ArticleArtificial organs2025
Assessment of User Experience, Acceptability, Usability, Human-Device Interaction, and Ergonomics in Two Mobile FES-Cycling Systems for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury.
Article in Artificial organs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the road to Cybathlon 2024: lessons learned from the Polimi FES-bike team.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Assessment of User Experience, Acceptability, Usability, Human-Device Interaction, and Ergonomics in Two Mobile FES-Cycling Systems for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury.Artificial organs · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunctional Electrical Stimulation Assisted Cycling (FES-cycling) is a rehabilitation intervention for individuals with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), offering benefits like increased muscle trophism, improved cardiopulmonary function, and reduced bone demineralization. Despite numerous studies on its physical advantages, few have focused on user experience. This study evaluates the user experience, usability, acceptability, and human-device interaction of two FES-cycling systems: a recumbent FES-bike prototype from Politecnico di Milano and the commercial BerkelBike Pro.
methodsWe recruited 15 participants with SCI, aged 18-65, with varying injury levels. The user experience (primary outcome), acceptability, usability, human-device interaction, and ergonomics of both systems were investigated by means of 4 questionnaires: the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), the Technological Acceptance Measure 3 (TAM-3), the System Usability Scale (SUS), and a customized questionnaire to evaluate human-device interaction both in terms of ergonomic aspects and psychological factors.
resultsThe user experience received positive evaluations across all dimensions (scores ≥ 1.5 on a scale from -3 to 3), with slightly higher, though not statistically significant, scores for the FB. Secondary outcomes indicated strong acceptability (global TAM-3 scores > 5.5/7 for both devices), high usability ratings (SUS scores ≥ 75/100 for both devices), and favorable interaction and ergonomics, emphasizing ease of use, comfort, and alignment with user expectations.
conclusionsThe study underscores the positive user experience as the primary outcome, along with strong acceptance and usability of both devices, emphasizing their potential to enhance Sport-Therapy and the value of integrating user perspectives in future development.
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.