Key result
Combined performance and physiological feedback adjustment (CFA) kept subjects more active, focused, and excited during robot-assisted rehabilitation compared to score or physiological feedback alone.
Why the study?
Does combined performance and physiological feedback adjustment improve subject excitement and engagement compared to score or physiological feedback alone during robot-assisted rehabilitation?
Does combined performance and physiological feedback adjustment improve subject excitement and engagement compared to score or physiological feedback alone during robot-assisted rehabilitation?
Combining score and physiological feedback for dynamic difficulty adjustment in robot-assisted rehabilitation keeps subjects more engaged and excited than either method alone.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May enhance engagement in robot-assisted rehabilitation; hypothesis-generating and requires validation in larger trials.
In this letter, subjects take part in a fruit picker game on the robot-assisted rehabilitation system RehabRoby. The difficulty level of the game is adjusted using three feedback strategies. We use the scores of the subjects as the first feedback to determine the difficulty level in score feedback adjustment (SFA). We then consider physiological feedback, which is the mean skin conductance of the subjects, in physiological feedback adjustment (PFA). Finally, we use both the score and mean skin conductance to determine the difficulty level in combined performance and physiological feedback adjustment (CFA). Subsequently, we seek to understand the subjects' level of excitement by analyzing the subjective ratings using a survey, and by observing the statistically significant features generated from the collected physiological signals when they were performing the task using the proposed three feedback strategies. Survey results indicate that subjects respond positively to SFA and CFA but respond negatively to PFA because PFA proposes underchallenging levels to prevent a stressful experience, and as a result the subjects become bored. We find the skin conductance response (SCR), mean skin conductance (MeanSC), heart rate (HR), inter-beat interval (IBI), and mean temperature (Meantemp) as significant features between SFA, PFA, and CFA. The statistically significant features indicate that CFA proposes unpredictable difficulty levels, which keep the subjects more active, focused, and excited when compared to SFA and PFA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özkul et al. (2020) studied this question. Combined performance and physiological feedback adjustment (CFA) vs. Score feedback adjustment (SFA) and physiological feedback adjustment (PFA) was evaluated on Subjective ratings of excitement and physiological signal features. Combined performance and physiological feedback adjustment (CFA) kept subjects more active, focused, and excited during robot-assisted rehabilitation compared to score or physiological feedback alone.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: