Platz Thomas, Pedersen Ann Louise, Deutsch Philipp, Umlauft Alexandru-Nicolae, Bader Sebastian
Neurorehabilitation research group, University Medical Centre, Greifswald, Germany.
BDH-Klinik Greifswald, Institute for Neurorehabilitation and Evidence-Based Practice, "An-Institut," University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Front Robot AI. 2023 Mar 6;10:1103017. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2023.1103017. eCollection 2023.
To characterize a socially active humanoid robot's therapeutic interaction as a therapeutic assistant when providing arm rehabilitation (i.e., arm basis training (ABT) for moderate-to-severe arm paresis or arm ability training (AAT) for mild arm paresis) to stroke survivors when using the digital therapeutic system Evidence-Based Robot-Assistant in Neurorehabilitation (E-BRAiN) and to compare it to human therapists' interaction. Participants and therapy: Seventeen stroke survivors receiving arm rehabilitation (i.e., ABT [ = 9] or AAT [ = 8]) using E-BRAiN over a course of nine sessions and twenty-one other stroke survivors receiving arm rehabilitation sessions (i.e., ABT [ = 6] or AAT [ = 15]) in a conventional 1:1 therapist-patient setting. Analysis of therapeutic interaction: Therapy sessions were videotaped, and all therapeutic interactions (information provision, feedback, and bond-related interaction) were documented offline both in terms of their frequency of occurrence and time used for the respective type of interaction using the instrument THER-I-ACT. Statistical analyses: The therapeutic interaction of the humanoid robot, supervising staff/therapists, and helpers on day 1 is reported as mean across subjects for each type of therapy (i.e., ABT and AAT) as descriptive statistics. Effects of time (day 1 vs. day 9) on the humanoid robot interaction were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of variance (rmANOVA) together with the between-subject factor type of therapy (ABT vs. AAT). The between-subject effect of the agent (humanoid robot vs. human therapist; day 1) was analyzed together with the factor therapy (ABT vs. AAT) by ANOVA. : The overall pattern of the therapeutic interaction by the humanoid robot was comprehensive and varied considerably with the type of therapy (as clinically indicated and intended), largely comparable to human therapists' interaction, and adapted according to needs for interaction over time. Even substantially long robot-assisted therapy sessions seemed acceptable to stroke survivors and promoted engaged patients' training behavior. Humanoid robot interaction as implemented in the digital system E-BRAiN matches the human therapeutic interaction and its modification across therapies well and promotes engaged training behavior by patients. These characteristics support its clinical use as a therapeutic assistant and, hence, its application to support specific and intensive restorative training for stroke survivors.
当使用数字治疗系统“基于证据的机器人辅助神经康复（E - BRAiN）”为中风幸存者提供手臂康复治疗（即针对中度至重度手臂麻痹的手臂基础训练（ABT）或针对轻度手臂麻痹的手臂能力训练（AAT））时，将社交活跃的人形机器人的治疗性互动表征为治疗助手，并将其与人类治疗师的互动进行比较。参与者与治疗：17名中风幸存者在九个疗程中使用E - BRAiN接受手臂康复治疗（即ABT[ = 9]或AAT[ = 8]），另外21名中风幸存者在传统的一对一治疗师 - 患者环境中接受手臂康复治疗（即ABT[ = 6]或AAT[ = 15]）。治疗性互动分析：治疗过程进行录像，所有治疗性互动（信息提供、反馈和与关系建立相关的互动）都使用THER - I - ACT工具离线记录其发生频率和用于每种互动类型的时间。统计分析：人形机器人、督导人员/治疗师和助手在第1天的治疗性互动以每种治疗类型（即ABT和AAT）的受试者均值报告，作为描述性统计。通过重复测量方差分析（rmANOVA）以及治疗类型（ABT与AAT）的组间因素分析时间（第1天与第9天）对人形机器人互动的影响。通过方差分析（ANOVA）分析主体（人形机器人与人类治疗师；第1天）的组间效应以及治疗因素（ABT与AAT）。：人形机器人治疗性互动的总体模式是全面的，并且根据治疗类型（如临床指示和预期）有很大差异，在很大程度上与人类治疗师的互动相当，并会根据随时间的互动需求进行调整。即使是相当长的机器人辅助治疗疗程，中风幸存者似乎也能接受，并促进了参与治疗患者的训练行为。数字系统E - BRAiN中实施的人形机器人互动与人类治疗互动及其在不同治疗中的变化相匹配，并促进了患者的参与训练行为。这些特性支持其作为治疗助手的临床应用，因此，支持其应用于为中风幸存者提供特定和强化的恢复性训练。
