| Literature DB >> 24922452 |
Matteo Pastorino1, Alessio Fioravanti2, Maria Teresa Arredondo3, José M Cogollor4, Javier Rojo5, Manuel Ferre6, Marta Bienkiewicz7, Joachim Hermsdörfer8, Evangelia Fringi9, Alan M Wing10.
Abstract
The integration of rehabilitation systems in an ambient assisted living environment can provide a powerful and versatile tool for long-term stroke rehabilitation goals. This paper introduces a novel concept of a personalized cognitive rehabilitation system in a naturalistic setting. The proposed platform was developed within the CogWatch project, with the intent of fostering independence in activities of daily living in patients with apraxia and action disorganization syndrome. Technical usability was evaluated in a series of pilot experiments, which illustrate how this approach may help to retrain patients in activities of daily living. The first system prototype has been tested with 36 participants divided into three groups, providing an exploratory evaluation of the usability of this solution and its acceptability. The technical solutions used within the CogWatch project are targeted to meet both the end users' needs from the interaction and usability point of views and the clinical requirements associated with the use of such systems. The challenges behind the development of ambient assisted living systems for cognitive rehabilitation are discussed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24922452 PMCID: PMC4118340 DOI: 10.3390/s140610213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Related works on stroke rehabilitation compared with the CogWatch.
| YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | |
| NO | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | |
| NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | |
| NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | NO | |
| YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | |
| YES | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO | |
| YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | |
| NO | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO | |
| YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | |
|
| ||||||
| YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
Figure 1.Architecture of the CogWatch first prototype.
Figure 2.CogWatch selection and feedback screens. (a) CogWatch task selection screen; (b) CogWatch feedback screen.
Figure 3.CogWatch workflow process.
Sub-actions for the tea making task.
| YES | YES | NO | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| NO | YES | NO | YES | |
| NO | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| YES | YES | YES | YES |
Gender and age distribution during the trial.
| 14 | 68.32 | 8.52 | 6 | 8 | |
| 13 | 31.88 | 8.39 | 6 | 7 | |
| 9 | 64.78 | 11.44 | 3 | 6 | |
|
| |||||
| 36 | 51.20 | 19.28 | 15 | 21 | |
Figure 4.Tea task selection during the evaluation phase.
Interaction errors distribution among groups.
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 9 | 6 | – | 3 | |
| 39 | 3 | 1 | – | 2 | |
| 30 | 16 | 9 | 1 | 3 | |
| 111 | 28 | 16 | 1 | 8 | |
Statistical results of the different groups evaluated in the study.
| Q1 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 3.5 | 1.7 | ns | 2.5 | 1.2 | p ≤ 0.05 | 3.25 | 1.5 |
| Q2 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 4.8 | 0.6 | ns | 4.5 | 0.8 | ns | 4.5 | 0.7 |
| Q3 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.5 | ns | 2 | 1.4 | ns | 2.3 | 1.4 |
| Q4 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 4.8 | 0.6 | ns | 4.8 | 0.4 | p ≤ 0.05 | 4.6 | 0.8 |
| Q5 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.4 | ns | 1.2 | 0.4 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
| Q6 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1 | 0 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.4 |
| Q7 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.4 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.2 | 0.6 | p 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.3 |
| Q8 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 4.8 | 0.6 | p ≤ 0.05 | 4.1 | 1.3 | ns | 4.3 | 1.1 |
| Q9 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.1 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.5 | 0.8 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
| Q10 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.2 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.2 | 0.6 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
| Q11 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.5 | 1.2 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.3 |
| Q12 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.6 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.5 | 0.9 | p ≤ 0.05 | 1.7 | 1.1 |
| Q13 | 3.9 | 0.9 | 4.4 | 0.8 | ns | 3.9 | 1.1 | ns | 4.1 | 0.9 |
| Q14 | 4 | 1 | 4.5 | 0.7 | ns | 4.2 | 1.2 | ns | 4.3 | 1.0 |
| Q15 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 4.8 | 0.4 | ns | 4.9 | 0.3 | p ≤ 0.05 | 4.75 | 0.4 |
| Q16 | 4.4 | 0.7 | 4.6 | 0.6 | ns | 4 | 0.8 | ns | 4.3 | 0.8 |
| Q17 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 4.7 | 0.6 | ns | 4.7 | 0.5 | ns | 4.6 | 0.5 |
| Q18 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 4.9 | 0.4 | ns | 4.2 | 0.9 | ns | 4.6 | 0.7 |
| Q19 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 4.8 | 0.6 | ns | 4.1 | 1.1 | ns | 4.5 | 0.9 |
| Q20 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 4.6 | 0.6 | ns | 2.9 | 0.8 | p ≤ 0.05 | 4.3 | 1.0 |
| Q21 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 4.6 | 0.8 | ns | 4.1 | 0.8 | ns | 4.4 | 0.7 |
| Q22 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 4.9 | 0.3 | p ≤ 0.05 | 4.4 | 0.8 | ns | 4.7 | 0.6 |
Figure 5.Questionnaire outcomes for the different study groups.