Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 10 , Pages 1740-1748 , October 2009

Evaluation of a Graphic Interface to Control A Robotic Grasping Arm: A Multicenter Study

  • Isabelle Laffont, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Unité de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Hôpital Gui de Chauliac, Montpellier, France
    • Universitaire de Montpellier 1, EA 2991, Montpellier, France
    • Association Approche, Lorient, France
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Isabelle Laffont, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, CHU Gui de Chauliac, service du Pr Herisson, 80 avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295 Montpellier Cedex 5 France
    • ,
  • Nicolas Biard, OT

      Affiliations

    • Centre d'Innovations Technologiques, Assistance publique–Hopitaux de Paris, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, Garches, France
    • Association Approche, Lorient, France
    • ,
  • Gérard Chalubert

      Affiliations

    • Commissariat á l'Energie Atomique-Laboratoire d'Intégration des Systèmes et des Technologies, Fontenay aux Roses, France
    • ,
  • Laurent Delahoche, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Laboratoire des Technologies Innovantes-Institut Universitaire de Technologie, Amiens, France
    • ,
  • Bruno Marhic, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Laboratoire des Technologies Innovantes-Institut Universitaire de Technologie, Amiens, France
    • ,
  • François C. Boyer, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Service de Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Hôpital Sébastopol, Reims, France
    • Association Approche, Lorient, France
    • ,
  • Christophe Leroux, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Commissariat á l'Energie Atomique-Laboratoire d'Intégration des Systèmes et des Technologies, Fontenay aux Roses, France

  • Image Result

    Installation of a patient in front of the desk with the robotic arm on his left.

    Installation of a patient in front of the desk with the robotic arm on his left.

  • Image Result

    Objects set around the user. The white circle indicates the Panoramic Camera.

    Objects set around the user. The white circle indicates the Panoramic Camera.

  • Image Result

    Percentage of success in both groups with a cut-off set at 79 seconds (ie, twice the mean duration necessary for the control subjects to complete the required task). The rate of success is plotted wit

    Percentage of success in both groups with a cut-off set at 79 seconds (ie, twice the mean duration necessary for the control subjects to complete the required task). The rate of success is plotted with the 3 successive trials (T1–T3) in patients (diagonal-lined bars) and controls (gray bars).

  • Image Result
    Impact of the trial number (T1, T2, T3) and of the object to be grasped (Ob1–Ob6) on the duration of the task selection in both groups.

    Impact of the trial number (T1, T2, T3) and of the object to be grasped (Ob1–Ob6) on the duration of the task selection in both groups.

  • Image Result
    Panoramic Camera percentage of use in patients (left) and control subjects (right).

    Panoramic Camera percentage of use in patients (left) and control subjects (right).

  • Image Result
    Percentage of use of the Panoramic Camera among patients (left) and control subjects (right). Impact of experience illustrated by the results in the 3 successive trials.

    Percentage of use of the Panoramic Camera among patients (left) and control subjects (right). Impact of experience illustrated by the results in the 3 successive trials.

 Supported by the Fondation Caisses d'Epargnes pour la Solidarité.

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(09)00408-0

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.05.009

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 10 , Pages 1740-1748 , October 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution