoelectric control. TNSRE 3, 498–507 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozkul, F., Barkana, D.E.: Upper-extremity rehabilitation robot RehabRoby: methodology, design, usability and validation. IJARS 10, 1–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vieira, A., Gabriel, J., Melo, C., et al.: Kinect system in home-based cardiovascular rehabilitation. J Eng. Med. 231(1), 40–47 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurc, K., Szybicki, D., Burghardt, A., et al.: The application of virtual prototyping methods to determine the dynamic parameters of mobile robot. Open Eng. 6(1), 55–63 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heinen, F., Lund, M.E., Rasmussen, J., et al.: Muscle–tendon unit scaling methods of Hill-type musculoskeletal models: an overview. J Eng. Med. 230(10), 976–984 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seung, S., Choi, H., Jang, J., et al.: Virtual wall–based haptic-guided teleoperated surgical robotic system for single-port brain tumor removal surgery. J. Eng. Med. 231(1), 3–19 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tutak, J.S., Wiech, J.: Horizontal automated storage and retrieval system. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 11(1), 82–95 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Szuster, M., Gierlak, P.: Approximate dynamic programming in tracking control of a robotic manipulator. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 13(16), 1–18 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dong-Yuan, G., Xi-Fan, Y., Qing-He, Y., et al.: Robot sensor calibration via neural network and particle swarm optimization enhanced with crossover and mutation. TV-TG 21(5), 1025–1033 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kowalczyk, A., Szlachta, A., Hanus, R., Chorzępa, R.: Estimation of conditional expected value for expone ntially autocorrelated data. Metrol. Meas. Syst. 24(1), 67–69 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hendzel, Z., Burghardt, A., Gierlak, P., et al.: Conventional and fuzzy force control in robotised machining. Solid State Phenom. Trans. Tech. Publ. 210, 178–185 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tutak, J.S.: Design of ELISE robot for the paretic upper limb of stroke survivors. J. Vibroengineering 18(6), 4069–4085 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kowalczyk, A., Hanus, R., Szlachta, A.: Investigation of the statistical method of time delay estimation based on conditional averaging of delayed signal. Metrol. Meas. Syst. 18(2), 335–342 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hendzel, Z., Burghardt, A., Szuster, M.: Reinforcement learning in discrete neural control of the underactuated system. In: Rutkowski, L., Korytkowski, M., Scherer, R., Tadeusiewicz, R., Zadeh, Lotfi A., Zurada, Jacek M. (eds.) ICAISC 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7894, pp. 64–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38658-9_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, Department of Applied Mechanics and RoboticsRzeszow University of TechnologyRzeszowPoland

Personalised recommendations