Robotic arms may help users perform various activities. Even though robotic arms are commercially available, their impacts are still poorly understood.
Purpose.
This scoping review aimed to identify the potential impacts of using robotic arms for individuals with upper-extremity disabilities and appraise the scientific quality of the selected studies.
Method.
A search for studies published between 1970 and 2016 was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Compendex, and Scopus. The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement was used to classify activities in which impacts were evaluated. The quality of each study was rated using McMaster University’s critical review form for quantitative studies.
Findings.
Thirty-six studies were reviewed, which evaluated self-care (21), productivity (33), and leisure (8). The short-term impacts were more commonly documented than long-term impacts. The impacts identified were mostly positive. The studies’ mean quality score was 8.8/15.
Implications.
Additional studies with more rigorous conditions are needed to produce higher-quality scientific evidence of the long-term impacts of robotic arm use.
AlexandratosK.BarnettF.ThomasY. (2012). The impact of exercise on the mental health and quality of life of people with severe mental illness: A critical review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 7, 48–60. doi:10.4276/030802212X13286281650956
2.
*AndersonL. (1990). Utilization of a robotic arm to enhance employment opportunities for persons with severe physical disabilities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (pp. 139–143). Wilmington, DE: University of Delaware, AI duPont Institute.
3.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. doi:10.1080/13645570320000119616
4.
*BachJ. R.ZeelenbergA. P.WinterC. (1990). Wheelchair-mounted robot manipulators: Long term use by patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 69, 55–59.
5.
*BirchG. E.FenglerM.GosineR. G.SchroederK.SchroederM.JohnsonD. L. (1996). An assessment methodology and its application to a robotic vocational assistive device. Technology and Disability, 5, 151–165.
6.
BroseS. W.WeberD. J.SalatinB. A.GrindleG. G.WangH.VazquezJ. J.CooperR. A. (2010). The role of assistive robotics in the lives of persons with disability. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 89, 509–521. doi:10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181cf569b
7.
*BusnelM.CammounR.Coulon-LautureF.DetricheJ. M.Le ClaireG.LesigneB. (1999). The robotized workstation “MASTER” for users with tetraplegia: Description and evaluation. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 36, 217–229.
8.
*CammounR.DetricheJ. M.LautureF.LesigneB. (1993). Clinical evaluation of the “MASTER” robot system and development of a new version. Robotica, 11, 535–539. doi:10.1017/S026357470001938X
ChungC. S.WangH.CooperR. A. (2013). Functional assessment and performance evaluation for assistive robotic manipulators: Literature review. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 36, 273–289. doi:10.1179/2045772313y.0000000132
11.
*ClarkE. (2013). Utilisation d’un bras robotisé par des personnes ayant un contrôle moteur diminué aux membres supérieurs [Use of a robotic arm by individuals having decreased upper extremity motor control]. Motricité Cérébrale: Réadaptation, Neurologie du Développement, 34, 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.motcer.2013.03.002
12.
*CookA. M.BentzB.HarbottleN.LynchC.MillerB. (2005). School-based use of a robotic arm system by children with disabilities. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 13, 452–460. doi:10.1109/tnsre.2005.856075
13.
*CookA.HoweryK.GuJ.MengM. (2000). Robot enhanced interaction and learning for children with profound physical disabilities. Technology and Disability, 13(1), 1–8.
14.
*CookA. M.LiuK. M.HoseitP. (1990). Robotic arm use by very young motorically disabled children. Assistive Technology, 2, 51–57. doi:10.1080/10400435.1990.10132150
15.
*DanielssonC.HolmbergL. (1994). Evaluation of the RAID workstation. In Proceedings of the RESNA’94 Annual Conference (pp. 451–453). Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED431281.pdf
16.
*EberhardtS. P.OsborneJ.RahmanT. (2000). Classroom evaluation of the Arlyn Arm robotic workstation. Assistive Technology, 12, 132–143. doi:10.1080/10400435.2000.10132019
FuhrerM. J.JutaiJ. W.SchererM. J.DeRuyterF. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 1243–1251. doi:10.1080/09638280310001596207
20.
*GelderblomG. J.de WitteL.van SoestK.WesselsR.DijcksB.van’t HoofdW…van der PijlD. (2001). Cost-effectiveness of the MANUS robot manipulator. In MokhtariM. (Ed.), Integration of assistive technology in the information age (pp. 340–345). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
21.
*GrigorescuS. M.LüthT.FragkopoulosC.CyriacksM.GräserA. (2012). A BCI-controlled robotic assistant for quadriplegic people in domestic and professional life. Robotica, 30, 419–431. doi:10.1017/S0263574711000737
22.
*HallK.GlassK.HammelJ.LeiferL.PerkashI. (1987). Evaluation of a tabletop robotic aid for quadriplegics. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Rehabilitation Technology (pp. 776–777). Washington, DC: RESNA and Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology.
23.
*HammelJ.HallK.LeesD.LeiferL.Van der LoosM.PerkashI.CriglerR. (1989). Clinical evaluation of a desktop robotic assistant. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 26(3), 1–16. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/80/1980-89.html
24.
*HammelJ. M.Van der LoosH. F. M.PerkashI. (1992). Evaluation of a vocational robot with a quadriplegic employee. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 683–693.
25.
*HillmanM. R. (1987). A feasibility study of a robot manipulator for the disabled. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 11, 160–165. doi:10.3109/03091908709008987
26.
HowickJ.ChalmersI.GlasziouP.GreenhalghT.HeneghanC.LiberatiA…ThorntonH. (n.d.) Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence: Background document. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
27.
*JardónA.GilÁ. M.De La PeñaA. I.MonjeC. A.BalaguerC. (2011). Usability assessment of ASIBOT: A portable robot to aid patients with spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6, 320–330. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.528144
28.
*JardónA.MonjeC. A.BalaguerC. (2012). Functional evaluation of ASIBOT: A new approach on portable robotic system for disabled people. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 9(1), 85–97. doi:10.3233/ABB-2011-0045
29.
JutaiJ. W.FuhrerM. J.DemersL.SchererM. J.DeRuyterF. (2005). Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 294–302. doi:10.1097/01.PHM.0000157313.88732.DC
30.
*KimD. J.HazlettR.GodfreyH.RucksG.PorteeD.BricoutJ.…BehalA. (2010). On the relationship between autonomy, performance, and satisfaction: Lessons from a three-week user study with post-SCI patients using a smart 6DOF assistive robotic manipulator. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 217–222). New York, NY: IEEE.
31.
*KimD. J.Hazlett-KnudsenR.Culver-GodfreyH.RucksG.CunninghamT.PortéeD…BehalA. (2012). How autonomy impacts performance and satisfaction: Results from a study with spinal cord injured subjects using an assistive robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 42(1), 2–14. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2159589
*KweeH.QuaedackersJ.Van de BoolE.TheeuwenL.SpethL. (1999). POCUS project: Adapting the control of the MANUS manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy. In International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (pp. 1–2). Retrieved fromhttp://rehabrobotics.org/icorr1999/papers/papers/kwee.pdf
34.
*KweeH.QuaedackersJ.Van De BoolE.TheeuwenL.SpethL. (2002). Adapting the control of the MANUS manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy: An exploratory study. Technology and Disability, 14, 31–42.
35.
*KweeH. H.TramblayM.BarbierR.DupeyrouxM.VinceneuxM. F.SemoulinP.PannierS. (1983). First experimentation of the Spartacus Telethesis in a clinical environment. Paraplegia, 21, 275–286. doi:10.1038/sc.1983.47
36.
LaffontI.BiardN.ChalubertG.DelahocheL.MarhicM.BoyerF. C.LerouxC. (2009). Evaluation of a graphic interface to control a robotic grasping arm: A multicenter study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 1740–1748. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.009
*MaheuV.ArchambaultP. SFrappierJRouthierF. (2011). Evaluation of the JACO robotic arm: Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975397
39.
*MahoneyR. M. (2001). The Raptor wheelchair robot system. Assistive Technology Research Series, 9, 135–141.
40.
MatsumotoY.NishidaY.MotomuraY.OkawaY. (2011). A concept of needs-oriented design and evaluation of assistive robots based on ICF. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975437
41.
ParveyA.WarrenN.Allen-CollinsonJ. (2015). “It gives me my freedom”: Technology and responding to bodily limitations in motor neuron disease. Medical Anthropology, 34, 442–455. doi:10.1080/01459740.2015.1035782
42.
PolatajkoH. J.TownsendE. A.CraikJ. (2013). The Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E). In TownsendE. A.PolatajkoH. J.Enabling occupation II: Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being, and justice through occupation (2nd ed., p. 23). Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
*RouthierF.ArchambaultP. S.CyrM.-C.MaheuV.GélinasI.LemayM. (2014). Benefits of JACO robotic arm on independent living and social participation. Paper presented at the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved fromhttps://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2014/Robotics/Routhier.html
45.
*SeamoneW.SchmeisserG. (1985). Early clinical evaluation of a robot arm/worktable system for spinal-cord-injured persons. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 22, 37–57.
46.
*ToppingM. J.SmithJ. K. (1999). The development of Handy 1: A robotic system to assist the severely disabled. Technology and Disability, 10, 95–105.
47.
*Van der LoosH. F. M.HammelJ.LeesD.ChangD.PerkashI.LeiferL. (1990). A voice-controlled robot system as a quadriplegic programmer’s assistant. Paper presented at the 13th Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) Annual Conference, Washington, DC.
48.
VincentC.RouthierF. (2012). Designs in AT research: Usefulness for therapists in clinical practice. Technology and Disability, 24, 49–58. doi:10.3233/TAD-2012-0333
49.
*VirtanenA.VapaakoskiS. (1993). Robotics helps disabled to work. In Proceedings of IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Conference (pp. 534–538). New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.1993.385068
50.
*WakitaY.OyamaEYoonW. KTanakaH.MatsumotoYBlomAStuytH. (2013). User evaluation of service robotic arms based on ICF through interviews with people with upper-limb disability. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) (pp. 1282–1287). New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ROBIO.2013.6739641
51.
*WakitaY.YoonW.-KYamanobeN. (2012). User evaluation to apply the robotic arm RAPUDA for an upper-limb disabilities patient’s daily life. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) (pp. 1482–1487). New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ROBIO.2012.6491178
52.
*WangH.XuJ.GrindleG.VazquezJ.SalatinB.KelleherA…CooperR. A. (2013). Performance evaluation of the Personal Mobility and Manipulation Appliance (PerMMA). Medical Engineering and Physics, 35, 1613–1619. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.05.00
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
