Vol. 22 No. 4 (2019) Cover Image
Vol. 22 No. 4 (2019)

Published: December 31, 2019

Pages: 252-258

Articles

Design and Implement an Exoskeleton Arm for Reinforcement the Human Muscles after Stroke

Abstract

Mobility limitations in stroke survivors yield negative impacts on the quality of life for such individuals. Rehabilitation is needed to help them recover and regain mobility. Accordingly, this study aims to design and validate a “Robotic Exoskeleton” intended for stroke rehabilitation. The basic principles of this robotic exoskeleton device are its dependence on electromyography signal and electronic microcontroller to provide an efficient physiotherapy exercises system.The robotic exoskeleton is a one degree of freedom which performs the flexion and extension of the elbow joint. After the design was completed, 19 subjects participated in this study: 4 healthy subjects, and 15 post-stroke patients.The results showed the benefit of robotic exoskeleton in increasing the elbow range of motion, where angle of elbow flexion was raised from the first physiotherapy session to maximum elbow flexion in the last session.

References

  1. B. Ghannadi, “Model-based Control of Upper Extremity Human-Robot Rehabilitation Systems,” Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2017.
  2. C. Fleischer, “Controlling Exoskeletons with EMG Signals and a Biomechanical Body Model,” Thesis, University of Berlin, 2007.
  3. K. Jobes, M. Bernier, and S. Dryer, “Arm Mounted Exoskeleton to Mechanically Assist Activities of Daily Living,” Program in Electromechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, 2016.
  4. C. Mavroidis, “Smart portable rehabilitation devices,” J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 18, 2005.
  5. M. Cempini, “NEUROExos: A Powered Elbow Orthosis for Post-Stroke Early Neurorehabilitation,” Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. (EMBC), 35th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE, vol. 3–7, no. 13, pp. 342–345, 2013.
  6. R. Cappato de Araújo, D. Rocha, and R. Pitangui, “The Influence of Dynamic Orthosis Training on Upper Extremity Function After Stroke: a Pilot Study,” Journal of Healthcare Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2014.
  7. C. Bator and R. Svensson, “Exoskeleton Arm: How to Construct a Smart Support Structure for an Arm,” Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2016.
  8. S. Ball, “Novel Robotic Mechanisms for Upper-Limb Rehabilitation and Assessment,” Thesis, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
  9. D. Naidu, “Bio-Mechatronic Implementation of a Portable Upper Limb Rehabilitative Exoskeleton,” Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2011.
  10. E. Artz, “Myoelectric Control of a Robotic Exoskeleton for Rehabilitation,” Thesis, Rice University, 2015.
  11. N. Vitiello, “NEUROExos: A Powered Elbow Exoskeleton for Physical Rehabilitation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 220–235, 2013.
  12. J. Rosen, M. Brand, and M. Fuchs, “A Myosignal-Based Powered Exoskeleton System,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. A Systems and Humans, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 210–222, 2001.
  13. E. Rocon, J. Belda-Lois, and A. Ruiz, “Design and Validation of a Rehabilitation Robotic Exoskeleton for Tremor Assessment and Suppression,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 367–378, 2007.
  14. R. Gopura, D. Bandara, and J. Gunasekara, “Recent Trends in EMG-Based Control Methods for Assistive Robots,” chapter twelve of Electrodiagnosis in new frontiers of clinical research, IntechOpen, pp. 237–268, 2013.
  15. R. Chandra, “Development and Control of Upper-Limb Exoskeleton Robots,” Thesis, School of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Japan, 2009.
  16. A. Ruiz, A. Forner-Cordero, and E. Rocon, “Exoskeletons for Rehabilitation and Motor Control,” in Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, The First IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference, pp. 601–606, 2006.
  17. M. Rahman, T. Kittel-Ouimet, and M. Saad, “Development and Control of a Robotic Exoskeleton for Shoulder, Elbow and Forearm Movement Assistance,” Applied Bionics Biomechanichs, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 275–292, 2012.