| Literature DB >> 35954882 |
Jafet Rodriguez1, Carolina Del-Valle-Soto1, Javier Gonzalez-Sanchez2.
Abstract
Over seven million people suffer from an impairment in Mexico; 64.1% are gait-related, and 36.2% are children aged 0 to 14 years. Furthermore, many suffer from neurological disorders, which limits their verbal skills to provide accurate feedback. Robot-assisted gait therapy has shown significant benefits, but the users must make an active effort to accomplish muscular memory, which usually is only around 30% of the time. Moreover, during therapy, the patients' affective state is mostly unsatisfied, wide-awake, and powerless. This paper proposes a method for increasing the efficiency by combining affective data from an Emotiv Insight, an Oculus Go headset displaying an immersive interaction, and a feedback system. Our preliminary study had eight patients during therapy and eight students analyzing the footage using the self-assessment Manikin. It showed that it is possible to use an EEG headset and identify the affective state with a weighted average precision of 97.5%, recall of 87.9%, and F1-score of 92.3% in general. Furthermore, using a VR device could boost efficiency by 16% more. In conclusion, this method allows providing feedback to the therapist in real-time even if the patient is non-verbal and has a limited amount of facial and body expressions.Entities:
Keywords: BCI; EEG; HCI; affective state; gait; rehabilitation; robot-assisted; virtual reality
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954882 PMCID: PMC9368422 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Elements of the system: (1) feedback for the user; (2) feedback for the therapist; (3) emergency stop button; (4) keyboard for controlling Lokomat; (5) treadmill; (6) robotic legs; (7) computer that controls the Lokomat; (8) vest with harness for supporting weight; (9) VR and EEG headsets.
Figure 2Image presented to reviewers to determine PAD based on observation.
Figure 3Screenshot of the environment from the VR camera.
Distribution of videos between students to avoid bias.
| Reviewer | Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5 | Video 6 | Video 7 | Video 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AGS1 | AGS2 | AGS3 | AGS4 | GDL1 | GDL2 | GDL3 | GDL4 |
| 2 | AGS2 | AGS3 | AGS4 | GDL1 | GDL2 | GDL3 | GDL4 | AGS1 |
| 3 | AGS3 | AGS4 | GDL1 | GDL2 | GDL3 | GDL4 | AGS1 | AGS2 |
| 4 | AGS4 | GDL1 | GDL2 | GDL3 | GDL4 | AGS1 | AGS2 | AGS3 |
| 5 | GDL1 | GDL2 | GDL3 | GDL4 | AGS1 | AGS2 | AGS3 | AGS4 |
| 6 | GDL2 | GDL3 | GDL4 | AGS1 | AGS2 | AGS3 | AGS4 | GDL1 |
| 7 | GDL3 | GDL4 | AGS1 | AGS2 | AGS3 | AGS4 | GDL1 | GDL2 |
| 8 | GDL4 | AGS1 | AGS2 | AGS3 | AGS4 | GDL1 | GDL2 | GDL3 |
Time statistics in seconds of the 3 main activities in each session.
| Patient | Sex | Headsets Placing | Session | Unmounting | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Male | 88 s | 2075 s | 150 s | 2313 s |
| 2 | Female | 188 s | 2696 s | 77 s | 2961 s |
| 3 | Male | 111 s | 1640 s | 91 s | 1842 s |
| 4 | Male | 129 s | 1996 s | 100 s | 2225 s |
| 5 | Male | 75 s | 1716 s | 118 s | 1909 s |
| 6 | Female | 233 s | 1513 s | 74 s | 1820 s |
| 7 | Female | 194 s | 1655 s | 86 s | 1935 s |
| 8 | Female | 310 s | 2378 s | 153 s | 2841 s |
| Average | 166 s | 1959 s | 106 s | 2231 s | |
| Std Dev | 80 s | 412 s | 31 s | 451 s | |
| Median | 159 s | 1856 s | 96 s | 2080 s |
Pleasure’s confusion matrix report.
| Pleasure | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Support |
| 1 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 2 | 0.959236 | 0.895363 | 0.926199 | 7569.000000 |
| 3 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 4 | 0.999723 | 0.842093 | 0.914163 | 4281.000000 |
| 5 | 1.000000 | 0.500000 | 0.666667 | 2.000000 |
| accuracy | 0.876055 | 0.876055 | 0.876055 | 0.876055 |
| macro avg | 0.591792 | 0.447491 | 0.501406 | 11,852.000000 |
| weighted avg | 0.973867 | 0.876055 | 0.921808 | 11,852.000000 |
Arousal’s confusion matrix report.
| Arousal | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Support |
| 1 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 2 | 0.864483 | 0.907870 | 0.885645 | 4244.000000 |
| 3 | 0.002660 | 1.000000 | 0.005305 | 2.000000 |
| 4 | 1.000000 | 0.822640 | 0.902691 | 7606.000000 |
| 5 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| accuracy | 0.853189 | 0.853189 | 0.853189 | 0.853189 |
| macro avg | 0.466786 | 0.682627 | 0.448410 | 11,852.000000 |
| weighted avg | 0.951305 | 0.853189 | 0.896436 | 11,852.000000 |
Dominance’s confusion matrix report.
| Dominance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Support |
| 1 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 2 | 1.000000 | 0.906751 | 0.951095 | 11,850.000000 |
| 3 | 0.002494 | 1.000000 | 0.004975 | 2.000000 |
| 4 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 5 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| accuracy | 0.906767 | 0.906767 | 0.906767 | 0.906767 |
| macro avg | 0.334165 | 0.635584 | 0.318690 | 11,852.000000 |
| weighted avg | 0.999832 | 0.906767 | 0.950936 | 11,852.000000 |
Figure 4Heat map of the value pleasure comparing actual versus predictions.
Figure 5Heat map of the value arousal comparing actual versus predictions.
Figure 6Heat map of the value dominance comparing actual versus predictions.