ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Hands-free control of an assistive robotic arm for high-level paralysis.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent advancements in assistive robotic arms have enabled many people with tetraplegia to perform activities of daily living more independently. Because these systems typically require hand use, they are not a ready option for many individuals with high-level (C4 and above) tetraplegia. Such individuals, however, might be able to use signals that arise from the head and neck to control assistive devices. Therefore, the goal of the study was to evaluate the utility of several signals arising from the head and neck to control a robotic arm during 3D center-out reaching to multiple targets ~ 25-50 cm from the start location.
methodsTen non-disabled human subjects were tested using five non-invasive, hands-free modalities (head position, head velocity, facial electromyography, tongue, and voice) to control a robot arm. For comparison, subjects also used joystick position and joystick velocity methods to control reaching movements of the robotic arm. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out on key performance indicators including movement time, path efficiency, throughput, and perceived workload.
resultsThe hands-free control modalities of head position, facial EMG, tongue, and voice had average (± SD) movement times (5.8 ± 1.6, 8.2 ± 3.7, 6.3 ± 2.0, and 10.0 ± 3.7 s, respectively). With the exception of voice, none of these times were significantly different than that of the benchmark hand position control of a joystick (6.3 ± 2.3 s). Furthermore, no significant differences were revealed in perceived workload across control modalities.
conclusionsThese results indicate, therefore, that various non-invasive, hands-free methods could be used effectively by people with high-level tetraplegia to operate assistive robotic arms.
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.