Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34961530›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Human-machine-human interaction in motor control and rehabilitation: a review.

Emek Barış Küçüktabak, Sangjoon J Kim, Yue Wen, Kevin Lynch, Jose L Pons

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Specialty grand challenge: Rehabilitation engineering.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emek Barış KüçüktabakDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, 60208, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5748-5235
Sangjoon J KimLegs + Walking Lab, Shirley Ryan Ability Lab, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA.
Yue WenLegs + Walking Lab, Shirley Ryan Ability Lab, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kevin LynchDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, 60208, Evanston, IL, USA.
Jose L PonsDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, 60208, Evanston, IL, USA. jpons@sralab.org.ORCID 0000-0003-0265-0181
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman-human (HH) interaction mediated by machines (e.g., robots or passive sensorized devices), which we call human-machine-human (HMH) interaction, has been studied with increasing interest in the last decade. The use of machines allows the implementation of different forms of audiovisual and/or physical interaction in dyadic tasks. HMH interaction between two partners can improve the dyad's ability to accomplish a joint motor task (task performance) beyond either partner's ability to perform the task solo. It can also be used to more efficiently train an individual to improve their solo task performance (individual motor learning). We review recent research on the impact of HMH interaction on task performance and individual motor learning in the context of motor control and rehabilitation, and we propose future research directions in this area.

methodsA systematic search was performed on the Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed databases. The search query was designed to find studies that involve HMH interaction in motor control and rehabilitation settings. Studies that do not investigate the effect of changing the interaction conditions were filtered out. Thirty-one studies met our inclusion criteria and were used in the qualitative synthesis.

resultsStudies are analyzed based on their results related to the effects of interaction type (e.g., audiovisual communication and/or physical interaction), interaction mode (collaborative, cooperative, co-active, and competitive), and partner characteristics. Visuo-physical interaction generally results in better dyadic task performance than visual interaction alone. In cases where the physical interaction between humans is described by a spring, there are conflicting results as to the effect of the stiffness of the spring. In terms of partner characteristics, having a more skilled partner improves dyadic task performance more than having a less skilled partner. However, conflicting results were observed in terms of individual motor learning.

conclusionsAlthough it is difficult to draw clear conclusions as to which interaction type, mode, or partner characteristic may lead to optimal task performance or individual motor learning, these results show the possibility for improved outcomes through HMH interaction. Future work that focuses on selecting the optimal personalized interaction conditions and exploring their impact on rehabilitation settings may facilitate the transition of HMH training protocols to clinical implementations.

Indexed as

Task Performance and AnalysisHumansHuman-machine-human interactionHuman-robot interactionMotor controlMotor learningMulti-human interactionRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID34961530
PMCPMC8714449
OpenAlexW4200428094

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.