ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2018
Questionnaire results of user experiences with wearable exoskeletons and their preferences for sensory feedback.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the determinants of implementation of a locomotor training program using a powered exoskeleton for individuals with a spinal cord injury.Clinical rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Consumer views of functional electrical stimulation and robotic exoskeleton in SCI rehabilitation: A mini review.Artificial organs · 2025Review
- Low Back Exoskeletons in Industry 5.0: From Machines to Perceiving Co-Pilots-A State-of-the-Art Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Human-exoskeleton interaction portrait.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Neuro-motor controlled wearable augmentations: current research and emerging trends.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2024Review
- A qualitative study to elicit user requirements for lower limb wearable exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation in spinal cord injury.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 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
- Technology Assisted Rehabilitation Patient Perception Questionnaire (TARPP-Q): development and implementation of an instrument to evaluate patients' perception during training.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Sensors and Actuation Technologies in Exoskeletons: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Wearable robotic exoskeleton for gait reconstruction in patients with spinal cord injury: A literature review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearable exoskeletons can be a powerful tool for the facilitation of ambulation of complete Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) subjects, which has several psychological and physical advantages. However, exoskeleton control is difficult for this group of users and requires a long period of training. People with SCI not only lack the motor control, but also miss the sensory information from below the level of the lesion, which is for example very important in their perception of body posture and makes balancing with an exoskeleton difficult. It is hypothesized that through sensory substitution part of the missing sensory information can be provided and might thereby improve the control of an exoskeleton. However, it is not known which information would be most important to receive while using an exoskeleton and how this feedback should be provided.
methodsTo investigate the preferences of users of an exoskeleton, a questionnaire was filled out by 10 SCI subjects who underwent a training program with a commercial exoskeleton (ReWalk). The questionnaire consisted of questions about the use of the exoskeleton to identify which information is missing and which instructions from the therapists were needed to be able to control the exoskeleton. The second part of the questionnaire focused on the possibilities of sensory feedback and preferences for stimulation methods (auditory, vibrotactile or visual) and feedback timing (discrete or continuous) were investigated. Furthermore, six options for feedback parameters (step initiation, continuous and discrete gait phases, foot position and mediolateral and anteroposterior weight shift) were proposed and the respondents were asked to indicate their preferences.
resultsThree feedback parameters (feedback about mediolateral and anteroposterior weight shift and feedback about step initiation) were considered as possibly helpful by the respondents. Furthermore, there were slight preferences for the use of vibrotactile (over auditory and visual) and discrete (over continuous) feedback.
conclusionsThe answers of the respondents on the optimal feedback parameters were rather variable and therefore it is recommended to let the users choose their preferred feedback system during a training session with several feedback options. However, there are slight preferences for the use of vibrotactile stimulation provided in a discrete way.
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.