BACKGROUND: Robotic devices have been used to quantify function, identify impairment, and rehabilitate motor function extensively in adults, but less-so in younger populations. The ability to perform motor actions improves as children grow. It is important to quantify this rate of change of the neurotypical population before attempting to identify impairment and target rehabilitation techniques. OBJECTIVES: For a population of typically developing children, this systematic review identifies and analyzes tools and techniques used with robotic devices to quantify upper-limb motor function. Since most of the papers also used robotic devices to compare function of neurotypical to pathological populations, a secondary objective was introduced to relate clinical outcome measures to identified robotic tools and techniques. METHODS: Five databases were searched between February 2019 and August 2020, and 226 articles were found, 19 of which are included in the review. RESULTS: Robotic devices, tasks, outcome measures, and clinical assessments were not consistent among studies from different settings but were consistent within laboratory groups. Fifteen of the 19 articles evaluated both typically developing and pathological populations. CONCLUSION: To optimize universally comparable outcomes in future work, it is recommended that a standard set of tasks and measures is used to assess upper-limb motor function. Standardized tasks and measures will facilitate effective rehabilitation.
BACKGROUND: Robotic devices have been used to quantify function, identify impairment, and rehabilitate motor function extensively in adults, but less-so in younger populations. The ability to perform motor actions improves as children grow. It is important to quantify this rate of change of the neurotypical population before attempting to identify impairment and target rehabilitation techniques. OBJECTIVES: For a population of typically developing children, this systematic review identifies and analyzes tools and techniques used with robotic devices to quantify upper-limb motor function. Since most of the papers also used robotic devices to compare function of neurotypical to pathological populations, a secondary objective was introduced to relate clinical outcome measures to identified robotic tools and techniques. METHODS: Five databases were searched between February 2019 and August 2020, and 226 articles were found, 19 of which are included in the review. RESULTS: Robotic devices, tasks, outcome measures, and clinical assessments were not consistent among studies from different settings but were consistent within laboratory groups. Fifteen of the 19 articles evaluated both typically developing and pathological populations. CONCLUSION: To optimize universally comparable outcomes in future work, it is recommended that a standard set of tasks and measures is used to assess upper-limb motor function. Standardized tasks and measures will facilitate effective rehabilitation.
Authors: Maxime Gilliaux; Thierry M Lejeune; Julien Sapin; Bruno Dehez; Gaëtan Stoquart; Christine Detrembleur Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Angela M Coderre; Amr Abou Zeid; Sean P Dukelow; Melanie J Demmer; Kimberly D Moore; Mary Jo Demers; Helen Bretzke; Troy M Herter; Janice I Glasgow; Kathleen E Norman; Stephen D Bagg; Stephen H Scott Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: T Schmitz-Hübsch; S Tezenas du Montcel; L Baliko; J Berciano; S Boesch; C Depondt; P Giunti; C Globas; J Infante; J-S Kang; B Kremer; C Mariotti; B Melegh; M Pandolfo; M Rakowicz; P Ribai; R Rola; L Schöls; S Szymanski; B P van de Warrenburg; A Dürr; T Klockgether; Roberto Fancellu Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-06-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Loriann Williams; Carl P T Jackson; Noreen Choe; Lucie Pelland; Stephen H Scott; James N Reynolds Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Craig D Takahashi; Dan Nemet; Christie M Rose-Gottron; Jennifer K Larson; Dan M Cooper; David J Reinkensmeyer Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.714