Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28180128›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2016

Usability Evaluation of a VibroTactile Feedback System in Stroke Subjects.

Jeremia P Held, Bart Klaassen, Bert-Jan F van Beijnum, Andreas R Luft, Peter H Veltink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Shaping Human Movement via Bimanually-Dependent Haptic Force Feedback.World Haptics Conference. World Haptics Conference · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jeremia P HeldBiomedical Signals and Systems, MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; Division of Vascular Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Cereneo, Center for Neurology and Rehabilitation, Vitznau, Switzerland.
Bart KlaassenBiomedical Signals and Systems, MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Bert-Jan F van BeijnumBiomedical Signals and Systems, MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Andreas R LuftDivision of Vascular Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Cereneo, Center for Neurology and Rehabilitation, Vitznau, Switzerland.
Peter H VeltinkBiomedical Signals and Systems, MIRA - Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente , Enschede , Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo increase the functional capabilities of stroke subjects during activities of daily living, patients receive rehabilitative training to recover adequate motor control. With the goal to motivate self-training by use of the arm in daily life tasks, a sensor system (Arm Usage Coach, AUC) was developed that provides VibroTactile (VT) feedback if the patient does not move the affected arm above a certain threshold level. The objective of this study is to investigate the usability of this system in stroke subjects.

methodThe study was designed as a usability and user acceptance study of feedback modalities. Stroke subjects with mild to moderate arm impairments were enrolled. The subjects wore two AUC devices one on each wrist. VT feedback was given by the device on the affected arm. A semi-structured interview was performed before and after a measurement session with the AUC. In addition, the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire was given.

resultsTen ischemic chronic stroke patients (39 ± 38 months after stroke) were recruited. Four out of 10 subjects have worn the VT feedback on their dominant, affected arm. In the pre-measurement interview, eight participants indicated a preference for acoustic or visual over VT feedback. In the post evaluation interview, nine of 10 participants preferred VT over visual and acoustic feedback. On average, the AUC gave VT feedback six times during the measurement session. All participants, with the exception of one, used their dominant arm more then the non-dominant. For the SUS, eight participants responded above 80%, one between 70 and 80%, and one participant responded below 50%. DISCUSSION: More patients accepted and valued VT feedback after the test period, hence VT is a feasible feedback modality. The AUC can be used as a telerehabilitation device to train and maintain upper extremity use in daily life tasks.

Indexed as

arm usagedaily lifeinertial sensingrehabilitationstroketechnology assessmentvibrotactile

Identifiers

PMID28180128
PMCPMC5263126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.