Abstract
Background
In neurorehabilitation, we are witnessing a growing awareness of the importance of standardized quantitative assessment of limb functions. Detailed assessments of the sensorimotor deficits following neurological disorders are crucial. So far, this assessment has relied mainly on clinical scales, which showed several drawbacks. Different technologies could provide more objective and repeatable measurements. However, the current literature lacks practical guidelines for this purpose. Nowadays, the integration of available metrics, protocols, and algorithms into one harmonized benchmarking ecosystem for clinical and research practice is necessary.
Methods
This work presents a benchmarking framework for upper limb capacity. The scheme resulted from a multidisciplinary and iterative discussion among several partners with previous experience in benchmarking methodology, robotics, and clinical neurorehabilitation. We merged previous knowledge in benchmarking methodologies for human locomotion and direct clinical and engineering experience in upper limb rehabilitation. The scheme was designed to enable an instrumented evaluation of arm capacity and to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions with high reproducibility and resolution. It includes four elements: (1) a taxonomy for motor skills and abilities, (2) a list of performance indicators, (3) a list of required sensor modalities, and (4) a set of reproducible experimental protocols.
Results
We proposed six motor primitives as building blocks of most upper-limb daily-life activities and combined them into a set of functional motor skills. We identified the main aspects to be considered during clinical evaluation, and grouped them into ten motor abilities categories. For each ability, we proposed a set of performance indicators to quantify the proposed ability on a quantitative and high-resolution scale. Finally, we defined the procedures to be followed to perform the benchmarking assessment in a reproducible and reliable way, including the definition of the kinematic models and the target muscles.
Conclusions
This work represents the first unified scheme for the benchmarking of upper limb capacity. To reach a consensus, this scheme should be validated with real experiments across clinical conditions and motor skills. This validation phase is expected to create a shared database of human performance, necessary to have realistic comparisons of treatments and drive the development of new personalized technologies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Neurological damages following stroke, spinal cord injury, and other neurological or neurodegenerative disorders can result in severe impairment of sensorimotor functions, affecting functional activities, independence, and eventually the quality of life. This is particularly true for the upper extremities, which are fundamental to interact with the environment and perform activities of daily living [1].
In the context of neurorehabilitation, assessing upper limb movements is crucial to monitor and understand sensorimotor recovery [2]. Technology-aided assessments could provide the clinicians with objective, accurate, and repeatable measurements of a patient’s capacity, allowing them to monitor his/her progress objectively, evaluate the effects of the different treatments or adapt them to the specific patient’s needs [3]. Nevertheless, so far, the evaluation of limb functions and the assessment of the effectiveness of technology-assisted interventions have relied mainly on clinical scales [4, 5]. Clinical scores applied to the upper limbs have several drawbacks, such as relying on observer-based ordinal scales (e.g., Functional Independence Measure), having poor inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, and floor and ceiling effects (e.g., Fugl-Meyer Assessment) [6,7,8]. Consequently, they also often fail to differentiate between improvements at motor recovery level and improvements due to alternative compensating strategies [40]. In this work, we considered only the palmar gras** of an object of cylindric shape, as will be detailed in “Benchmarking protocol” section. We neglected the variety of possible gras** strategies which can affect the arm motor plan, given that this aspect is beyond the goal of the present study.
The identified motor primitives were combined to define the following three main motor skills, which represent the most common activities considered in clinical evaluation [ Benchmarking represents the desirable approach for evaluating the upper limb abilities of frail subjects and assessing and comparing the performance of different rehabilitative interventions. In this context, technology-driven solutions provide a promising complement to conventional clinical assessments. We created a benchmarking framework based on kinematics and electromyography domains to evaluate the upper limb capabilities. The scheme can be exploited to assess the effectiveness of a rehabilitative program, e.g., comparing patients’ performance before and after the intervention, or to perform an instrumented clinical evaluation of a patient. It is suitable to be conducted with robot-equipped sensors as well as with external sensors (e.g., optoelectronic system, wearable sensors). We suggest that this framework should be combined with the standard Evidence-Based Medicine relying only on clinical scales. The scheme could serve as a complementary and objective tool that promises to reveal sensorimotor impairment profiles more accurately, potentially allowing for a reduction of the required sample size for clinical trials. Future efforts are needed to validate the reproducibility, transferability, and clinical meaningfulness of the scheme and eventually revise it. This scheme aims to be largely used by the scientific community to create a shared database of human performance that could drive the development of new personalized technologies.Conclusion and future perspectives
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- EMG:
-
Electromyography
- PI:
-
Performance indicator
- DOF:
-
Degree of freedom
- ISB:
-
International Society of Biomechanics
- SENIAM:
-
Surface ElectroMyoGraphy for the Non-Invasive Assessment of Muscles
References
Schwarz A, Bhagubai MMC, Nies SHG, Held JPO, Veltink PH, Buurke JH, et al. Characterization of stroke-related upper limb motor impairments across various upper limb activities by use of kinematic core set measures. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2022;19(1):2.
Lambercy O, Lünenburger L, Gassert R, Bolliger M. Robots for Measurement/Clinical Assessment. In: Dietz V, Nef T, Rymer WZ, editors. Neurorehabilitation Technology [Internet]. London: Springer; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2277-7_24.
Garro F, Chiappalone M, Buccelli S, Michieli LD, Semprini M. Neuromechanical biomarkers for robotic neurorehabilitation. Front Neurorobot [Internet]. 2021;65:8.
Rodgers H, Bosomworth H, Krebs HI, van Wijck F, Howel D, Wilson N, et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2019;394(10192):51–62.
Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9:CD006876.
Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Potential of robots as next-generation technology for clinical assessment of neurological disorders and upper-limb therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(4):335–53.
Schwarz A, Averta G, Veerbeek JM, Luft AR, Held JPO, Valenza G, et al. A functional analysis-based approach to quantify upper limb impairment level in chronic stroke patients: a pilot study. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019;2019:4198–204.
Thrane G, Sunnerhagen KS, Persson HC, Opheim A, Alt MM. Kinematic upper extremity performance in people with near or fully recovered sensorimotor function after stroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2019;35(9):822–32.
Nordin N, **e SQ, Wünsche B. Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):137.
Aller F, Pinto-Fernandez D, Torricelli D, Pons JL, Mombaur K. From the state of the art of assessment metrics toward novel concepts for humanoid robot locomotion benchmarking. IEEE Robot Automation Lett. 2020;5(2):914–20.
Grimm F, Kraugmann J, Naros G, Gharabaghi A. Clinical validation of kinematic assessments of post-stroke upper limb movements with a multi-joint arm exoskeleton. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):92.
Belfatto A, Scano A, Chiavenna A, Mastropietro A, Mrakic-Sposta S, Pittaccio S, et al. A multiparameter approach to evaluate post-stroke patients: an application on robotic rehabilitation. Appl Sci. 2018;8(11):2248.
De Oliveira AC, Sulzer JS, Deshpande AD. Assessment of upper-extremity joint angles using harmony exoskeleton. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:916–25.
Pasquini M, James ND, Dewany I, Coen FV, Cho N, Lai S, et al. Preclinical upper limb neurorobotic platform to assess, rehabilitate, and develop therapies. Sci Robot. 2022;7(64):eabk2378.
Torricelli D, Rodriguez-Guerrero C, Veneman JF, Crea S, Briem K, Lenggenhager B, et al. Benchmarking wearable robots: challenges and recommendations from functional, user experience, and methodological perspectives. Front Robot AI. 2020;7:168.
de los Reyes-Guzmán A, Dimbwadyo-Terrer I, Trincado-Alonso F, Monasterio-Huelin F, Torricelli D, Gil-Agudo A. Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: a review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014;29(7):719–27.
Tran VD, Dario P, Mazzoleni S. Kinematic measures for upper limb robot-assisted therapy following stroke and correlations with clinical outcome measures: a review. Med Eng Phys. 2018;53:13–31.
Scotto di Luzio F, Cordella F, Lauretti C, Draicchio F, Zollo L. Assessment of muscular activation patterns in 3D upper limb robot-aided rehabilitation. In: Masia L, Micera S, Akay M, Pons JL, editors. Converging clinical and engineering research on neurorehabilitation III. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 349–53.
Torricelli D, Gonzalez-Vargas J, Veneman JF, Mombaur K, Tsagarakis N, del Ama AJ, et al. Benchmarking bipedal locomotion: a unified scheme for humanoids, wearable robots, and humans. IEEE Robot Automation Magazine. 2015;22(3):103–15.
Definition of BENCHMARK [Internet]. [cited 2022 Feb 9]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benchmark.
Torricelli D, Pons JL. EUROBENCH: preparing robots for the real world. In: Carrozza MC, Micera S, Pons JL, editors. Wearable robotics: challenges and trends. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 375–8.
Hughes AM, Bouças SB, Burridge JH, Alt Murphy M, Buurke J, Feys P, et al. Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;23(13):86.
Bayón C, Delgado-Oleas G, Avellar L, Bentivoglio F, Di Tommaso F, Tagliamonte NL, et al. Development and evaluation of benchbalance: a system for benchmarking balance capabilities of wearable robots and their users. Sensors. 2022;22(1):119.
Dacal-Nieto A, Masood J, Vergara D, Alves M. TestEd information system: automatic evaluation of exoskeletons subjective performance and user experience. In: Torricelli D, Akay M, Pons JL, editors. Converging clinical and engineering research on neurorehabilitation IV. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 177–81.
Maugliani N, Caimmi M, Malosio M, Airoldi F, Borro D, Rosquete D, et al. Lower-limbs exoskeletons benchmark exploiting a stairs-based testbed: the STEPbySTEP Project. In: Moreno JC, Masood J, Schneider U, Maufroy C, Pons JL, editors., et al., Wearable robotics: challenges and trends. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 603–8.
Taborri J, Salvatori S, Mariani G, Rossi S, Patanè F. BEAT: Balance Evaluation Automated Testbed for the standardization of balance assessment in human wearing exoskeleton. In: 2020 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Industry 40 IoT. 2020. p. 526–31.
Burridge J, Alt Murphy M, Buurke J, Feys P, Keller T, Klamroth-Marganska V, et al. A systematic review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment? Front Neurol. 2019;25(10):567.
Prange-Lasonder GB, Alt Murphy M, Lamers I, Hughes AM, Buurke JH, Feys P, et al. European evidence-based recommendations for clinical assessment of upper limb in neurorehabilitation (CAULIN): data synthesis from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2021;18(1):162.
Schambra HM, Parnandi A, Pandit NG, Uddin J, Wirtanen A, Nilsen DM. A taxonomy of functional upper extremity motion. Front Neurol [Internet]. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00857/full.
Magill RA, Anderson D. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2014.
Gentile AM. Skill acquisition: action, movement, and neuromotor processes. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy. 2000;93–154.
Guerra J, Uddin J, Nilsen D, Mclnerney J, Fadoo A, Omofuma IB, et al. Capture, learning, and classification of upper extremity movement primitives in healthy controls and stroke patients. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). 2017. p. 547–54.
Pissadaki EK, Abrami AGS, Heisig SJ, Bilal E, Cavallo M, Wacnik PW, et al. Decomposition of complex movements into primitives for Parkinson’s disease assessment. IBM J Res Dev. 2018;62(1):5:1-5:11.
Miranda JG, Daneault JF, Vergara-Diaz G, Quixadá AP, Fonseca MD, et al. Complex upper-limb movements are generated by combining motor primitives that scale with the movement size. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12918.
Schwarz A, Kanzler CM, Lambercy O, Luft AR, Veerbeek JM. Systematic review on kinematic assessments of upper limb movements after stroke. Stroke. 2019;50(3):718–27.
Birkenmeier RL, Prager EM, Lang CE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(7):620–35.
Caimmi M, Guanziroli E, Malosio M, Pedrocchi N, Vicentini F, Molinari Tosatti L, et al. Normative data for an instrumental assessment of the upper-limb functionality. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015: 484131.
Lang CE, Bland MD, Bailey RR, Schaefer SY, Birkenmeier RL. Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity after stroke: foundations for clinical decision making. J Hand Therapy. 2013;26(2):104–14.
Armbrüster C, Spijkers W. Movement planning in prehension: do intended actions influence the initial reach and grasp movement? Mot Control. 2006;10(4):311–29.
Becchio C, Manera V, Sartori L, Cavallo A, Castiello U. Gras** intentions: from thought experiments to empirical evidence. Front Human Neurosci [Internet]. 2012. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00117.
Ambrosini E, Zajc J, Ferrante S, Ferrigno G, Gasperina SD, Bulgheroni M, et al. A hybrid robotic system for arm training of stroke survivors: concept and first evaluation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019;66(12):3290–300.
Puchinger M, Kurup NBR, Keck T, Zajc J, Russold MF, Gföhler M. The Retrainer Light-Weight Arm Exoskeleton: Effect of Adjustable Gravity Compensation on Muscle Activations and Forces. In: 2018 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob). 2018. p. 396–401.
Alt Murphy M, Willén C, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic variables quantifying upper-extremity performance after stroke during reaching and drinking from a glass. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(1):71–80.
Caimmi M, Carda S, Giovanzana C, Maini ES, Sabatini AM, Smania N, et al. Using kinematic analysis to evaluate constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(1):31–9.
Carpinella I, Lencioni T, Bowman T, Bertoni R, Turolla A, Ferrarin M, et al. Effects of robot therapy on upper body kinematics and arm function in persons post stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17(1):10.
Goffredo M, Mazzoleni S, Gison A, Infarinato F, Pournajaf S, Galafate D, et al. Kinematic parameters for tracking patient progress during upper limb robot-assisted rehabilitation: an observational study on subacute stroke subjects. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2019;21(2019): e4251089.
Besomi M, Hodges PW, Clancy EA, Van Dieën J, Hug F, Lowery M, et al. Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: amplitude normalization matrix. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2020;1(53): 102438.
Mugnosso M, Marini F, Holmes M, Morasso P, Zenzeri J. Muscle fatigue assessment during robot-mediated movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(1):119.
Lencioni T, Fornia L, Bowman T, Marzegan A, Caronni A, Turolla A, et al. A randomized controlled trial on the effects induced by robot-assisted and usual-care rehabilitation on upper limb muscle synergies in post-stroke subjects. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):5323.
Nam C, Rong W, Li W, **e Y, Hu X, Zheng Y. The effects of upper-limb training assisted with an electromyography-driven neuromuscular electrical stimulation robotic hand on chronic stroke. Front Neurol [Internet]. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00679.
Longatelli V, Pedrocchi A, Guanziroli E, Molteni F, Gandolla M. Robotic exoskeleton gait training in stroke: an electromyography-based evaluation. Front Neurorobot [Internet]. 2021;5:6.
Bi L, Feleke AG, Guan C. A review on EMG-based motor intention prediction of continuous human upper limb motion for human-robot collaboration. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2019;51:113–27.
Campanini I, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rymer WZ, Merletti R. Surface EMG in clinical assessment and neurorehabilitation: barriers limiting its use. Front Neurol. 2020;11:934.
Manca A, Cereatti A, Bar-On L, Botter A, Della Croce U, Knaflitz M, et al. A survey on the use and barriers of surface electromyography in neurorehabilitation. Front Neurol. 2020;11:1137.
Phinyomark A, Phukpattaranont P, Limsakul C. Feature reduction and selection for EMG signal classification. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(8):7420–31.
Cahyadi BN, Khairunizam W, Muhammad MN, Zunaidi I, Majid SH, Rudzuan MN, et al. Analysis of EMG based Arm Movement Sequence using Mean and Median Frequency. In: 2018 5th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Informatics (EECSI). 2018. p. 440–4.
Colombo R, Pisano F, Micera S, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Carrozza MC, et al. Robotic techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13(3):311–24.
Casadio M, Morasso P, Noriaki Ide A, Sanguineti V, Giannoni P. Measuring functional recovery of hemiparetic subjects during gentle robot therapy. Measurement. 2009;42(8):1176–87.
Patterson TS, Bishop MD, McGuirk TE, Sethi A, Richards LG. Reliability of upper extremity kinematics while performing different tasks in individuals with stroke. J Mot Behav. 2011;43(2):121–30.
Tropea P, Cesqui B, Monaco V, Aliboni S, Posteraro F, Micera S. Effects of the alternate combination of “error-enhancing” and “active assistive” robot-mediated treatments on stroke patients. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2013;1:2100109–2100109.
Piron L, Tonin P, Cortese F, Zampolini M, Piccione F, Agostini M, et al. Post-stroke arm motor telerehabilitation web-based. In: 2006 International Workshop on Virtual Rehabilitation. 2006. p. 145–8.
Coderre AM, Zeid AA, Dukelow SP, Demmer MJ, Moore KD, Demers MJ, et al. Assessment of upper-limb sensorimotor function of subacute stroke patients using visually guided reaching. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(6):528–41.
Adamovich S, Fluet GG, Merians AS, Mathai A, Qiu Q. Recovery of hand function in virtual reality: Training hemiparetic hand and arm together or separately. In: 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2008. p. 3475–8.
Cesqui B, Aliboni S, Mazzoleni S, Carrozza MC, Posteraro F, Micera S. On the Use of Divergent Force Fields in Robot-Mediated Neurorehabilitation. In: 2008 2nd IEEE RAS EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. 2008. p. 854–61.
Otaka E, Otaka Y, Kasuga S, Nishimoto A, Yamazaki K, Kawakami M, et al. Clinical usefulness and validity of robotic measures of reaching movement in hemiparetic stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12(1):66.
Wu C, Yang C, de Chen M, Lin K, Wu L. Unilateral versus bilateral robot-assisted rehabilitation on arm-trunk control and functions post stroke: a randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:35.
Hazam Majid MS, Khairunizam W, Shahriman AB, Zunaidi I, Sahyudi BN, Zuradzman MR. EMG Feature Extractions for Upper-Limb Functional Movement During Rehabilitation. In: 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS). 2018. p. 314–20.
Dipietro L, Krebs HI, Fasoli SE, Volpe BT, Stein J, Bever C, et al. Changing motor synergies in chronic stroke. J Neurophysiol. 2007;98(2):757–68.
Corti M, McGuirk TE, Wu SS, Patten C. Differential effects of power training versus functional task practice on compensation and restoration of arm function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(7):842–54.
Grinyagin IV, Biryukova EV, Maier MA. Kinematic and dynamic synergies of human precision-grip movements. J Neurophysiol. 2005;94(4):2284–94.
Osu R, Franklin DW, Kato H, Gomi H, Domen K, Yoshioka T, et al. Short- and long-term changes in joint co-contraction associated with motor learning as revealed from surface EMG. J Neurophysiol. 2002;88(2):991–1004.
Kisiel-Sajewicz K, Fang Y, Hrovat K, Yue GH, Siemionow V, Sun CK, et al. Weakening of synergist muscle coupling during reaching movement in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(4):359–68.
Kim H, Miller LM, Fedulow I, Simkins M, Abrams GM, Byl N, et al. Kinematic data analysis for post-stroke patients following bilateral versus unilateral rehabilitation with an upper limb wearable robotic system. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013;21(2):153–64.
Kahn LE, Zygman ML, Rymer WZ, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Effect of robot-assisted and unassisted exercise on functional reaching in chronic hemiparesis. In: 2001 Conference Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2001. p. 1344–7 vol.2.
Knaut LA, Subramanian SK, McFadyen BJ, Bourbonnais D, Levin MF. Kinematics of pointing movements made in a virtual versus a physical 3-dimensional environment in healthy and stroke subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(5):793–802.
Mace M, Guy S, Hussain A, Diane Playford E, Ward N, Balasubramanian S, et al. Validity of a sensor-based table-top platform to measure upper limb function. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017;2017:652–7.
Hu XL, Tong K, Song R, Zheng XJ, Leung WWF. A comparison between electromyography-driven robot and passive motion device on wrist rehabilitation for chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(8):837–46.
Michaelsen SM, Jacobs S, Roby-Brami A, Levin MF. Compensation for distal impairments of gras** in adults with hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2004;157(2):162–73.
Israely S, Leisman G, Carmeli E. Improvement in arm and hand function after a stroke with task-oriented training. BMJ Case Rep. 2017;2017:bcr2017219250.
Zollo L, Gallotta E, Guglielmelli E, Sterzi S. Robotic technologies and rehabilitation: new tools for upper-limb therapy and assessment in chronic stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2011;47(2):223–36.
Mazzoleni S, Filippi M, Carrozza MC, Posteraro F, Puzzolante L, Falchi E. Robot-aided therapy on the upper limb of subacute and chronic stroke patients: a biomechanical approach. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975422.
Daly JJ, Hogan N, Perepezko EM, Krebs HI, Rogers JM, Goyal KS, et al. Response to upper-limb robotics and functional neuromuscular stimulation following stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(6):723–36.
Rohrer B, Fasoli S, Krebs HI, Hughes R, Volpe B, Frontera WR, et al. Movement smoothness changes during stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2002;22(18):8297–304.
Longhi M, Merlo A, Prati P, Giacobbi M, Mazzoli D. Instrumental indices for upper limb function assessment in stroke patients: a validation study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):52.
Colombo R, Cusmano I, Sterpi I, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Pisano F. Test-retest reliability of robotic assessment measures for the evaluation of upper limb recovery. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014;22(5):1020–9.
Mazzoleni S, Posteraro F, Filippi M, Forte F, Micera S, Dario P, et al. Biomechanical assessment of reaching movements in post-stroke patients during a robot-aided rehabilitation. Appl Bionics Biomechanics. 2011;8(1):39–54.
Chang JJ, Tung WL, Wu WL, Huang MH, Su FC. Effects of robot-aided bilateral force-induced isokinetic arm training combined with conventional rehabilitation on arm motor function in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10):1332–8.
Basteris A, Nijenhuis SM, Stienen AH, Buurke JH, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F. Training modalities in robot-mediated upper limb rehabilitation in stroke: a framework for classification based on a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11(1):111.
Dalla Gasperina S, Roveda L, Pedrocchi A, Braghin F, Gandolla M. Review on patient-cooperative control strategies for upper-limb rehabilitation exoskeletons. Front Robot AI. 2021;7(8): 745018.
Wearable Robots: Biomechatronic Exoskeletons | Wiley [Internet]. Wiley.com. [cited 2022 Apr 13]. Available from: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Wearable+Robots%3A+Biomechatronic+Exoskeletons-p-9780470512944.
Perry JC, Rosen J, Burns S. Upper-limb powered exoskeleton design. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron. 2007;12(4):408–17.
Wu G, van der Helm FCT, Veeger HEJD, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion–Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38(5):981–92.
Georgarakis AM, Wolf P, Riener R. Simplifying Exosuits: Kinematic Couplings in the Upper Extremity during Daily Living Tasks. In: 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). 2019. p. 423–8.
Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(5):361–74.
Organization WH, editor. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
Masic I, Miokovic M, Muhamedagic B. Evidence based medicine—new approaches and challenges. Acta Inform Med. 2008;16(4):219–25.
Kanzler CM, Rinderknecht MD, Schwarz A, Lamers I, Gagnon C, Held JPO, et al. A data-driven framework for selecting and validating digital health metrics: use-case in neurological sensorimotor impairments. npj Digit Med. 2020;3(1):1–17.
ICF Beginner’s Guide: Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/icf-beginner-s-guide-towards-a-common-language-for-functioning-disability-and-health.
Definition of FEASIBILITY [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jun 20]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feasibility.
Plesser HE. Reproducibility vs. replicability: a brief history of a confused terminology. Front Neuroinform. 2018;11:76.
Zbytniewska M, Kanzler CM, Jordan L, Salzmann C, Liepert J, Lambercy O, et al. Reliable and valid robot-assisted assessments of hand proprioceptive, motor and sensorimotor impairments after stroke. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2021;18(1):115.
Gandolla M, Antonietti A, Longatelli V, Pedrocchi A. The effectiveness of wearable upper limb assistive devices in degenerative neuromuscular diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol [Internet]. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00450/full.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Eleonora Guanziroli and Luciana Magoni from the Villa Beretta Neurorehabilitation Center and Clara Sanz Morère and Natacha León from Hospital Los Madroños for the valuable contribution in the definition of this work.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
VL, MG, DT, AP contributed to the conception and design of the work and drafted the manuscript. JLP, JT contributed to the conception of the work and provided expertise on the theme of benchmarking. FM contributed to the conception of the work and dealt with the clinical issues. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
AP and MG hold shares of AGADE Srl, Milano, Italy. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Longatelli, V., Torricelli, D., Tornero, J. et al. A unified scheme for the benchmarking of upper limb functions in neurological disorders. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 19, 102 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01082-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01082-8