ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2016
Usability Evaluation of a VibroTactile Feedback System in Stroke Subjects.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A Sensor-Based Feedback Device Stimulating Daily Life Upper Extremity Activity in Stroke Patients: A Feasibility Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Trial
- Less Vibrotactile Feedback Is Effective to Improve Human Balance Control during Sensory Cues Alteration.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Trial
- Leveraging wearable haptics for guidance in virtual rehabilitation: effects on motor control from an immersive VR setting.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Feasibility and User Experience of a Program of Progressive Cued Activity to Promote Functional Upper Limb Activity in the Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting with Follow-Up at Home.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Requirements for home-based upper extremity rehabilitation using wearable motion sensors for stroke patients: a user-centred approach.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2024Article
- Shaping Human Movement via Bimanually-Dependent Haptic Force Feedback.World Haptics Conference. World Haptics Conference · 2023Article
- Utility and Usability of Two Forms of Supplemental Vibrotactile Kinesthetic Feedback for Enhancing Movement Accuracy and Efficiency in Goal-Directed Reaching.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A 3D-Printed Soft Haptic Device with Built-in Force Sensing Delivering Bio-Mimicked Feedback.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Static and dynamic proprioceptive recognition through vibrotactile stimulation.Journal of neural engineering · 2021Article
- Vibrotactile-Based Rehabilitation on Balance and Gait in Patients with Neurological Diseases: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Evaluation of Optimal Vibrotactile Feedback for Force-Controlled Upper Limb Myoelectric Prostheses.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Bilateral Tactile Feedback-Enabled Training for Stroke Survivors Using Microsoft KinectSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Accuracy of a Smartphone-based Autorefractor Compared with Criterion-standard Refraction.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2018Article
- Encouragement-Induced Real-World Upper Limb Use after Stroke by a Tracking and Feedback Device: A Study Protocol for a Multi-Center, Assessor-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.