Focus group and Living Lab assessed usability of a robotic platform in patients with Parkinson’s disease and mild cognitive impairment, indicating potential for clinical integration.
Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) affects up to 40% of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), yet conventional rehabilitation often lacks engagement. The OPERA project developed a novel Bio-cooperative Robotic Platform (PRoBio), integrating a service robot and a virtual reality-based rehabilitation for personalized cognitive training. This work presents two preliminary user-centred studies aimed to assess PRoBio usability and acceptability. Methods: to gather qualitative feedback on robotic and virtual reality technologies, through ad hoc questionnaires, developed according to participatory design principles and user-centered evaluation literature, Study 1 (Focus group) involved 23 participants: 10 PD patients (F = 6; mean age = 68.9 ± 8.2 years), 5 caregivers (F = 3; mean age = 49.0 ± 15.5), 8 healthcare professionals (F = 6; mean age = 40.0 ± 12.0). Study 2 (Living Lab) tested the final version of PRoBio platform with 6 healthy volunteers (F = 3; mean age = 50.3 ± 11.0) and 8 rehabilitation professionals (F = 3; mean age = 32.8 ± 9.9), assessing usability and acceptability through validated questionnaires. Results: The focus group revealed common priorities across the three groups, including ease of use, emotional engagement, and personalization of exercises. Living Lab unveiled PRoBio as user-friendly, with high usability, hedonic quality, technology acceptance and low workload. No significant differences were found between groups, except for minor concerns on system responsiveness. Discussion: These preliminary findings support the feasibility, usability, and emotional appeal of PRoBio as a cognitive rehabilitation tool. The positive convergence among the groups suggests its potential for clinical integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crocetto et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: