Current trends in robot-assisted upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: promoting patient engagement in therapy

Amy A. Blank, James A. French, Ali Utku Pehlivan, Marcia K. O’Malley

Rice University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Houston, TX, USA
E-mail: amyblank@rice.edu, jaf12@rice.edu, aup1@rice.edu, omalleym@rice.edu

Abstract

Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term disability today; therefore, many research efforts are focused on designing
maximally effective and efficient treatment methods. In particular, robotic stroke rehabilitation has received significant
attention for upper-limb therapy due to its ability to provide high-intensity repetitive movement therapy with less effort than
would be required for traditional methods. Recent research has focused on increasing patient engagement in therapy, which
has been shown to be important for inducing neural plasticity to facilitate recovery. Robotic therapy devices enable unique
methods for promoting patient engagement by providing assistance only as needed and by detecting patient movement intent
to drive to the device. Use of these methods has demonstrated improvements in functional outcomes, but careful comparisons
between methods remain to be done. Future work should include controlled clinical trials and comparisons of effectiveness of
different methods for patients with different abilities and needs in order to inform future development of patient-specific
therapeutic protocols.

Keywords: robotic stroke rehabilitation, upper-limb rehabilitation, patient engagement, assist-as-needed, intent to move

Introduction

Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term disability today, currently affecting 6.8 million people in the United States
alone, and this count is expected to rise to over 10 million people by the year 2030. As of 2010, estimated costs for treatment
and care for stroke survivors totaled over $20 billion [1]. To restore stroke survivors' independence and reduce the cost of
therapy and care, recent research in stroke rehabilitation has emphasized the need for more effective therapy than the current
standard of care. In particular, more effective rehabilitation of arm function is crucial because of the limitations stroke
survivors experience in performing activities of daily living [2].

There is evidence that intensive motion training including many repetitions can improve therapeutic outcomes both during
the acute phase immediately after the stroke and in the longer term [3,4]. Because such intensive training can be costly and
require significant effort, robotic rehabilitation systems have been proposed to aid the therapist in providing consistent,
repeatable training with less effort [5-9]. Many of these systems have shown therapy outcomes comparable to equivalent
intensive training without robotic aid [10,11] or an equal number of unassisted movements [12,13], suggesting that one of the
primary benefits of robotic training is its ability to provide intensive therapy at lower cost and effort [14,15].

There is also evidence that passive movements are insufficient to alter motor recovery [16], and that patients must be actively
engaged and attempting to move [17,18] in order to acquire the beneficial effects of robotic rehabilitation. Indeed, a patient-
responsive protocol that progressively adapts robotic training and assistance based on measures of movement coordination to
continually challenge patients has been shown to provide substantially better outcomes than previously reported for robotic
therapy [19,20]. This need for active engagement in robotic therapy is consistent with evidence that active engagement
induces neural plasticity in motor learning [21], suggesting that robotic therapy systems could be used to monitor patient
intent and further promote active patient participation during therapy. Recent research has focused on promoting patient
engagement by providing adaptive robotic training protocols [22•,23•,24•,25] and detecting and responding to patient
movement intent [19,26,27,28••] to promote neural plasticity and optimize the effect of the therapy, thereby improving
patient outcomes and reducing the cost of therapy. In this article, we will discuss these emerging trends in promoting patient
engagement in therapy and directions for the future of the field.

Development of robotic devices for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: A historical perspective

Assistive robotics to aid people with disabilities include a wide variety of systems, ranging from purely assistive devices such
as robotic wheelchairs and robotic arms designed to assist users during activities of daily living to therapeutic devices
designed to improve a user's ability to function independently [29]. In the area of therapeutic devices, robotic delivery of
stroke therapy has been a topic of research for over two decades [30-32]. In upper-limb rehabilitation, the early systems used
robotic manipulators to guide a patient's hand and arm to desired positions in a horizontal plane [33,34]. These devices
focused on rehabilitation of elbow and shoulder movement, typically immobilizing the patient's wrist to ensure that the
desired motions arm were produced. Controller designs emphasized the safety of the robotic devices, using control methods
specifically designed to ensure safe interaction forces between the user and the device [33]. The early clinical trials showed
that robotic rehabilitation devices for the upper limb were safe for human use and provided treatment benefits when used in
addition to standard therapy [33,35,36].

Later devices aimed to expand the capabilities of robotic therapeutic devices by targeting the more distal segments of the
upper limb, with wrist and hand modules to attach to previously developed arm devices [9,37-39], standalone wrist and/or
hand devices [6,40-43], or whole limb devices that target the shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints simultaneously [44-46]. Many
of these are exoskeleton type devices, which aim to isolate the motion of individual joints. These devices tend to have higher
complexity and reduced range of motion as compared to endpoint manipulators, but they more effectively target the desired
joint(s) by eliminating compensatory behaviors, and they enable more precise data collection about the motion of the patient's
limb.

In parallel with the development of more capable robotic devices, clinical trials focused on identifying potential advantages
of robotic therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation, including the benefits of active patient participation in therapy. Whereas
early studies used robotic training as an added treatment in conjunction with standard therapy, later studies conducted more
careful comparisons in which treatment groups with and without robotic assistance received equal amounts of movement
therapy in an attempt to determine which specific aspects of robotic therapy resulted in functional improvements. In a clinical
trial with 127 subjects, Lo et al. compared functional outcomes for groups receiving three different therapy types: robotic
therapy (n = 49); intensive therapy with the same movement intensity as the robotic therapy (n = 50); and standard therapy,
which includes fewer repetitions than the intensive therapy (n = 28) [47]. In this study, robotic therapy provided similar
functional outcomes to the intensive therapy, which consisted of the same amount of training, but without a robot. Both the
robotic therapy and the intensive training provided improved functional outcomes when compared to the standard therapy.
These results suggest that the primary advantages of current devices lie in the reduced cost and effort to provide the same
training, especially because the intensive training regimen used in this study was not practical for a therapist to use as
standard care [15]. Currently, the cost of these devices is comparable to the cost of intensive therapy [15], but future devices
may become cheaper and more portable.

Another significant research focus has been the importance of patient engagement in therapy. In a randomized controlled trial
with 32 stroke patients, Lynch et al. found that continuous passive movement did not lead to improvements in motor function,
indicating that although this type of therapy has shown possible benefits in neural recovery, it is not sufficient to produce
measurable functional benefits [16]. However, continuous passive movement coupled with active movement can contribute
to motor recovery, as shown by numerous studies with robotic therapy devices [17-20,48]. Other studies have found evidence
that movement frequency and patient engagement are primary factors in improving functional outcomes, rather than the use
of the robot itself [12,49]. These results agree with evidence that motor rehabilitation is a form of learning [21,50,51], so
engaging the correct areas of the brain through active patient participation should improve learning [21]. Thus, these studies
point to a need to explore strategies for optimizing therapy protocols by promoting patient engagement in therapy.

Towards increased patient engagement in therapy

Since the importance of patient engagement has been demonstrated in many studies of robot-assisted stroke therapy [12,17-
20,48,49], recent work has focused on methods to engage patients more actively in their therapy. In the field of robot-assisted
stroke therapy, there have been three main approaches to promoting patient engagement: (1) assist-as-needed algorithms to
provide the minimal robotic assistance necessary for the patient to complete a motion, (2) detection of patient intent to move,
and (3) virtual reality games for a more immersive experience. This review will focus on the first two approaches, which are
more closely related to robotic systems. Both of these methods require effort from the patient to complete movements, but the
nature of the effort and the timing are different, making these two schemes appropriate for different scenarios, depending on
the needs of the patient. The virtual reality literature has been extensively reviewed elsewhere [52].

Assist-as-needed control algorithms

Assist-as-needed algorithms focus on providing the minimal amount of robotic assistance necessary for a patient to complete
a movement, thus requiring significant effort from the patient. Many methods have been proposed to determine the necessary
amount of assistance (see Table 1). The simplest controllers of this type are impedance controllers designed to keep the
patient's hand on a particular path during reaching motion. A simple impedance controller compares the position and velocity
of the robot to a desired reference trajectory and applies a force proportional to a weighted sum of the position and velocity
errors [66]. In the case of robotic stroke therapy, if the patient's hand deviates from the path, these controllers provide a
restoring force proportional to the perpendicular distance from the path [55,56]. Thus, if the patient is able to complete the
prescribed movement successfully, the robot does not apply any forces. Other controllers specify both a desired path and a
desired completion time; with this change comes assistance in moving along the path towards the target. A desired trajectory
is defined—typically a minimum jerk trajectory (a specific trajectory type with a smooth, bell-shaped velocity profile that
minimizes the change in acceleration during the movement [67]) or an average trajectory pre-recorded from healthy subjects.
Then the robot provides an assistive force proportional to the distance the subject's arm lags behind the desired trajectory
[19,54]. Although most of these controllers prescribe a specific trajectory between the starting point and the target point,
there is also an alternate strategy of allowing subjects to choose their own trajectory, while still assisting movement towards
the target [53]. Feasibility of these systems has been confirmed [53,54], and trials with stroke patients have demonstrated that
these algorithms result in a reduction in muscle tone [19], significant functional improvements [68], and better functional
improvements than robotic therapy designed to mimic the intensity of traditional therapy [17].

Although these controllers showed promise in clinical trials, there is still a tendency (often termed “slacking”) for users to
rely heavily on the assistive force [69]. To compensate for this tendency, many implementations include a forgetting term in
the controller, which decreases the amount of assistance after each successful trial, encouraging more active participation by
the subject [22•,25,57,58•,59-63,70-72]. Many of these controllers explicitly model and estimate the inertia and damping of
the robotic system and the patient's arm, and they typically compensate fully for forces due to these properties
[25,57,58•,59,70,71,73]. Many also model the patient's effort contribution at various points in the workspace (with or without
inertia and damping compensation). Since an explicit model is not known, an estimate of the patient's effort is modeled using
radial basis functions learned at many points covering the workspace, and these estimated functions are updated throughout
training [22•,25,57]. Others use Bayesian learning techniques to determine the appropriate amount of assistance needed to
complete the task [72]. In one implementation by Perez et al., the learned model of patient ability is used to anticipate
deviations from a desired trajectory and apply corrective forces before the deviations occur, thus reducing the force applied
by the robot [23•]. Wolbrecht et al. compared their adaptive controller with a forgetting term to a version without a forgetting
term in trials with stroke patients and healthy subjects, showing that the forgetting term leads to higher levels patient
involvement in therapy [25,57]. More recent improvements in the model of patient effort have included directionality of
movement as well, since stroke patients often have more difficulty with flexion than extension, or vice versa, but so far this
improved controller has only been validated with unimpaired subjects [65••]. This group also plans to include velocity-
dependence in their model in the future, and testing with stroke patients is planned [65••].

Another promising alternative is to adaptively adjust the difficulty of the movement task. Masia et al. asked subjects to track
a target moving in a sinusoidal pattern with wrist movement, and increased the required range of motion after each successful
trial [64]. Their preliminary results with three stroke subjects showed the potential of this method to increase subject's range
of wrist motion. A larger follow-up study by Squeri et al. with eleven stroke subjects further supported these results, showing
improvements in the subjects' active range of motion and measurable improvements to motor function [24•]. A different
approach to adjusting task difficulty was taken by Badesa et al., who used machine learning methods to classify the subject's
physiological state as “relaxed,” “medium-stressed,” or “over-stressed” based on a number of physiological measures (pulse
rate, respiration rate, skin temperature, and galvanic skin response) and adjusted the task difficulty accordingly [74]. Their
results have shown feasibility of the proposed method, but patient trials have not yet been conducted.

Great promise has been shown for these assist-as-needed methods to encourage active patient participation in therapy by
providing the minimum assistance necessary for the patient to complete a movement. Clinical trials thus far have
demonstrated feasibility of the methods and functional improvements as a result of the training. However, controlled clinical
trials are still needed to compare training methods and quantify possible benefits over traditional therapy.

Detection of patient intent

Detection of patient intent has also shown promise as a way to engage patients more actively in their therapy. Current
methods include triggering based on force, velocity, or time thresholds, or detecting movement intent based on
electromyography (EMG) or electroencephalography (EEG) (see Table 2). Particularly for severely impaired patients who
have trouble completing movements, these approaches might help encourage patients to make an effort to move the affected
limb. The simplest implementations of triggered assistance use force, position, or time cues as triggers. In force-triggered
scenarios, robot assistance is initiated when the patient exerts force above a certain threshold in the movement direction
[12,38,40,49,75]. A force trigger is appropriate for patients who have a severely limited range of motion but are able to exert
some force near the starting position of the limb; in this case, the patient's movement intention causes the beginning of the
movement, and the limb is carried through a range of motion that the patient would be unable to achieve unassisted. Similarly,
a velocity trigger is appropriate for a patient who has a limited range of motion but is able to initiate movement near the
starting position. Krebs et al. implemented a velocity trigger in which the required velocity threshold decreased over time, in
order to allow patients with different movement capabilities to use the device [19]. In more extreme cases in which a patient
is unable to produce sufficient force or velocity to trigger robotic assistance, a time trigger can also be used, such that the
robot will begin to move the patient's passive limb after a certain amount of time has passed [86]. In this case, it is assumed
that the patient is attempting to move the affected limb but is unable to do so. Another alternative for patients who are unable
to produce significant force or velocity is to use gaze tracking to select a target and initiate motion [76•].

Other implementations rely on EMG signals from surface electrodes on the patient's arm to trigger assisted movement upon
detection of muscle activation over a specified threshold, since some patients may be able to produce muscle activity but not
movement or force [19,77,79,87-89]. These triggered approaches are useful for patients who have limited movement
capability, but since they allow the patient to remain passive after triggering the movement, the patient's movement intention
might not continue for the duration of the movement. Therefore, some groups have used EMG continuously throughout a
movement to ensure continued patient engagement. For example, Song et al. provided an assistive force proportional to the
measured EMG levels; their study with sixteen stroke subjects showed that this method helped subjects achieve a larger range
of motion and improved targeting accuracy [78•]. However, continuous EMG control methods typically allow subjects
significant freedom of movement, rather than enforcing a normative movement profile; thus, a criticism of these methods is
that they may reinforce pathological movement instead of encouraging recovery of normal movement patterns. Despite this
drawback, the use of EMG signals to drive a robotic therapy device has been shown to generate improved muscle
coordination and reduced spasticity in stroke patients [27,87,90], but these studies did not compare different treatment
methods.

As another alternative, some researchers have advocated the use of EEG to detect movement intention through non-invasive
surface electrodes on the patient's scalp [91]. One of the primary advantages of using EEG over EMG is that many patients
have a tendency towards muscle spasms or activation of the wrong groups of muscles; using EEG allows the system to
measure movement intention at the brain, thus bypassing these abnormal muscle activation patterns. EEG also allows
participation by patients who cannot actually produce voluntary motion of the affected limb. In this case, mental practice of
the movement can still activate the necessary regions of the brain, thus inducing some neural plasticity even if movement is
not produced [92]. Since mental practice has been shown to be more efficient when combined with appropriate
somatosensory feedback [93], using a robotic system to move the patient's arm can improve the effectiveness of the training.
Currently, most EEG-based systems use motor imagery to trigger movement using a two-state classification; subjects are
asked to imagine the arm moving or at rest, and the resulting signals are classified as a “move” or “rest” cue to determine
when to initiate robot assistance [81,83,84,85•,94,95]. Typically the movement is to a predefined target, though Frisoli et al.
have enabled subjects to choose target objects independently by combining the EEG cue with eye tracking and a Kinect
system to detect when the subject is focusing attention on an object in the environment [82•]. More recently, continuous
control has been demonstrated using the move/rest classification probability to command a movement speed in the robotic
system [29••]. EEG-triggered systems have been shown to be feasible and able to detect movement intention with high
accuracy [29,81,82•,84], and in some cases they have been shown to compare favorably to standard robotic therapy [95], but
large-scale controlled clinical trials remain to be done.

The MAHI EXO-II: A case study in adaptive robotic training for wrist rehabilitation

As an example of a system with an adaptive assist-as-needed controller and detection of patient intent, we consider the MAHI
EXO-II and the RiceWrist, two versions of a wrist exoskeleton for stroke rehabilitation developed in the Mechatronic and
Haptic Interfaces (MAHI) Laboratory at Rice University. The RiceWrist acts on three degrees of freedom (forearm
pronation/supination, wrist flexion/extension, and radial/ulnar deviation), and the MAHI EXO-II acts on the same wrist
degrees of freedom and one additional degree of freedom (elbow flexion/extension). For performance specifications and
differences between the two devices, see [6,40,41].
The MAHI EXO-II currently has three control modes, similar to those originally implemented in the RiceWrist [40]. These
control modes are designed for patients with different levels of impairment. For patients who are unable to move the affected
limb, there is a passive mode in which the robot carries the patient's joint through a desired trajectory. For patients capable of
some voluntary movement and/or force generation, there is a triggered mode that initiates the desired trajectory upon
detection of forces over a specified threshold. For patients capable of full movement, there is an active mode in which the
robot provides a velocity-dependent resistance against the patient's movement. In the future, the MAHI EXO-II will also
include an assist-as-needed mode, which is currently being developed on the RiceWrist [22•]. This controller is based on a
model-based adaptive controller previously developed by Slotine et al. [96]; this type of controller includes a model of the
controlled system (in this case, the patient/robot system) and continually updates estimates of the model parameters while
running. In order to assist only as much as needed, the controller is designed to model the residual functional abilities of the
subject with position-dependent Gaussian radial basis functions (RBFs). The RBFs are defined at many points throughout the
workspace, and the parameters related to these functions are estimated during the training by the controller. In order to
continually challenge subjects and prevent over-reliance on the robot [57], the adaptive controller is modified so that it
possesses uniformly ultimately bounded stability characteristics, rather than asymptotic stability, and a novel feedback
modification algorithm is implemented which can modify the allowable error bound and challenge the subjects according to
their error performance. Furthermore, in order to avoid applying resistance forces while the subject is “performing better”
compared to a previously defined desired trajectory, an online trajectory recalculation algorithm is implemented. The online
trajectory recalculation is based on an experimentally defined physiological wrist movement profile, and it generates a
position trajectory that is both continuous and time-differentiable. The resulting controller is able to assist a patient's
movements when the patient lags behind a desired trajectory and allow unimpeded motion if the patient is ab le to complete
the desired trajectory without assistance. This assist-as-needed control algorithm has been tested with 5 healthy subjects and
is currently being implemented on MAHI EXO-II and tested with spinal cord injury patients.

Our current work also focuses on promoting active cognitive engagement during therapy by detecting the patient's intent to
move using EEG signals. This approach capitalizes on previous work that has demonstrated high classification accuracy of
movement intention [97,98] and builds on that work by incorporating the intention into the control scheme of a therapeutic
robot. We make use of the readiness potential, a slow cortical potential that occurs over the central-medial scalp prior to a
voluntary movement, as an indicator of the patient's intent to move. The EEG classifier must be calibrated to a specific
patient by training a two-class support vector machine to distinguish between move and rest cognitive states. To date, a pilot
study has been performed to determine the best mode of operation for calibration of the EEG classifier [85•,99]. These modes
included passive mode, velocity-triggered mode, backdrive mode (in which the motors are turned off) and observation mode
(in which the patient observes another person using the exoskeleton). Three healthy individuals and one stroke subject were
used in the experiment. In a one-degree-of-freedom target-hitting task with the elbow, significant readiness potential was
seen in both the healthy and impaired subjects, and high single trial classification accuracy was achieved. The study showed
that the velocity-triggered and passive modes could be viable and pertinent modes of operation for calibrating the EEG
system with significantly impaired patients. Our future work includes testing the trained EEG classifier in a closed loop to
provide more engaging therapy. It has been hypothesized that the kinesthetic feedback provided during this type of closed
loop therapy could enhance presynaptic activity to the cell population or network responsible for moving the impaired limb
[100]. Clinical trials will be performed to assess the efficacy of our intention driven robotic therapy.

Conclusions

In this review, we have considered the development of robotic systems for upper-limb rehabilitation for stroke patients from
a historical perspective and with a focus on modern methods to encourage patient engagement in therapy. The primary
benefit of robotic therapy shown so far is the ability to provide high-intensity therapy with less effort than traditional therapy,
making high-intensity training feasible. The importance of engaging the patient in therapy has been clearly demonstrated
through studies of both active and passive movements assisted by robotic systems, and therefore recent research has focused
on the ability of robotic systems to engage the patient using assist-as-needed strategies and measures of patient movement
intent. These techniques promise to maximize patient effort and engagement by minimizing the level of assistance provided
by the robot as much as possible while still enabling subjects to achieve the desired motions. Assist-as-needed strategies have
moved towards adaptive controllers that estimate patient effort and impairment in real time based on movement data
collected by the robot, thus changing the level of assistance provided even during a single movement. Intention detection
using biometrics from EMG and EEG can further involve the patient by providing an online measure of patient effort; these
methods may allow inclusion of more severely impaired patients in robotic training protocols. A combination of assist-as-
needed methods with online detection of patient intent might further improve patient engagement in therapy.

Though feasibility and positive functional gains have been shown for many of these methods that encourage patient
engagement, it is still unclear which methods are most appropriate for different situations and levels of patient impairment.
One might expect that the optimal methods of promoting patient engagement will depend on the movement capabilities of the
patient. Assist-as-needed controllers encourage active participation by patients who are able to generate some voluntary
movement, but in their current form they may not be appropriate for severely impaired patients who cannot generate motion
because they do not require movement intention if the patient is completely passive. Measures of patient intent also depend
on the capabilities of the patient. Triggering movement assistance with a force or velocity threshold is reasonable for patients
who are capable of some voluntary force generation or movement, and triggered assistance can enforce a normative
movement path. For patients who are unable to generate the necessary force or velocity, EMG and EEG signals can still
generate a measure of movement intent to drive the robotic system. EEG allows measure of intent to move in subjects with
any level of impairment, but it is currently limited to commanding move and rest signals to single targets (though continuous
velocity commands to single targets are starting to become feasible). EMG provides more user control over movements, in
some cases allowing users to define their own movement trajectories. However, providing this level of control is only
appropriate for users who are able to generate voluntary muscle activation in a normative pattern, since allowing users to
define the trajectory may result in the reinforcement of pathological movements.

Given the many methods available and the strengths and weaknesses of each, it should be possible to design patient-specific
training protocols, depending upon each patient's type of injury, level of impairment, and phase of recovery. However,
studies completed to date have not explored effects across different patient populations. Carefully controlled, large-scale
clinical studies are needed to compare available treatment methods across patient populations and to determine how the
efficacy of the methods depends on the characteristics of specific patients. The results of such studies will enable therapists
optimize treatment methods for restoring upper-limb function after stroke in patients with a variety of needs and abilities.
Table 1. Sampling of recent work in assist-as-needed controllers for robotic upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. Restorative
forces act perpendicular to the prescribed path (not applicable for single-joint movements), and assistive forces act along the
prescribed path. “Success” is defined as a trial or group of trials in which the patient achieves a desired performance level. In
the subject testing columns, numbers indicate number of subjects tested.

Control type Movement type Subject testing

Restorative force
assistive force
Error-dependent
Other assistive force
inertia/damping
Models
Models patient effort
after success
Decreases assistance
after success
Increases difficulty

Point-to-point

Continuous

Unconstrained
healthy subjects
Validation with
impaired subjects
Validation with
simulation
Validation in
Paper Device

[53] ARMin (4-dof shoulder/elbow * * * 1 1

exoskeleton)
[54] ARMin III (7-dof arm * * * 7 3
exoskeleton)
[55] 2D planar endpoint manipulator * * 5
[56] PASCAL (3-dof end-point * * * 1
manipulator)
[22•] RiceWrist (3-dof wrist * * * * 1
exoskeleton)
[57] Pneu-WREX (4-dof arm * * * * * 3 9
exoskeleton)
[25] Pneu-WREX (4-dof arm * * * * * 11
exoskeleton)
[23•] simulated 8-dof arm orthosis * * * * *
[58•] ARMin III (7-dof arm * * * * 10 2
exoskeleton)
[59] ARMin III (7-dof arm * * * * * 12 7
exoskeleton)
[60] Braccio di Ferro (2D planar * * * 10
endpoint manipulator)
[61] Braccio di Ferro (2D planar * * * 10
endpoint manipulator)
[62] Braccio di Ferro (2D planar * * * 9
endpoint manipulator)
[63] KUKA LWR (3D end-point * * * * 2
manipulator)
[24•] 3-dof wrist exoskeleton * * * 9
[64] 3-dof wrist exoskeleton * * 3
[65••] FINGER robot (2-finger grasp * * * * * *
robot)
Table 2. Sampling of recent work in detection of patient intent for robotic upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. In the subject
testing columns, numbers indicate number of subjects tested, if known.

Intent Detection Movement type Subject testing

Signal Type
Triggered
move/rest
Continuous
velocity
proportional
Continuous

Point-to-point

Continuous

Unconstrained
healthy subjects
Validation with
impaired subjects
Validation with
simulation
Validation in
Paper Device

[19] MIT-Manus (2D planar endpoint velocity or * * *

manipulator) EMG
[38] Gentle/G (3-dof grasp robot) force * *
[75] ARM Guide (1-dof linear velocity * * 1
reaching)
[49] ARM Guide (1-dof linear displacement * * 19
reaching)
[76•] ARMin III (7-dof arm gaze duration * * *
exoskeleton) and velocity
[77] NEUROExos (1-dof elbow EMG * * 10
exoskeleton)
[78•] 1-dof wrist flexion/extension EMG * * 16
[79] 1-dof elbow exoskeleton EMG * * 1
[80] 1-dof elbow exoskeleton EMG * * 8
[28••] AssistOn-Mobile (2D planar arm EEG * * 1
motions)
[81] MIT-Manus (2D planar endpoint EEG * * 8
manipulator)
[82•] L-Exos (4-dof arm exoskeleton) eye tracking * * 3 4
and EEG and EEG
[83] MIT-Manus (2D planar endpoint EEG * * 25
manipulator)
[84] Barrett WAM (7-dof robot arm) EEG * * 6 3
for endpoint control
[85•] MAHI Exo-II (4-dof elbow/wrist EEG * * 3 1
exoskeleton)
References

1. Go, A.S., Mozaffarian, D., Roger, V.L., Benjamin, E.J., Berry, J.D., Blaha, M.J., Dai, S., Ford, E.S., Fox, C.S., Franco, S.,
Fullerton, H.J., Gillespie, C., Hailpern, S.M., Heit, J.A., Howard, V.J., Huffman, M.D., Judd, S.E., Kissela, B.M., Kittner,
S.J., Lackland, D.T., Lichtman, J.H., Lisabeth, L.D., Mackey, R.H., Magid, D.J., Marcus, G.M., Marelli, A., Matchar, D.B.,
McGuire, D.K., Mohler, E.R., Moy, C.S., Mussolino, M.E., Neumar, R.W., Nichol, G., Pandey, D.K., Paynter, N.P., Reeves,
M.J., Sorlie, P.D., Stein, J., Towfighi, A., Turan, T.N., Virani, S.S., Wong, N.D., Woo, D., Turner, M.B.: Heart disease and
stroke statistics–2014 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 129(3), e28–e292 (2014)

2. Broeks, J.G., Lankhorst, G.J., Rumping, K., Prevo, A.J.H.: The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a
follow-up study. Disability & Rehabilitation 21(8), 357–364 (1999)

3. Kwakkel, G., Wagenaar, R.C., Koelman, T.W., Lankhorst, G.J., Koetsier, J.C.: Effects of intensity of rehabilitation after
stroke a research synthesis. Stroke 28(8), 1550–1556 (1997)

4. Wing, K., Lynskey, J.V., Bosch, P.R.: Whole-body intensive rehabilitation is feasible and effective in chronic stroke
survivors: a retrospective data analysis. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 15(3), 247–255 (2008)

5. Burgar, C.G., Lum, P.S., Shor, P.C., Van der Loos, H.: Development of robots for rehabilitation therapy: the Palo Alto
VA/Stanford experience. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 37(6) (2000)

6. Gupta, A., O’Malley, M.K.: Design of a haptic arm exoskeleton for training and rehabilitation. IEEE/ASME Transactions
on Mechatronics 11(3), 280–289 (2006)

7. Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Kahn, L.E., Averbuch, M., McKenna-Cole, A., Schmit, B.D., Rymer, W.Z.: Understanding and
treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: progress with the ARM Guide. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research & Development 37(6) (2000)

8. Volpe, B., Krebs, H., Hogan, N., Edelstein, L., Diels, C., Aisen, M.: A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation robot-aided
sensorimotor stimulation. Neurology 54(10), 1938–1944 (2000)

9. Williams, D.J., Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N.: A robot for wrist rehabilitation. In: Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine
and Biology Society, vol. 2, pp. 1336–1339 (2001)

10. Lum, P., Burgar, C.G., Van der Loos, M., Shor, P., Majmundar, M., Yap, R.: The MIME robotic system for upper-limb
neuro-rehabilitation: results from a clinical trial in subacute stroke. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp.
511–514 (2005)

11. Volpe, B.T., Lynch, D., Rykman-Berland, A., Ferraro, M., Galgano, M., Hogan, N., Krebs, H.I.: Intensive sensorimotor
arm training mediated by therapist or robot improves hemiparesis in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and
Neural Repair 22(3), 305–310 (2008)

12. Kahn, L.E., Lum, P.S., Rymer, W.Z., Reinkensmeyer, D.J.: Robot-assisted movement training for the stroke-impaired
arm: Does it matter what the robot does? Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 43(5) (2006)

13. Lewis, G.N., Perreault, E.J.: An assessment of robot-assisted bimanual movements on upper limb motor coordination
following stroke. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 17(6), 595–604 (2009)

14. Lum, P.S., Burgar, C.G., Van der Loos, M., Shor, P.C., Majmundar, M., Yap, R.: MIME robotic device for upper-limb
neurorehabilitation in subacute stroke subjects: A follow-up study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 43(5)
(2006)

15. Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N.: Robotic therapy: the tipping point. American Journal of Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation/Association of Academic Physiatrists 91(11 0 3), S290 (2012)
16. Lynch, D., Ferraro, M., Krol, J., Trudell, C.M., Christos, P., Volpe, B.T.: Continuous passive motion improves shoulder
joint integrity following stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation 19(6), 594–599 (2005)

17. Hogan, N., Krebs, H.I., Rohrer, B., Palazzolo, J.J., Dipietro, L., Fasoli, S.E., Stein, J., Hughes, R., Frontera, W.R., Lynch,
D., Volpe, B.T.: Motions or muscles? Some behavioral factors underlying robotic assistance of motor recovery. Journal of
Rehabilitation Research & Development 43(5) (2006)

18. Krebs, H.I., Volpe, B., Hogan, N.: A working model of stroke recovery from rehabilitation robotics practitioners. Journal
of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 6, 6 (2009)

19. Krebs, H.I., Palazzolo, J.J., Dipietro, L., Ferraro, M., Krol, J., Rannekleiv, K., Volpe, B.T., Hogan, N.: Rehabilitation
robotics: Performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Autonomous Robots 15(1), 7–20 (2003)

20. Ferraro, M., Palazzolo, J., Krol, J., Krebs, H., Hogan, N., Volpe, B.: Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves
outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology 61(11), 1604–1607 (2003)

21. Warraich, Z., Kleim, J.A.: Neural plasticity: the biological substrate for neurorehabilitation. Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation 2(12), S208–S219 (2010)

22. • Pehlivan, A.U., Sergi, F., O’Malley, M.K.: Adaptive control of a serial-in-parallel robotic rehabilitation device. In: Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, vol. 2013 (2013). A model-based adaptive controller for assist-as-needed control
in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation was implemented on the RiceWrist, an exoskeleton for 3-dof wrist rehabilitation. In
comparison to a PD controller with fixed gains, the new controller provides comparable tracking performance with lower
gains; the more compliant controller should allow subjects to be more independent in completing movements.

23. • Pérez-Rodríguez, R., Rodríguez, C., Costa, Ú., Cáceres, C., Tormos, J.M., Medina, J., Gómez, E.J.: Anticipatory
assistance-as-needed control algorithm for a multijoint upper limb robotic orthosis in physical neurorehabilitation. Expert
Systems with Applications 41(8), 3922–3934 (2014). Explored the hypothesis that by developing a “dysfunctional”
biomechanical model of the patient's unassisted movement, it is possible to predict when the patient will deviate from the
prescribed motion path and preemptively apply a corrective force as needed. Normal motions in activities of daily living
were recorded from healthy subjects and 5 patients with acquired brain injury. Simulation of an orthosis applying corrective
forces showed successful compensation for patients' abnormal movements.

24. • Squeri, V., Masia, L., Giannoni, P., Sandini, G., Morasso, P.: Wrist rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients by means of
adaptive, progressive robot-aided therapy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 22(2), 312–
325 (2014). Subjects completed small-amplitude oscillations with the wrist in one degree of freedom, with assistive torque
proportional to the square of the position error. Upon successful completion of a set, the task difficulty was increased by
centering the oscillations farther from the neutral position of the joint. Initial trials with 9 stroke subjects showed improved
range of motion in the affected joints.

25. Wolbrecht, E.T., Chan, V., Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Bobrow, J.E.: Optimizing compliant, model-based robotic assistance to
promote neurorehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 16(3), 286–297 (2008)

26. Blank, A., O’Malley, M.K., Francisco, G.E., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: A pre-clinical framework for neural control of a
therapeutic upper-limb exoskeleton. In: Proc. IEEE/EMBS Int. Conf. on Neural Engineering, pp. 1159–1162 (2013)

27. Hu, X., Tong, K., Wei, X., Rong, W., Susanto, E., Ho, S.: The effects of post-stroke upper-limb training with an
electromyography (EMG)-driven hand robot. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 23(5), 1065–1074 (2013)

28. •• Sarac, M., Koyaş E., Erdoğan, A., Çetin, M., Patoğlu, V.: Brain computer interface based robotic rehabilitation with
online modification of task speed. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–7 (2013). Used EEG for online
control over the speed of planar arm motions. Asked subjects to use motor imagery of the arm moving or resting, and
continuously classified a move or rest state. Used the probability of a “move” classification to specify the movement velocity.
Demonstrated feasibility with 1 healthy subject.
29. Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric, M.J.: Defining socially assistive robotics. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics,
pp. 465–468 (2005)

30. Erlandson, R.F.: Applications of robotic/mechatronic systems in special education, rehabilitation therapy, and vocational
training: A paradigm shift. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering 3(1), 22–34 (1995)

31. Charnnarong, J., Hogan, N., Krebs, H.I., Sharon, A.: Interactive robotic therapist (1995). US Patent 5,466,213

32. Khalili, D., Zomlefer, M.: An intelligent robotic system for rehabilitation of joints and estimation of body segment
parameters. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 35(2), 138–146 (1988)

33. Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N., Aisen, M.L., Volpe, B.T.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation
Engineering 6(1), 75–87 (1998)

34. Lum, S., Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Lehman, S.L.: Robotic assist devices for bimanual physical therapy: preliminary
experiments. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering 1(3), 185–191 (1993)

35. Aisen, M.L., Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N., McDowell, F., Volpe, B.T.: The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative
training on motor recovery following stroke. Archives of Neurology 54(4), 443–446 (1997)

36. Lum, P.S., Burgar, C.G., Kenney, D.E., Van der Loos, H.M.: Quantification of force abnormalities during passive and
active-assisted upper-limb reaching movements in post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
46(6), 652–662 (1999)

37. Charles, S.K., Krebs, H.I., Volpe, B.T., Lynch, D., Hogan, N.: Wrist rehabilitation following stroke: initial clinical results.
In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 13–16 (2005)

38. Loureiro, R.C., Harwin, W.S.: Reach & grasp therapy: design and control of a 9-DOF robotic neurorehabilitation system.
In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 757–763 (2007)

39. Masia, L., Krebs, H.I., Cappa, P., Hogan, N.: Design and characterization of hand module for whole-arm rehabilitation
following stroke. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 12(4), 399–407 (2007)

40. Gupta, A., O’Malley, M.K., Patoglu, V., Burgar, C.: Design, control and performance of RiceWrist: A force feedback
wrist exoskeleton for rehabilitation and training. Int. Journal of Robotics Research 27(2), 233–251 (2008)

41. Pehlivan, A.U., Celik, O., O’Malley, M.K.: Mechanical design of a distal arm exoskeleton for stroke and spinal cord
injury rehabilitation. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–5 (2011)

42. Schabowsky, C.N., Godfrey, S.B., Holley, R.J., Lum, P.S.: Development and pilot testing of HEXORR: Hand EX-
Oskeleton Rehabilitation Robot. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 7(1), 36 (2010)

43. Sledd, A., O’Malley, M.K.: Performance enhancement of a haptic arm exoskeleton. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. on Haptic
Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, pp. 375–381 (2006)

44. Nef, T., Mihelj, M., Kiefer, G., Perndl, C., Muller, R., Riener, R.: ARMin-Exoskeleton for arm therapy in stroke patients.
In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 68–74 (2007)

45. Perry, J.C., Rosen, J., Burns, S.: Upper-limb powered exoskeleton design. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics
12(4), 408–417 (2007)

46. Sugar, T.G., He, J., Koeneman, E.J., Koeneman, J.B., Herman, R., Huang, H., Schultz, R.S., Herring, D., Wanberg, J.,
Balasubramanian, S., Swenson, P., Ward, J.A.: Design and control of RUPERT: a device for robotic upper extremity
repetitive therapy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 15(3), 336–346 (2007)

47. Lo, A.C., Guarino, P.D., Richards, L.G., Haselkorn, J.K., Wittenberg, G.F., Federman, D.G., Ringer, R.J., Wagner, T.H.,
Krebs, H.I., Volpe, B.T., abd Bever, C.T., Bravata, D.M., Duncan, P.W., Corn, B.H., Maffucci, A.D., Nadeau, S.E., Conroy,
S.S., Powell, J.M., Huang, G.D., Peduzzi, P.: Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. New
England Journal of Medicine 362(19), 1772–1783 (2010)

48. Volpe, B.T., Krebs, H.I., Hogan, N.: Is robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation a realistic option?
Current Opinion in Neurology 14(6), 745–752 (2001)

49. Kahn, L.E., Zygman, M.L., Rymer, W.Z., Reinkensmeyer, D.J.: Robot-assisted reaching exercise promotes arm
movement recovery in chronic hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of NeuroEngineering and
Rehabilitation 3 (2006)

50. Dipietro, L., Krebs, H., Volpe, B.T., Stein, J., Bever, C., Mernoff, S.T., Fasoli, S.E., Hogan, N.: Learning, not adaptation,
characterizes stroke motor recovery: Evidence from kinematic changes induced by robot-assisted therapy in trained and
untrained task in the same workspace. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 20(1), 48–57
(2012)

51. Pekna, M., Pekny, M., Nilsson, M.: Modulation of neural plasticity as a basis for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 43(10),
2819–2828 (2012)

52. Adamovich, S.V., Fluet, G.G., Tunik, E., Merians, A.S.: Sensorimotor training in virtual reality: a review.
NeuroRehabilitation 25(1), 29–44 (2009)

53. Mihelj, M., Nef, T., Riener, R.: A novel paradigm for patient-cooperative control of upper-limb rehabilitation robots.
Advanced Robotics 21(8), 843–867 (2007)

54. Guidali, M., Duschau-Wicke, A., Broggi, S., Klamroth-Marganska, V., Nef, T., Riener, R.: A robotic system to train
activities of daily living in a virtual environment. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing 49(10), 1213–1223 (2011)

55. Tsuji, T., Momiki, C., Sakaino, S.: Stiffness control of a pneumatic rehabilitation robot for exercise therapy with
multiple stages. In: Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1480–1485 (2013)

56. Keller, U., Rauter, G., Riener, R.: Assist-as-needed path control for the PASCAL rehabilitation robot. In: Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–7 (2013)

57. Wolbrecht, E.T., Chan, V., Le, V., Cramer, S.C., Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Bobrow, J.E.: Real-time computer modeling of
weakness following stroke optimizes robotic assistance for movement therapy. In: Proc. Int. IEEE/EMBS Conf. on Neural
Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 152–158 (2007)

58. • Guidali, M., Schlink, P., Duschau-Wicke, A., Riener, R.: Online learning and adaptation of patient support during ADL
training. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–6 (2011). An adaptive assist-as-needed controller is
combined with a dynamic model of the upper limb that is updated in real time. Validation with 7 healthy subjects and 3
stroke subjects showed that the model was able to learn the appropriate amount of assistance to help the subject complete
point-to-point reaching motions.

59. Guidali, M., Keller, U., Klamroth-Marganska, V., Nef, T., Riener, R.: Estimating the patient’s contribution during robot-
assisted therapy. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 50(3) (2013)

60. Vergaro, E., Casadio, M., Squeri, V., Giannoni, P., Morasso, P., Sanguineti, V.: Self-adaptive robot training of stroke
survivors for continuous tracking movements. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 7(13), 1–12 (2010)

61. Casadio, M., Giannoni, P., Morasso, P., Sanguineti, V.: A proof of concept study for the integration of robot therapy with
physiotherapy in the treatment of stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation 23(3), 217–228 (2009)
62. Casadio, M., Morasso, P., Sanguineti, V., Giannoni, P.: Minimally assistive robot training for proprioception
enhancement. Experimental Brain Research 194(2), 219–231 (2009)

63. Papaleo, E., Zollo, L., Spedaliere, L., Guglielmelli, E.: Patient-tailored adaptive robotic system for upper-limb
rehabilitation. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3860–3865 (2013)

64. Masia, L., Casadio, M., Giannoni, P., Sandini, G., Morasso, P.: Performance adaptive training control strategy for
recovering wrist movements in stroke patients: a preliminary, feasibility study. Journal of Neuroengineering and
Rehabilitation 6(1), 44 (2009)

65. •• Bower, C., Taheri, H., Wolbrecht, E.: Adaptive control with state-dependent modeling of patient impairment for
robotic movement therapy. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–6 (2013). Used an adaptive
assist-as-needed controller in a two-finger robot designed to assist grasping motions. The controller models inertial and
viscous forces, as well as the patient’s effort. The effort model includes dependence on position and motion direction. The
device was tested with external forces modeling the movement of stroke patients, showing smaller error than previous
controllers without direction dependence.

66. Hogan, N.: Impedance control - An approach to manipulation. I - Theory. II - Implementation. III – Applications. Journal
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 107, 1–24 (1985)

67. Flash, T., Hogan, N.: The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. Journal of
Neuroscience 5(7), 1688–1703 (1985)

68. Krebs, H., Volpe, B., Williams, D., Celestino, J., Charles, S., Lynch, D., Hogan, N.: Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: A
robot for wrist rehabilitation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 15(3), 327–335 (2007)

69. Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Wolbrecht, E., Bobrow, J.: A computational model of human-robot load sharing during robot-
assisted arm movement training after stroke. In: Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp.
4019–4023 (2007)

70. Pérez-Rodríguez, R., Rodríguez, C., Molina, F., Gómez, C., Opisso, E., Tormos, J., Medina, J., Gómez, E.: Simulation-
based planification tool for an assistance-as-needed upper limb neurorehabilitation robotic orthosis. In: Proc. XIII
Mediterranean Conf. on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, pp. 73–76 (2014)

71. Rosati, G., Bobrow, J.E., Reinkensmeyer, D.J.: Compliant control of post-stroke rehabilitation robots: using movement-
specific models to improve controller performance. In: Proc. ASME Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
pp. 167–174 (2008)

72. Squeri, V., Basteris, A., Sanguineti, V.: Adaptive regulation of assistance as neededin robot-assisted motor skill learning
and neuro-rehabilitation. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–6 (2011)

73. Sanguineti, V., Casadio, M., Vergaro, E., Squeri, V., Giannoni, P., Morasso, P.G.: Robot therapy for stroke survivors:
proprioceptive training and regulation of assistance. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 145, 126–142 (2009)

74. Badesa, F.J., Morales, R., Garcia-Aracil, N., Sabater, J., Casals, A., Zollo, L.: Auto-adaptive robot-aided therapy using
machine learning techniques. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (2013)

75. Kahn, L., Rymer, W., Reinkensmeyer, D.: Adaptive assistance for guided force training in chronic stroke. In: Proc. Int.
Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 1, pp. 2722–2725 (2004)

76. • Novak, D., Riener, R.: Enhancing patient freedom in rehabilitation robotics using gaze-based intention detection. In:
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–6 (2013). Measured subjects' intent to move with gaze tracking and a
velocity threshold. Gaze duration was used for target selection, and robotic assistance was triggered by subject movement
over a velocity threshold. Showed feasibility in testing with healthy subjects. Noted a tendency to falsely detect intent to move
when a subject was simply examining an object in the environment, and proposed possible solutions to this problem.

77. Lenzi, T., De Rossi, S.M.M., Vitiello, N., Carrozza, M.C.: Intention-based EMG control for powered exoskeletons.
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 59(8), 2180–2190 (2012)

78. • Song, R., Tong, K.y., Hu, X., Zhou, W.: Myoelectrically controlled wrist robot for stroke rehabilitation. Journal of
Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation 10(1), 52 (2013). Used EMG to detect subject’s intent to move. Provided continuous
robotic assistance proportional to the normalized EMG readings. Trials with 16 stroke subjects showed improved targeting
accuracy.

79. Vaca Benitez, L.M., Tabie, M., Will, N., Schmidt, S., Jordan, M., Kirchner, E.A.: Exoskeleton technology in
rehabilitation: Towards an EMG-based orthosis system for upper limb neuromotor rehabilitation. Journal of Robotics (2013)

80. Stein, J., Narendran, K., McBean, J., Krebs, K., Hughes, R.: Electromyography-controlled exoskeletal upper-limb-
powered orthosis for exercise training after stroke. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 86(4), 255–261
(2007)

81. Wang, C., Phua, K.S., Ang, K.K., Guan, C., Zhang, H., Lin, R., Sui Geok Chua, K., Ang, B.T., Kuah, C.W.K.: A
feasibility study of non-invasive motor-imagery BCI-based robotic rehabilitation for stroke patients. In: Proc. Int.
IEEE/EMBS Conf. on Neural Engineering, pp. 271–274 (2009)

82. • Frisoli, A., Loconsole, C., Leonardis, D., Banno, F., Barsotti, M., Chisari, C., Bergamasco, M.: A new gaze-BCI-driven
control of an upper limb exoskeleton for rehabilitation in real-world tasks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews 42(6), 1169–1179 (2012). Used EEG combined with gaze tracking to detect
subject’s intent to move. Gaze tracking and environment information sensed via a Kinect determined the subject’s chosen
target in a physical environment. EEG signals were continuously classified as “move” or “rest” to trigger movement.
Feasibility was demonstrated with 3 healthy subjects and 4 stroke subjects.

83. Ang, K.K., Guan, C., Sui Geok Chua, K., Ang, B.T., Kuah, C., Wang, C., Phua, K.S., Chin, Z.Y., Zhang, H.: Clinical
study of neurorehabilitation in stroke using EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface with robotic feedback. In:
Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 5549–5552 (2010)

84. Gomez-Rodriguez, M., Grosse-Wentrup, M., Hill, J., Gharabaghi, A., Scholkopf, B., Peters, J.: Towards brain-robot
interfaces in stroke rehabilitation. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–6 (2011)

85. • Bhagat, N.A., French, J.A., Venkatakrishnan, A., Yozbatiran, N., Francisco, G.E., O’Malley, M.K., Contreras-Vidal,
J.L.: Detecting movement intent from scalp EEG in a novel upper limb robotic rehabilitation system for stroke. In: Proc. Int.
Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (2014). Accepted. Used EEG signals to detect a readiness
potential indicating users’ intent to move. Calibration testing in a pilot study with 3 healthy subjects and 1 stroke subject.

86. Colombo, R., Pisano, F., Micera, S., Mazzone, A., Delconte, C., Carrozza, M.C., Dario, P., Minuco, G.: Robotic
techniques for upper limb evaluation and rehabilitation of stroke patients. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and
Rehabilitation Engineering 13(3), 311–324 (2005)

87. Hu, X.L., Tong, K.y., Song, R., Zheng, X.J., Leung, W.W.: A comparison between electromyography-driven
robot and passive motion device on wrist rehabilitation for chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 23(8), 837–
846 (2009)

88. Ho, N., Tong, K., Hu, X., Fung, K., Wei, X., Rong, W., Susanto, E.: An EMG-driven exoskeleton hand robotic training
device on chronic stroke subjects: task training system for stroke rehabilitation. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation
Robotics, pp. 1–5 (2011)

89. Tong, K., Ho, S., Pang, P., Hu, X., Tam, W., Fung, K., Wei, X., Chen, P., Chen, M.: An intention driven hand functions
task training robotic system. In: Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 3406–3409 (2010)
90. Hu, X., Tong, K., Wei, X., Rong, W., Susanto, E., Ho, S.: Coordinated upper limb training assisted with an
electromyography (EMG)-driven hand robot after stroke. In: Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
Society, pp. 5903–5906 (2013)

91. Venkatakrishnan, A., Francisco, G.E., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: Applications of brainmachine interface systems in stroke
recovery and rehabilitation. Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports 2(2), 93–105 (2014)

92. Page, S.J., Levine, P., Leonard, A.: Mental practice in chronic stroke results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
Stroke 38(4), 1293–1297 (2007)

93. Lotze, M., Halsband, U.: Motor imagery. Journal of Physiology-Paris 99(4), 386–395 (2006)

94. Ang, K.K., Guan, C., Sui Geok Chua, K., Ang, B.T., Kuah, C., Wang, C., Phua, K.S., Chin, Z.Y., Zhang, H.: A clinical
study of motor imagery-based brain-computer interface for upper limb robotic rehabilitation. In: Proc. Int. Conf. IEEE
Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 5981–5984 (2009)

95. Ang, K.K., Guan, C., Chua, K.S.G., Ang, B.T., Kuah, C.W.K., Wang, C., Phua, K.S., Chin, Z.Y., Zhang, H.: A large
clinical study on the ability of stroke patients to use an EEG-based motor imagery brain-computer interface. Clinical EEG
and Neuroscience 42(4), 253–258 (2011)

96. Slotine, J., Li, W.: On the adaptive control of robot manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research 6(3), 49–59
(1987)

97. Garipelli, G., Chavarriaga, R., del R Millán, J.: Single-trial analysis of slow cortical potentials: a study on anticipation
related potentials. Journal of Neural Engineering 10(3), 036,014 (2013)

98. Lew, E., Chavarriaga, R., Silvoni, S., del R Millán, J.: Detection of self-paced reaching movement intention from EEG
signals. Frontiers in Neuroengineering 5, 13.1–13.16 (2011)

99. French, J.A.: Towards the implementation of non-invasive brain machine interface control on a rehabilitative robotic
upper limb exoskeleton. Master’s thesis, Rice University (2014)

100. Dobkin, B.H.: Brain-computer interface technology as a tool to augment plasticity and outcomes for neurological
rehabilitation. Journal of Physiology 579(3), 637–642 (2007)