Intention Detection Strategies for Robotic Upper-Limb Orthoses: A Scoping Review Considering Usability, Daily Life Application, and User Evaluation
- PMID: 35264940
- PMCID: PMC8900616
- DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2022.815693
Intention Detection Strategies for Robotic Upper-Limb Orthoses: A Scoping Review Considering Usability, Daily Life Application, and User Evaluation
Abstract
Wearable robotic upper limb orthoses (ULO) are promising tools to assist or enhance the upper-limb function of their users. While the functionality of these devices has continuously increased, the robust and reliable detection of the user's intention to control the available degrees of freedom remains a major challenge and a barrier for acceptance. As the information interface between device and user, the intention detection strategy (IDS) has a crucial impact on the usability of the overall device. Yet, this aspect and the impact it has on the device usability is only rarely evaluated with respect to the context of use of ULO. A scoping literature review was conducted to identify non-invasive IDS applied to ULO that have been evaluated with human participants, with a specific focus on evaluation methods and findings related to functionality and usability and their appropriateness for specific contexts of use in daily life. A total of 93 studies were identified, describing 29 different IDS that are summarized and classified according to a four-level classification scheme. The predominant user input signal associated with the described IDS was electromyography (35.6%), followed by manual triggers such as buttons, touchscreens or joysticks (16.7%), as well as isometric force generated by residual movement in upper-limb segments (15.1%). We identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of IDS with respect to specific contexts of use and highlight a trade-off between performance and complexity in selecting an optimal IDS. Investigating evaluation practices to study the usability of IDS, the included studies revealed that, primarily, objective and quantitative usability attributes related to effectiveness or efficiency were assessed. Further, it underlined the lack of a systematic way to determine whether the usability of an IDS is sufficiently high to be appropriate for use in daily life applications. This work highlights the importance of a user- and application-specific selection and evaluation of non-invasive IDS for ULO. For technology developers in the field, it further provides recommendations on the selection process of IDS as well as to the design of corresponding evaluation protocols.
Keywords: human robot interaction; intention detection; upper limb orthosis; usability evaluation; user studies; wearable robotics.
Copyright © 2022 Gantenbein, Dittli, Meyer, Gassert and Lambercy.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Towards a validated glossary of usability attributes for the evaluation of wearable robotic devices.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024 Feb 28;21(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01312-1. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024. PMID: 38419069 Free PMC article.
-
An analysis of usability evaluation practices and contexts of use in wearable robotics.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Dec 9;18(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00963-8. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021. PMID: 34886902 Free PMC article.
-
Mixed methods usability evaluation of an assistive wearable robotic hand orthosis for people with spinal cord injury.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023 Dec 1;20(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01284-8. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023. PMID: 38041135 Free PMC article.
-
Geospatial assistive technologies for wheelchair users: a scoping review of usability measures and criteria for mobile user interfaces and their potential applicability.Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020 Feb;15(2):119-131. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2018.1539876. Epub 2019 Jan 21. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020. PMID: 30663444
-
Older Adults' Experiences With Using Wearable Devices: Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jun 3;9(6):e23832. doi: 10.2196/23832. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021. PMID: 34081020 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Towards a validated glossary of usability attributes for the evaluation of wearable robotic devices.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024 Feb 28;21(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01312-1. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024. PMID: 38419069 Free PMC article.
-
A modular, deep learning-based holistic intent sensing system tested with Parkinson's disease patients and controls.Front Neurol. 2023 Nov 1;14:1260445. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1260445. eCollection 2023. Front Neurol. 2023. PMID: 38020624 Free PMC article.
-
Interaction with a Hand Rehabilitation Exoskeleton in EMG-Driven Bilateral Therapy: Influence of Visual Biofeedback on the Users' Performance.Sensors (Basel). 2023 Feb 11;23(4):2048. doi: 10.3390/s23042048. Sensors (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36850650 Free PMC article.
-
Personalized ML-based wearable robot control improves impaired arm function.Nat Commun. 2025 Aug 2;16(1):7091. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-62538-8. Nat Commun. 2025. PMID: 40750781 Free PMC article.
-
Design and validation of a novel online platform to support the usability evaluation of wearable robotic devices.Wearable Technol. 2023 Jan 24;4:e3. doi: 10.1017/wtc.2022.31. eCollection 2023. Wearable Technol. 2023. PMID: 38487781 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ab Patar M. N. A., Komeda T., Low C. Y., Mahmud J. (2014). System integration and control of finger orthosis for post stroke rehabilitation. Proc. Technol. 15, 755–764. 10.1016/j.protcy.2014.09.048 - DOI
-
- Allison B. Z., Neuper C., Allison B. Z., Neuper C., Tan D. S., Nijholt A. (2010). Could Anyone Use a BCI? London: Human-Computer Interaction Series, 35–54. 10.1007/978-1-84996-272-8_3 - DOI
-
- Ambrosini E., Ferrante S., Rossini M., Molteni F., Gföhler M., Reichenfelser W., et al. . (2014a). Functional and usability assessment of a robotic exoskeleton arm to support activities of daily life. Robotica 32, 1213–1224. 10.1017/S0263574714001891 - DOI
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials