ADVANCES IN UPPER BODY FUNCTION, HERE COME THE ROBOTS! Chantal Bérubé, Reg OT Clinical Educational Manager Instructional Course Sessions 75 min
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ADVANCES IN UPPER BODY FUNCTION, HERE COME THE ROBOTS!
Chantal Bérubé, Reg OTClinical Educational Manager
Instructional Course Sessions75 min
DISCLOSURE
Presenter: Chantal Bérubé
• Employee of Kinova Robotics
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Understand assistive robotic principles as they
relate to persons with disabilities.
• Discuss differences in having an integrated robot
control system versus an independent robot control
system.
• Identify three characteristics of suitable candidates
for assistive robotic arms.
PREHENSION
• Act of reaching and grasping which includes the
approach (reach), grasp, and releasing the object.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Promotes personal independence and increases
quality-of-life, it also helps prevent costs to society by
reducing risks of secondary conditions and reduces
caregiver costs.
Assistive technology is cost effective in that
appropriate devices can increase the capacity of both
children and adults with disabilities in the home,
workplace and community.1
1 Galvin JC: Assistive technology: Federal policy and practice since 1982. Technol Disabil 1997; 6:3–15
ROBOT
A robot is an actuated mechanism programmable
in two or more axes with a degree of autonomy,
moving within its environment, to perform intended
tasks. Autonomy in this context means the ability
to perform intended tasks based on current state
and sensing, without human intervention.
ROBOTS
Robots
Industrial robots
Service Robots
Personal service robots
Domestic robots
Assistive robots
Companions or pets
…
Professional service robots
Defense, rescue & security
applications
Logistic systems
Medical robotics
…
Adapted from the International Federation of Robotics http://www.ifr.org
WHAT IS ASSISTIVE ROBOTICS?
An assistive robot performs a physical task for the
well-being of a person with a disability. The task is
embedded in the context of normal human activities of
daily living (ADLs) and would otherwise have to be
performed by an attendant. The person with the
disability controls the functioning of the robot.2
2VDL’s definition
OBJECTIVE OF ASSISTIVE ROBOTIC
• To assist the user to function with a maximum of
autonomy in the environment:
• To be autonomous in the execution of certain tasks.
• To be autonomous at a specific working station.
• To be able to function in daily life with less human
assistance, thereby reducing the cost for attendants.
• To be able to function for a number of hours without
human attendance.
TASK AREAS FOR ASSISTIVE ROBOTICS
Eating & drinking•
Personal hygiene•
Washing, shaving, makeup•
Work & leisure•
Computer use, video, •
games
• Mobility
• Doors, windows, lift
buttons
• General reaching
• Floor to shelves
***A robot is a general-purpose tool
MAIN CONFIGURATIONS TO ASSISTIVE ROBOTICS
• Workstation/fixed site
• Feeding
• Mobile robots
• Wheelchair-mounted robotic systems
WORKSTATION ROBOTS
WORKSTATION
First• robots designed for disabled people.
Aim• : to give disabled people more autonomy in their
daily work.
Fixed• to a desk or a shelf.
Programmed• to get various objects, such as a
telephone, book, etc.
Specific• type: dedicated to self-feeding tasks.
WORKSTATION
• The Heidelberg Manipulator (Germany, 1970s)
• Spartacus Project (France, 1975)
• AA/Regenesis Workstation Robot (Canada, 1983)
• RAID (Britain, France, and Sweden, 1991)
• DeVar ProVar (USA, 1996)
• MASTER-RAID (France, 1998)
Master-RAID
RAID
WORKSTATIONDedicated to self-feeding
• Handy-I (University of Keele, UK, 1987)
• Neater-Eater (UK, 1988)
• My Spoon (Japan, 2002)
• Obi (USA, 2016)
Electric Neater-Eater
My Spoon
Obi
WORKSTATION
Pros Cons
Less complex Confined to one space
Less expensive Limited by the range of the arm
Reliable Not useful for ADLs
Easier to localize Tasks limited
Program pre-define tasks
MOBILE ROBOTS
MOBILE ROBOTS
Consists• of two robots: a mobile robot base and a
robot arm.
Follow• the user’s wheelchair.
Usually• equipped with navigation systems, user
communication interfaces and various sensors to
avoid collisions with objects and people.
MOBILE ROBOTS
• MoVAR (Mobile Vocational Assistive Robot) (USA,
1986)
• CARE-O-BOT (Germany, 1988)
• WALKY (USA, 1995)
• KARES (Kaist Rehabilitation Engineering service
System) (South Korea, 1998)
Care-O-Bot IVMoVAR
MOBILE ROBOT
Pros Cons
Move independently for the wheelchair Technical solution becomes much
more complex
Move from one room to another Number of sources of errors increases
Fetch and carry objects Risk of functional disturbances rises
Can be shared by more than one
person
Poor dexterity
Can be kept out of sight when not in
use
Mainly indoor use
Ease of storage when not in use
Little interference in the physical
environment
Can be use at home and at work
WHEELCHAIR-MOUNTED ROBOTIC ARM (WMRA)
WMRA
• Installed on a user’s power wheelchair and travels
with the user when he or she uses the power
wheelchair.
• Uses the power wheelchair on-board power supply.
• May be controlled through a variety of input devices.
• Allows disabled people to feed themselves and
reach objects on the floor, on a table or above their
head.
WMRA
• MANUS iArm (Netherlands, 1984)
• RAPTOR (USA, 2000)
• MATS (Espagne, 2004)
• BRIDGIT (Netherlands, 2008)
• JACO (Canada, 2009)
RaptorMATS
Manus
WMRA
Pros Cons
Freedom of movement May reduce the mobility of the
wheelchair
Enhances the manipulation
capabilities of individuals with
disabilities
Requires to always transport this
device
Reduces dependence on human aides Sometimes can limit the user's
accessibility
Can use his auxiliary arm to
manipulate objects at any place in his
home
Preprogrammed tasks are limited
Always next to the user wherever he is
Can be used outside
Multi-tasks device
POTENTIAL USERS
• Nearly 70 million people worldwide require
wheelchairs for mobility and function.3
• 3.6 million: number of people in the US over the
age of 15 who use a wheelchair. 4
• Approximately 1.5 million people are daily user of
motorized wheelchairs in the United-States.5
• Between 100,000 and 500,000 could benefit from a
robotic arm based on the type and extent of their
disability.3
3 International Society of Wheelchair Professionals4 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2015/cb15-ff10.html5 Johnson, C., Kocher, T., O’Donnell, C., Stevens, M., Weaver, A., Webb, J., … Step II Machining & Manufacturing Class. (n.d.). Final Report
on Robotic Manipulator Project (Rep.).
INDICATIONS
Muscular dystrophy•
Spinal cord injury•
Spinal muscular •
atrophy
Multiple sclerosis•
Amyotrophic lateral •
sclerosis
• Cerebral palsy
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Post-polio syndrome
• Locked-in syndrome
• Other severe motor
paralysis
REQUIREMENT
• Have very limited or non-existent arm and/or handfunction.
• Use and control an electric powered wheelchair.• Have sufficient learning skills to learn how to operate the
arm.• Have sufficient concentration, attention and judgment to
use the arm safely.• Have a strong will and determination to gain
independence.• Have sufficient visual discrimination to distinctly perceive
objects with arm reach.• Have no unresolved issues of self-harm or self-abuse.• Have no unresolved issues of violence toward
caregivers.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONSUser Requirements
• Intended User
• Aesthetics
• Simplicity
• Safety
• Cost
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONSFunctional Requirements
• Weight
• Degrees of Freedom
• System control
• Power consumption
• Payload and Reach
• Width and Force of grasp
• Reaching speed
• Care and Maintenance
• Shock Robustness
• Safety
MOUNTING LOCATIONRear mount
• Potential benefits• Will not increase the width of the wheelchair when not in
use.• Would not create a distraction for individuals interacting
with the person.• Would not be a physical obstruction during transfer into and
out of the wheelchair.
• Drawbacks• Must have longer link lengths than a front- or side-mounted
design.• Require greater torque from the motors and increased
loads on the bearings.• No commercially available WMRAs that are mounted to the
rear of the wheelchair.
MOUNTING LOCATIONFront Mount
• Potential benefits• Allows for good manipulation of objects that are above the plane
of the wheelchair seat, and most importantly the operator’s faceand lap.
• Offers greater access to the operator’s immediate workingenvironment.
• Objects in front of the chair are also readily manipulated.• Provides excellent accessibility to high shelves.• Allows the execution of various activities of daily living.
• Limitations• Makes the manipulator arm obtrusive.• Can create uncomfortable social tensions with people unfamiliar
with robotic technology.• Limited the ability of the operator to put their legs under desks,
tables, and sinks in clinical evaluations.
MOUNTING LOCATIONSide Mount
• Potential benefits• Partially hidden underneath the chair.
• When the arm is not in use, can bestowed relatively inconspicuously.
• Drawbacks• Increases the width of the power wheelchair.
• Requires longer link lengths than a front-mounted arm.
• Require larger and more powerful motors and gear-heads.
GENERAL ARMS
JACO
(Kinova, Canada)
iARM
(Exact Dynamics,
Netherland)
JACO iARM
DOF 7 7
Weight 5.2kg 9.0kg
Payload 1.6kg 1.5kg
Max speed 15 cm/sec 15 cm/sec
Reach 90cm 90cm
Hand 3 fingers 2 fingers
Finger force 7N 20N
Control
Interface
3D joystick,
Keyboard
PWC control
Keypad
Joystick
PWC control
Chung, C.S., and Cooper, R.A. 2012. “Literature review of wheelchair-mounted robotic manipulation: user interface and end-user
evaluation.” Proceedings of the 12th Annual RESNA Conference, Baltimore.
JACO
From Kinova Robotics
JACO
6 Degrees of freedom
Light (5,2 kg)
Payload of 1.6 kg
Simple integration
Intuitive Control
Carbon fiber structure: light and resistant
Use wheelchair’s control
Use wheelchair’s power
Long range of 90 cm
Hand with 2 or 3 fingers
JACO SAFETY FEATURES
• Intrinsically Safe
• Protection Zones
• Current Limitations
CONTROLS
IN CLINIC EVALUATION
• Video taken at about 15 minutes
actual use time.
• Task: Actual drink.
IN SCHOOL ACTIVITY
• User with approximately 2 weeks
unguided practice.
• Task: Self assigned.
IN HOME TRIAL
• First time user using 3D joystick.
• Approx. 30 minutes use time before
the video was taken.
• Task: Self assigned.
REACH A BOTTLE
DRINK FROM A BOTTLE
DRINK FROM A GLASS
EAT
EAT
EAT FINGER FOOD
USE PHONE
TAKING CARE OF OTHERS
TAKING CARE OF ANIMALS
HOUSEHOLD
LEISURE—PHOTOGRAPHY
LEISURE—PUZZLE
PUT SOME MAKEUP
PUT SOME MAKEUP
BENEFITS
• Potential savings on care and assistance.
• Can allow family members to return to the labour market.
• Improved quality of life (self-esteem, security, development, social integration).
• Increased autonomy.• Increases employment
opportunities for users.• Increases participation in
society.
EVALUATION OF THE JACO ROBOTIC ARM
Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities
• Objectives:
• Demonstrate that the JACO arm is safe, relevant and efficient as
an alternative for increasing the autonomy of its user.
• Evaluate potential economic benefits associated with the daily
use of JACO.
• 34 participants, 18–64 yrs old, using power wheelchairs
with a standard joystick, can press buttons on JACO’s
joystick, having no cognitive or memory impairment.
• 31 completed the trial.
• JACO mounted on a table, joystick on the wheelchair’s
armrest.
EVALUATION OF THE JACO ROBOTIC ARM
Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities
• Form #1: Physical capacity profile, muscular condition, level of
autonomy, perception of JACO before use.• Test #1: 16 basic movements
• Test #2: 6 tasks• grasping a bottle on the left
• grasping a bottle on a surface near the ground and placing it on the table
• pushing the buttons of a calculator
• taking a tissue from a box on the table
• taking a straw from a glass located on the table
• pouring water from a bottle into a glass.
• 79%-93% performed the tasks successfully in the first attempt.
• The highest # of attempts was four times.
• 95% of participants thought of the tasks as very easy to accomplish.
• 97% of participants believed that JACO represented a significant
assistive device.
EVALUATION OF THE JACO ROBOTIC ARM
Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities
• Form #2: Contribution of caregivers, perception of daily autonomy with
JACO after the trial, level of satisfaction after the trial, socio-
demographic profile.
• Average care time supplied daily by attendants to participants is 3,2
hours.
FORM #2 Time devoted (hr/day)
“Fully able”
“Very able”
Mean time saving
Time saving (hr/day)
Feeding/Drinking 0,28 48% 82% 65% 0,18
Preparing meal/beverage 0,69 42% 73% 57% 0,39
Dressing/Washing 1,07 27% 50% 39% 0,41
Other 1,16 30% 30% 30% 0,34
Total 3,20 1,33
BENEFITS OF JACO ROBOTIC ARM ON INDEPENDENT LIVING AND SOCIAL PARTICIPATION: AN EXPLORATORY
STUDY
• 7 participants, 18-64 yrs old, using power wheelchairs with a
standard joystick, having no cognitive or memory impairment,
having normal or corrected vision.
Assessment• :Baseline• assessment without JACO (T0).
Assessment• with JACO, after a short training (1–2 x 60-minute
sessions, depending on their needs) (T1).
Assessment• with JACO after 1-month in-home trial (T2).
Participants• had a positive perception of their QoL when using
a robotic arm such as JACO (PIADS-10=1.3/3.0).
Satisfaction• level using QUEST: 4.2 out of 5.0.
This• exploratory project demonstrates the potential benefits of
JACO for individuals with upper limb impairments.
CHALLENGES
• High cost
• Lack of evidence on real-world effectiveness
• Technology limitations
• Lack of reimbursement
• Guideline for prescription and training
CONCLUSION
• Assistive robots provide assistance with personal
tasks, could have a large impact on activity,
participation, and quality of life, and may reduce
reliance on caregivers.
• Assistive robots improve independent living and
social participation.
• Assistive robots provide direct and indirect economic
benefits, in terms of employment or decreased need
for care.
QUESTIONS?
REFERENCES
• Alqasemi, R., Edwards, K., & Dubey, R. (2006). Design, Construction and Control of a 7 DoF Wheelchair-Mounted Robotic Arm. 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. doi:10.1109/iros.2006.282573
• Awad, R E., & Engelhardt, K. G. (1984) Dissemination issues for medical robots. In RESNA Proceedings (pp. 102–104) Memphis, TN RESNA in Glass, K., & Hall, K. (1987). Occupational Therapists’ Views About the Use of Robotic Aids for People With Disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(11), 745–747. doi:10.5014/ajot.41.11.745.
• Biard, N. (2008). Robotique d’assistance et compensation des limitations de préhension — Implémentation d’une commande référencée vision sur le bras manipulateur Manus : Évaluation du projet AVISO (Unpublished master’s thesis). Université René Descartes Paris 5.
• Bien, Z., Chung, M., Chang, P., Kwon, D., Kim, D., Han, J., . . . Lim, S. (2004). Integration of a Rehabilitation Robotic System (KARES II) with Human-Friendly Man-Machine Interaction Units. Autonomous Robots, 16(2), 165–191. doi:10.1023/b:auro.0000016864.12513.77
• Capille, J. W. (2010). Kinematic and experimental evaluation of commercial wheelchair-mounted robotic arms. University of South Florida. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3569. Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3569/
• Care-O-bot I. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2016, from http://www.care-o-bot.de/en/care-o-bot-3/history/care-o-bot-i.html
REFERENCES
Chiasson, K. (• 2008). Analyse de l’interface de contrôle d’un robot manipulateur intégré à un fauteuil roulant motorisé (Unpublished master’s thesis). Université de Montréal.Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. (• 2008) One degree of separation: paralysis and spinal cord injury in the United States, available online www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/ b.5091685/k.58BD/One Degree of Separation.htmChung, C.• -S., & Cooper, R. a. (2011). Literature Review of Wheelchair-Mounted Robotic Manipulation: User Interface and End-user Evaluation. RESNA Annual Conference. Retrieved from http://web.resna.org/conference/proceedings/2012/PDFs/StudentScientific/Robotics/LITERATUREREVIEWOFWHEELCHAIR-MOUNTEDROBOTICMANIPULATION-USERINTERFACEANDEND-USEREVALUATION.pdfCook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (• 2002). Chapter 2: Framework for Assistive Technologies. In Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (3rd ed.).Dune, C., & Marchand, E. (• 2009). Localisation et caractérisation d’objets inconnus àpartir d’informations visuelles vers une saisie intuitive pour les personnes en situation de handicap (Unpublished master’s thesis). Université de Rennes 1.Dune, C., Leroux, C., & Marchand, E. (• 2007). Intuitive human interaction with an arm robot for severely handicapped people—A One Click Approach. 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. doi:10.1109/icorr.2007.4428484
REFERENCES
• Eftring, H. (1999). The Useworthiness of Robots for People with Physical Disabilities(Unpublished master’s thesis, 1999). Lund University.
• Frappier, J. (2011). Clinico-economic study of the JACO robotic arm for poweredwheelchair users with upper-extremity disabilities—To justify reimbursement to thirdparty payers (Rep.). Data 4 Actions.
• Garcia, E., Jimenez, M., Santos, P. D., & Armada, M. (2007). The evolution ofrobotics research. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 14(1), 90–103.doi:10.1109/mra.2007.339608
• Glass, K., & Hall, K. (1987). Occupational Therapists’ Views About the Use of RoboticAids for People With Disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41(11),745–747. doi:10.5014/ajot.41.11.745
• Groothuis, S. S., Stramigioli, S., & Carloni, R. (2013). Lending a helping hand: towardnovel assistive robotic arms. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine,20(1), 20–29.doi:10.1109/mra.2012.2225473
• Haigh, K. Z., & Yanco, H. A. (2002). Automation as caregiver: A survey of issues andtechnologies. AAAI 02 Workshop “Automation as Caregiver” (pp. 39–53).
• Hammel, J., Hall, K., Lees, D., Leifer, L., Loos, M. V., Perkash, I., & Crigler, R. (1989,Summer). Clinical evaluation of a desktop robotic assistant. Journal of RehabilitationResearch and Development, 26(3), 1–16.
• Johnson, C., Kocher, T., O’Donnell, C., Stevens, M., Weaver, A., Webb, J., … Step IIMachining & Manufacturing Class. (n.d.). Final Report on Robotic Manipulator Project(Rep.).
REFERENCES
• Kawamura, K., & Iskarous, M. (1994, October). Trends in service robots for the disabled and the elderly. Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’94), 1647–1654. doi:10.1109/iros.1994.407636
• Laffont, I., Biard, N., Chalubert, G., Delahoche, L., Marhic, B., Boyer, F. C., & Leroux, C. (2009, October). Evaluation of a graphic interface to control a robotic grasping arm: A multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 90, 1740–1748. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.009
• Neveryd, H., & Bolmsjö, G. (1995). WALKY, an ultrasonic navigating mobile robot for the disabled. Proceedings of the 2nd TIDE Congress (pp. 366–370).
• Obi | Robotic feeding device designed for home care. (n.d.). Retrieved November 04, 2016, from https://meetobi.com/
• Rosier, J., Woerden, J. V., Kolk, L. V., Driessen, B., Kwee, H., Duimel, J., . . . Bruyn, P. (1991). Rehabilitation robotics: The MANUS concept. Fifth International Conference on Advanced Robotics ’Robots in Unstructured Environments. doi:10.1109/icar.1991.240560
• Santis, A. D., Gironimo, G. D., Marzano, A., Siciliano, B., & Tarallo, A. (2008). A Virtual-Reality-based evaluation environment for wheelchair-mounted manipulators. EurographicsItalian Chapter Conference, 1–8.
• Stanger, C. A., Anglin, C., Harwin, W. S., & Romilly, D. P. (1994, December). Devices for assisting manipulation: A summary of user task priorities. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 2(4), 256–265. doi:10.1109/86.340872
Related Documents
