Assesses usability and performance of an upper-limb rehabilitation exoskeleton in healthy participants, suggesting areas for improvement.
Upper-limb impairments affect a substantial portion of the global population, often limiting the ability to perform daily activities. Robotic rehabilitation systems offer a promising solution by enabling high-dose, task-oriented therapy with consistent and objective feedback. However, user acceptance and perceived comfort are critical for their successful adoption. This work presents a feasibility, performance, and comfort evaluation of a 2-degree-of-freedom upper-limb rehabilitation exoskeleton capable of performing elbow flexion/extension and forearm pronation/supination. A total of 47 healthy participants were enrolled and tested across three rehabilitation modalities: passive assist, active assist, and active resist. Passive assist enabled full range-of-motion execution, active assist supported movement, and active resist provided variable resistance via a sliding bar (0–100%). Objective performance metrics, including position, current, and temperature, were recorded and analyzed, revealing trajectory-tracking errors during passive assistance of 4.82° ± 0.02° for forearm movement and 1.20° ± 0.04° for elbow movement, with actuator temperatures remaining below their rated limits throughout the study. The active assist mode did not achieve a true assist-as-needed performance, indicating a need for further refinement. Subjective evaluation included the System Usability Scale, yielding a score of 87.1 ± 9.6, indicating excellent usability, and a safety and comfort assessment averaging 4.4 ± 0.4 out of 5. Perceived effort was assessed using the Borg CR-10 scale and generally scaled appropriately across modalities, although some variability suggests the need for further investigation. Qualitative feedback identified areas for improvement, particularly in ergonomics and control behavior. Overall, the results support the feasibility, usability, and safe operation of the proposed exoskeleton and provide insights for future device refinement and evaluation with target user populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gonçalves et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: