Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40012518›Full record

ArticleDisability and rehabilitation2025

Qualitative perspectives from Kinova

Breelyn Kane Styler, Eileen Wang, Dan Ding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disability and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Breelyn Kane StylerHuman Engineering Research Laboratories, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Eileen WangDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Swanson School of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Dan DingHuman Engineering Research Laboratories, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

RRD VA I01 RX003242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough the benefits of Assistive Robotic Manipulators (ARMs) have been recognized since their emergence over the past two decades, the number of ARM owners remains limited, though expected to grow. This study interviews current owners to gather their perspectives and uses the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model to understand their usage experiences with ARMs. MATERIALS AND

methodsA semi-structured remote interview study was conducted with robotic arm owners (

resultsEleven ARM owners were recruited and gave examples of the Kinova

conclusionWe performed a qualitative interview and drew conclusions guided by the HAAT model to better understand interactions between the user, the robotic arm, and contexts of its use for manipulation tasks. The insights gained can better inform prospective owners and guide future research in assistive robotics.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesRoboticsSelf-Help DevicesActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchassistive technologyHAATqualitative interviewrobotic armupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID40012518
PMCPMC12353078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.