4.6 Article

Upper Limb Rehabilitation Tools in Virtual Reality Based on Haptic and 3D Spatial Recognition Analysis: A Pilot Study

期刊

SENSORS
卷 21, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21082790

关键词

haptics; stroke; virtual reality; upper limb; rehabilitation; kinematics

资金

  1. Soonchunhyang University Research Fund
  2. Health Fellowship Foundation
  3. BK21 FOUR (Fostering Outstanding Universities for Research) [51999909140408]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a haptics-based rehabilitation tool for self-rehabilitation exercises in a virtual environment, and analyzed the training effectiveness.
With aging, cerebrovascular diseases can occur more often. Stroke cases involve hemiplegia, which causes difficulties in performing activities of daily living. Existing rehabilitation treatments are based on the subjective evaluation of the therapist as the need for non-contact care arises; it is necessary to develop a system that can self-rehabilitate and offer objective analysis. Therefore, we developed rehabilitation tools that enable self-rehabilitation exercises in a virtual space based on haptics. Thirty adults without neurological damage were trained five times in a virtual environment, and the time, number of collisions, and coordinates were digitized and stored in real time. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the time and distance similarity changes revealed that as the number of rounds increased, no changes or increases occurred (p >= 0.05), and the collisions and paths were stable as the training progressed (p < 0.05). ANOVA showed a high correlation (0.90) with a decrease in the number of crashes and time required. It was meaningful to users when performing rehabilitation training more than four times and significantly impacted the analysis. This study analyzed the upper limb and cognitive rehabilitation of able-boded people in three-dimensional space in a virtual environment; the performance difficulty could be controlled through variations in rehabilitation models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据