1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems
  4. Volume 7, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems

Volume 7, 2024

Physically Assistive Robots: A Systematic Review of Mobile and Manipulator Robots That Physically Assist People with Disabilities

Abstract

More than 1 billion people in the world are estimated to experience significant disability. These disabilities can impact people's ability to independently conduct activities of daily living, including ambulating, eating, dressing, taking care of personal hygiene, and more. Mobile and manipulator robots, which can move about human environments and physically interact with objects and people, have the potential to assist people with disabilities in activities of daily living. Although the vision of physically assistive robots has motivated research across subfields of robotics for decades, such robots have only recently become feasible in terms of capabilities, safety, and price. More and more research involves end-to-end robotic systems that interact with people with disabilities in real-world settings. In this article, we survey papers about physically assistive robots intended for people with disabilities from top conferences and journals in robotics, human–computer interactions, and accessible technology, to identify the general trends and research methodologies. We then dive into three specific research themes—interaction interfaces, levels of autonomy, and adaptation—and present frameworks for how these themes manifest across physically assistive robot research. We conclude with directions for future research.

Keyword(s): accessibility, assistive technology, human–robot interaction, physically assistive robots, user-centered design
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062823-024352
2024-07-10
2024-10-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/7/1/annurev-control-062823-024352.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062823-024352&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    World Health Organ. 2023.. Disability. Fact Sheet , World Health Organ., Geneva:. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Pashmdarfard M, Azad A. 2020.. Assessment tools to evaluate Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) in older adults: a systematic review. . Med. J. Islam. Repub. Iran 34::33
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Stevens AC, Carroll DD, Courtney-Long EA, Zhang QC, Sloan ML, et al. 2016.. Adults with one or more functional disabilities—United States, 2011–2014. . Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 65:(38):1021–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Fausset CB, Kelly AJ, Rogers WA, Fisk AD. 2011.. Challenges to aging in place: understanding home maintenance difficulties. . J. Hous. Elderly 25:(2):125–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Counc. Eur. Comm. Hum. Rights. 2012.. The right of people with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community. Issue Pap. , Counc. Eur. Comm. Hum. Rights, Strasbourg, Fr.:
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Cree RA, Okoro CA, Zack MM, Carbone E. 2020.. Frequent mental distress among adults, by disability status, disability type, and selected characteristics—United States, 2018. . Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 69:(36):1238
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Mankoff J, Hayes GR, Kasnitz D. 2010.. Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. . In ASSETS '10: The 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 3–10. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Ranganeni V, Sinclair M, Ofek E, Miller A, Campbell J, et al. 2023.. Exploring levels of control for a navigation assistant for blind travelers. . In HRI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 4–12. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Zhang F, Cully A, Demiris Y. 2019.. Probabilistic real-time user posture tracking for personalized robot-assisted dressing. . IEEE Trans. Robot. 35:(4):873–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Hawkins KP, King CH, Chen TL, Kemp CC. 2012.. Informing assistive robots with models of contact forces from able-bodied face wiping and shaving. . In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 251–58. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Cabrera ME, Bhattacharjee T, Dey K, Cakmak M. 2021.. An exploration of accessible remote tele-operation for assistive mobile manipulators in the home. . In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1202–9. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Mehta SA, Parekh S, Losey DP. 2022.. Learning latent actions without human demonstrations. . In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 7437–43. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Bhattacharjee T, Gordon EK, Scalise R, Cabrera ME, Caspi A, et al. 2020.. Is more autonomy always better? Exploring preferences of users with mobility impairments in robot-assisted feeding. . In HRI '20: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 181–90. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Matarić MJ, Scassellati B. 2016.. Socially assistive robotics. . In Springer Handbook of Robotics, ed. B Siciliano, O Khatib , pp. 1973–94. Cham, Switz:.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Lindblom J, Alenljung B, Billing E. 2020.. Evaluating the user experience of human–robot interaction. . In Human-Robot Interaction: Evaluation Methods and Their Standardization, ed. C Jost, B Le Pévédic, T Belpaeme, C Bethel, D Chrysostomou , et al., pp. 231–56. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Hartson R, Pyla PS. 2012.. The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience. Amsterdam:: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Song WK, Song WJ, Kim Y, Kim J. 2013.. Usability test of KNRC self-feeding robot. . In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650501
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Kayukawa S, Sato D, Murata M, Ishihara T, Kosugi A, et al. 2022.. How users, facility managers, and bystanders perceive and accept a navigation robot for visually impaired people in public buildings. . In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 546–53. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Grzeskowiak F, Devigne L, Pasteau F, Dutra GSV, Babel M, Guégan S. 2022.. SWALKIT: a generic augmented walker kit to provide haptic feedback navigation assistance to people with both visual and motor impairments. . In 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR55369.2022.9896406
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Nguyen V. 2021.. Increasing independence with stretch: a mobile robot enabling functional performance in daily activities. Video Present. , Pac. Univ. Or. Res. Repos. https://commons.pacificu.edu/work/ns/7c7c34a1-9115-40aa-a4f6-a7d4774f6fbc
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Newman BA, Aronson RM, Kitani K, Admoni H. 2022.. Helping people through space and time: assistance as a perspective on human-robot interaction. . Front. Robot. AI 8::720319
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Brose SW, Weber DJ, Salatin BA, Grindle GG, Wang H, et al. 2010.. The role of assistive robotics in the lives of persons with disability. . Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89:(6):509–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Chung CS, Wang H, Cooper RA. 2013.. Functional assessment and performance evaluation for assistive robotic manipulators: literature review. . J. Spinal Cord Med. 36:(4):273–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Mohebbi A. 2020.. Human-robot interaction in rehabilitation and assistance: a review. . Curr. Robot. Rep. 1::131–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Orejuela-Zapata JF, Rodríguez S, Ramírez GL. 2019.. Self-help devices for quadriplegic population: a systematic literature review. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27:(4):692–701
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Petrie H, Darzentas J. 2017.. Older people and robotic technologies in the home: perspectives from recent research literature. . In PETRA '17: 10th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pp. 29–36. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Kandalan RN, Namuduri K. 2020.. Techniques for constructing indoor navigation systems for the visually impaired: a review. . IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 50:(6):492–506
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Bajaj NM, Spiers AJ, Dollar AM. 2015.. State of the art in prosthetic wrists: commercial and research devices. . In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 331–38. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Lara-Barrios CM, Blanco-Ortega A, Guzmán-Valdivia CH, Bustamante Valles KD. 2018.. Literature review and current trends on transfemoral powered prosthetics. . Adv. Robot. 32:(2):51–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Sarajchi M, Al-Hares MK, Sirlantzis K. 2021.. Wearable lower-limb exoskeleton for children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review of mechanical design, actuation type, control strategy, and clinical evaluation. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 29::2695–720
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Xiloyannis M, Alicea R, Georgarakis AM, Haufe FL, Wolf P, et al. 2021.. Soft robotic suits: state of the art, core technologies, and open challenges. . IEEE Trans. Robot. 38:(3):1343–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Maciejasz P, Eschweiler J, Gerlach-Hahn K, Jansen-Troy A, Leonhardt S. 2014.. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. . J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 11:(1):3
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Taylor DM. 2018.. Americans with disabilities: 2014. Rep. P70-152 , US Census Bur., Washington, DC:
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Geravand M, Rampeltshammer W, Peer A. 2015.. Control of mobility assistive robot for human fall prevention. . In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 882–87. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Ruiz-Ruiz FJ, Giammarino A, Lorenzini M, Gandarias JM, Gómez-De-Gabriel JH, Ajoudani A. 2022.. Improving standing balance performance through the assistance of a mobile collaborative robot. . In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 10017–23. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Chen Y, Paez-Granados D, Kadone H, Suzuki K. 2020.. Control interface for hands-free navigation of standing mobility vehicles based on upper-body natural movements. . In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 11322–29. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Chugo D, Kawazoe S, Yokota S, Hashimoto H, Katayama T, et al. 2017.. Pattern based standing assistance adapted to individual subjects on a robotic walker. . In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1216–21. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Zhang Y, Li Z, Guo H, Wang L, Chen Q, et al. 2023.. ``I am the follower, also the boss'': exploring different levels of autonomy and machine forms of guiding robots for the visually impaired. . In CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pap. 542 . New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Kayukawa S, Sato D, Murata M, Ishihara T, Takagi H, et al. 2023.. Enhancing blind visitor's autonomy in a science museum using an autonomous navigation robot. . In CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pap. 541 . New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Nanavati A, Alves-Oliveira P, Schrenk T, Gordon EK, Cakmak M, Srinivasa SS. 2023.. Design principles for robot-assisted feeding in social contexts. . In HRI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 24–33. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Bhattacharjee T, Cabrera ME, Caspi A, Cakmak M, Srinivasa SS. 2019.. A community-centered design framework for robot-assisted feeding systems. . In ASSETS '19: The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 482–94. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Al-Halimi RK, Moussa M. 2016.. Performing complex tasks by users with upper-extremity disabilities using a 6-DOF robotic arm: a study. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25:(6):686–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Beer JM, Smarr CA, Chen TL, Prakash A, Mitzner TL, et al. 2012.. The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. . In HRI '12: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 335–42. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Chalvatzaki G, Papageorgiou XS, Tzafestas CS, Maragos P. 2018.. Augmented human state estimation using interacting multiple model particle filters with probabilistic data association. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3:(3):1872–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Pan YT, Shih CC, DeBuys C, Hur P. 2018.. Design of a sensory augmentation walker with a skin stretch feedback handle. . In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 832–37. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Andreetto M, Divan S, Fontanelli D, Palopoli L. 2017.. Harnessing steering singularities in passive path following for robotic walkers. . In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2426–32. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Chalvatzaki G, Papageorgiou XS, Tzafestas CS. 2017.. Towards a user-adaptive context-aware robotic walker with a pathological gait assessment system: first experimental study. . In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5037–42. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Chen X, Ragonesi C, Galloway JC, Agrawal SK. 2011.. Training toddlers seated on mobile robots to drive indoors amidst obstacles. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19:(3):271–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Jin N, Kang J, Agrawal S. 2015.. Design of a novel assist interface where toddlers walk with a mobile robot supported at the waist. . In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 577–82. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Efthimiou E, Fotinea SE, Vacalopoulou A, Papageorgiou XS, Karavasili A, Goulas T. 2019.. User centered design in practice: adapting HRI to real user needs. . In PETRA '19: Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pp. 425–29. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    MacNamara S, Lacey G. 2000.. A smart walker for the frail visually impaired. . In 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Vol. 2, pp. 1354–59. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Azenkot S, Feng C, Cakmak M. 2016.. Enabling building service robots to guide blind people a participatory design approach. . In HRI '16: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 3–10. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Agrawal S, West ME, Hayes B. 2022.. A novel perceptive robotic cane with haptic navigation for enabling vision-independent participation in the social dynamics of seat choice. . In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 9156–63. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Jin P, Ohn-Bar E, Kitani K, Asakawa C. 2019.. A-EXP4: online social policy learning for adaptive robot-pedestrian interaction. . In 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5086–93. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Wachaja A, Agarwal P, Zink M, Adame MR, Möller K, Burgard W. 2015.. Navigating blind people with a smart walker. . In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 6014–19. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Chuang TK, Lin NC, Chen JS, Hung CH, Huang YW, et al. 2018.. Deep trail-following robotic guide dog in pedestrian environments for people who are blind and visually impaired – learning from virtual and real worlds. . In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5849–55. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Arevalo Arboleda S, Pascher M, Baumeister A, Klein B, Gerken J. 2021.. Reflecting upon participatory design in human-robot collaboration for people with motor disabilities: challenges and lessons learned from three multiyear projects. . In PETRA '21: Proceedings of the 14th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference, pp. 147–55. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Ljungblad S. 2023.. Applying ``designerly framing'' to understand assisted feeding as social aesthetic bodily experiences. . ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 12:(2):1–23
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Ondras J, Anwar A, Wu T, Bu F, Jung M, et al. 2022.. Human-robot commensality: bite timing prediction for robot-assisted feeding in groups. . In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Robot Learning, ed. K Liu, D Kulic, J Ichnowski , pp. 921–33. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 205 . N.p.:: PMLR
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Lauretti C, Cordella F, Di Luzio FS, Saccucci S, Davalli A, et al. 2017.. Comparative performance analysis of M-IMU/EMG and voice user interfaces for assistive robots. . In 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 1001–6. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Losey DP, Srinivasan K, Mandlekar A, Garg A, Sadigh D. 2020.. Controlling assistive robots with learned latent actions. . In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 378–84. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Fang Q, Kyrarini M, Ristic-Durrant D, Gräser A. 2018.. RGB-D camera based 3D human mouth detection and tracking towards robotic feeding assistance. . In PETRA '18: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference, pp. 391–96. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Perera CJ, Lalitharatne TD, Kiguchi K. 2017.. EEG-controlled meal assistance robot with camera-based automatic mouth position tracking and mouth open detection. . In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1760–65. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Ricardez GAG, Takamatsu J, Ogasawara T, Alfaro JS. 2018.. Quantitative comfort evaluation of eating assistive devices based on interaction forces estimation using an accelerometer. . In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 909–14. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Canal G, Torras C, Alenyà G. 2021.. Are preferences useful for better assistance? A physically assistive robotics user study. . ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 10:(4):1–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Gallenberger D, Bhattacharjee T, Kim Y, Srinivasa SS. 2019.. Transfer depends on acquisition: analyzing manipulation strategies for robotic feeding. . In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 267–76. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Park D, Kim H, Hoshi Y, Erickson Z, Kapusta A, Kemp CC. 2017.. A multimodal execution monitor with anomaly classification for robot-assisted feeding. . In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5406–13. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Erickson Z, Gu Y, Kemp CC. 2020.. Assistive VR Gym: interactions with real people to improve virtual assistive robots. . In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 299–306. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Goldau FF, Shastha TK, Kyrarini M, Gräser A. 2019.. Autonomous multi-sensory robotic assistant for a drinking task. . In 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 210–16. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Schultz JR, Slifkin AB, Yu H, Schearer EM. 2022.. Proof-of-concept: a hands-free interface for robot-assisted self-feeding. . In 2022 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR55369.2022.9896535
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Kapusta A, Yu W, Bhattacharjee T, Liu CK, Turk G, Kemp CC. 2016.. Data-driven haptic perception for robot-assisted dressing. . In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 451–58. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Zhang F, Cully A, Demiris Y. 2017.. Personalized robot-assisted dressing using user modeling in latent spaces. . In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3603–10. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Erickson Z, Clever HM, Turk G, Liu CK, Kemp CC. 2018.. Deep haptic model predictive control for robot-assisted dressing. . In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4437–44. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Erickson Z, Collier M, Kapusta A, Kemp CC. 2018.. Tracking human pose during robot-assisted dressing using single-axis capacitive proximity sensing. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 3:(3):2245–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Grice PM, Lee A, Evans H, Kemp CC. 2012.. The wouse: a wearable wince detector to stop assistive robots. . In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 165–72. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Motahar T, Farden MF, Sarkar DP, Islam MA, Cabrera ME, Cakmak M. 2019.. SHEBA: a low-cost assistive robot for older adults in the developing world. . In 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN46459.2019.8956402
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Saunders J, Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Burke N, Dautenhahn K. 2015.. `` Teach me–show me''—end-user personalization of a smart home and companion robot. . IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 46:(1):27–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Shafti A, Orlov P, Faisal AA. 2019.. Gaze-based, context-aware robotic system for assisted reaching and grasping. . In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 863–69. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Choi YS, Anderson CD, Glass JD, Kemp CC. 2008.. Laser pointers and a touch screen: intuitive interfaces for autonomous mobile manipulation for the motor impaired. . In Assets '08: Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 225–32. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Baldi TL, Spagnoletti G, Dragusanu M, Prattichizzo D. 2017.. Design of a wearable interface for lightweight robotic arm for people with mobility impairments. . In 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 1567–73. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Jain S, Farshchiansadegh A, Broad A, Abdollahi F, Mussa-Ivaldi F, Argall B. 2015.. Assistive robotic manipulation through shared autonomy and a body-machine interface. . In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 526–31. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Poirier S, Routhier F, Campeau-Lecours A. 2019.. Voice control interface prototype for assistive robots for people living with upper limb disabilities. . In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 46–52. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Tidoni E, Gergondet P, Fusco G, Kheddar A, Aglioti SM. 2016.. The role of audio-visual feedback in a thought-based control of a humanoid robot: a BCI study in healthy and spinal cord injured people. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25:(6):772–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Zhang J, Zhuang L, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Meng Y, Hua G. 2013.. An egocentric vision based assistive co-robot. . In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650473
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Jackowski A, Gebhard M, Thietje R. 2017.. Head motion and head gesture-based robot control: a usability study. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26:(1):161–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Chau S, Aspelund S, Mukherjee R, Lee MH, Ranganathan R, Kagerer F. 2017.. A five degree-of-freedom body-machine interface for children with severe motor impairments. . In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3877–82. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Cio YSLK, Raison M, Menard CL, Achiche S. 2019.. Proof of concept of an assistive robotic arm control using artificial stereovision and eye-tracking. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 27:(12):2344–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Cabrera ME, Dey K, Krishnaswamy K, Bhattacharjee T, Cakmak M. 2021.. Cursor-based robot tele-manipulation through 2D-to-SE2 interfaces. . In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4230–37. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Quintero CP, Ramirez O, Jägersand M. 2015.. VIBI: assistive vision-based interface for robot manipulation. . In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4458–63. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    House B, Malkin J, Bilmes J. 2009.. The VoiceBot: a voice controlled robot arm. . In CHI '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 183–92. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Olatunji SA, Oron-Gilad T, Markfeld N, Gutman D, Sarne-Fleischmann V, Edan Y. 2021.. Levels of automation and transparency: interaction design considerations in assistive robots for older adults. . IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 51:(6):673–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Herlant LV, Holladay RM, Srinivasa SS. 2016.. Assistive teleoperation of robot arms via automatic time-optimal mode switching. . In HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 35–42. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Wang Y, Xu G, Song A, Xu B, Li H, et al. 2018.. Continuous shared control for robotic arm reaching driven by a hybrid gaze-brain machine interface. . In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4462–67. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Wang MY, Kogkas AA, Darzi A, Mylonas GP. 2018.. Free-view, 3D gaze-guided, assistive robotic system for activities of daily living. . In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2355–61. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Jeon HJ, Losey DP, Sadigh D. 2020.. Shared autonomy with learned latent actions. . In Robotics: Science and Systems XVI, ed. M Toussaint, A Bicchi, T Hermans, pap. 11 . N.p.:: Robot. Sci. Syst. Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Gopinath DE, Argall BD. 2020.. Active intent disambiguation for shared control robots. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 28:(6):1497–506
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Gopinath D, Jain S, Argall BD. 2016.. Human-in-the-loop optimization of shared autonomy in assistive robotics. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2:(1):247–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Quere G, Hagengruber A, Iskandar M, Bustamante S, Leidner D, et al. 2020.. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1956–62. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Vu DS, Allard UC, Gosselin C, Routhier F, Gosselin B, Campeau-Lecours A. 2017.. Intuitive adaptive orientation control of assistive robots for people living with upper limb disabilities. . In 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 795–800. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Ardón P, Cabrera ME, Pairet E, Petrick RP, Ramamoorthy S, et al. 2021.. Affordance-aware handovers with human arm mobility constraints. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 6:(2):3136–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Choi YS, Chen T, Jain A, Anderson C, Glass JD, Kemp CC. 2009.. Hand it over or set it down: a user study of object delivery with an assistive mobile manipulator. . In 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 736–43. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Fukuda O, Tsuji T, Kaneko M. 1997.. An EMG controlled robotic manipulator using neural networks. . In 6th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 442–47. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Jiang H, Wachs JP, Duerstock BS. 2013.. Integrated vision-based robotic arm interface for operators with upper limb mobility impairments. . In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650447
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Oyama E, Yoon WK, Wakita Y, Tanaka H, Yoshikawa M, et al. 2012.. Development of evaluation indexes for assistive robots based on ICF. . In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 221–27. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Bajones M, Fischinger D, Weiss A, Puente PDL, Wolf D, et al. 2019.. Results of field trials with a mobile service robot for older adults in 16 private households. . ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 9:(2):1–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Cook AM, Bentz B, Harbottle N, Lynch C, Miller B. 2005.. School-based use of a robotic arm system by children with disabilities. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 13:(4):452–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Bonani M, Oliveira R, Correia F, Rodrigues A, Guerreiro T, Paiva A. 2018.. What my eyes can't see, a robot can show me: exploring the collaboration between blind people and robots. . In ASSETS '18: Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 15–27. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Kronreif G, Prazak B, Mina S, Kornfeld M, Meindl M, Furst M. 2005.. PlayROB – robot-assisted playing for children with severe physical disabilities. . In 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 193–96. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Cook AM, Meng MH, Gu JJ, Howery K. 2002.. Development of a robotic device for facilitating learning by children who have severe disabilities. . IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 10:(3):178–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Hansen ST, Bak T, Risager C. 2012.. An adaptive game algorithm for an autonomous, mobile robot—a real world study with elderly users. . In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 892–97. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Chang PH, Park SR, Cho GR, Jung JH, Park SH. 2005.. Development of a robot arm assisting people with disabilities at working place using task-oriented design. . In 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 482–87. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Güldenpfennig F, Mayer P, Panek P, Fitzpatrick G. 2019.. An autonomy-perspective on the design of assistive technology experiences of people with multiple sclerosis. . In CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pap. 127 . New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Sivakanthan S, Blaauw E, Greenhalgh M, Koontz AM, Vegter R, Cooper RA. 2021.. Person transfer assist systems: a literature review. . Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 16:(3):270–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Halbach T, Solheim I, Ytrehus S, Schulz T. 2018.. A mobile application for supporting dementia relatives: a case study. . In Transforming Our World Through Design, Diversity and Education, ed. G Craddock, C Doran, L McNutt, D Rice , pp. 839–46. Amsterdam:: IOS
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Sääskilahti K, Kangaskorte R, Pieskä S, Jauhiainen J, Luimula M. 2012.. Needs and user acceptance of older adults for mobile service robot. . In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 559–64. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Paulo J, Peixoto P, Nunes UJ. 2017.. ISR-AIWALKER: robotic walker for intuitive and safe mobility assistance and gait analysis. . IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 47:(6):1110–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Burgstahler S, Doe T. 2014.. Disability-related simulations: if, when, and how to use them in professional development. . Rev. Disabil. Stud. 1:(2):8–18
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Brulé E, Tomlinson BJ, Metatla O, Jouffrais C, Serrano M. 2020.. Review of quantitative empirical evaluations of technology for people with visual impairments. . In CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Pascher M, Baumeister A, Schneegass S, Klein B, Gerken J. 2021.. Recommendations for the development of a robotic drinking and eating aid—an ethnographic study. . In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2021, ed. C Ardito, R Lanzilotti, A Malizia, H Petrie, A Piccinno , et al., pp. 331–51. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Gergle D, Tan DS. 2014.. Experimental research in HCI. . In Ways of Knowing in HCI, ed. J Olson, W Kellogg , pp. 191–227. New York:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Zimmerman M, Bagchi S, Marvel J, Nguyen V. 2022.. An analysis of metrics and methods in research from human-robot interaction conferences, 2015–2021. . In HRI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 644–48. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Sofaer S. 1999.. Qualitative methods: What are they and why use them?. Health Serv. Res. 34:(5 Part 2):1101–18
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Bedrosian J. 1995.. Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research. . Augment. Altern. Commun. 11:(1):6–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Tigwell GW. 2021.. Nuanced perspectives toward disability simulations from digital designers, blind, low vision, and color blind people. . In CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pap. 378 . New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Lewis JR. 2018.. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. . Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 34:(7):577–90
     [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE. 1988.. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. . In Human Mental Workload, ed. PA Hancock, N Meshkati , pp. 139–83. Adv. Psychol. 52 . Amsterdam:: Elsevier
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Grier RA. 2015.. How high is high? A meta-analysis of NASA-TLX global workload scores. . In Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 59:1727–31
     [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Grice PM, Kemp CC. 2019.. In-home and remote use of robotic body surrogates by people with profound motor deficits. . PLOS ONE 14:(3):e0212904
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Madan R, Jenamani RK, Nguyen VT, Moustafa A, Hu X, et al. 2022.. SPARCS: Structuring Physically Assistive Robotics for Caregiving with Stakeholders-in-the-loop. . In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 641–48. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Choi YS, Deyle T, Chen T, Glass JD, Kemp CC. 2009.. A list of household objects for robotic retrieval prioritized by people with ALS. . In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 510–17. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Ye R, Xu W, Fu H, Jenamani RK, Nguyen V, et al. 2022.. RCareWorld: a human-centric simulation world for caregiving robots. . In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 33–40. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Tate RL, Perdices M. 2015.. N-of-1 trials in the behavioral sciences. . In The Essential Guide to N-of-1 Trials in Health, ed. J Nikles, G Mitchell , pp. 19–41. Dordrecht, Neth:.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Augstein M, Neumayr T. 2019.. A human-centered taxonomy of interaction modalities and devices. . Int. Comput. 31:(1):27–58
     [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Baraka K, Veloso MM. 2018.. Mobile service robot state revealing through expressive lights: formalism, design, and evaluation. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10::65–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Szafir D, Mutlu B, Fong T. 2014.. Communication of intent in assistive free flyers. . In HRI '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 358–65. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Tellex S, Knepper R, Li A, Rus D, Roy N. 2014.. Asking for help using inverse semantics. . In Robotics: Science and Systems X, ed. D Fox, LE Kavraki, H Kurniawati, pap. 24 . N.p.:: Robot. Sci. Syst. Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Dragan AD, Lee KC, Srinivasa SS. 2013.. Legibility and predictability of robot motion. . In HRI '13: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 301–8. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Beer JM, Fisk AD, Rogers WA. 2014.. Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. . J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3:(2):74–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Delgado Bellamy D, Chance G, Caleb-Solly P, Dogramadzi S. 2021.. Safety assessment review of a dressing assistance robot. . Front. Robot. AI 8::667316
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Jevtić A, Valle AF, Alenyà G, Chance G, Caleb-Solly P, et al. 2018.. Personalized robot assistant for support in dressing. . IEEE Trans. Cogn. Dev. Syst. 11:(3):363–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Cakmak M. 2017.. What if your robot designed your next home? Paper presented at the Human Computer Interaction Consortium Annual Meeting
     [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Nguyen H, Kemp CC. 2008.. Bio-inspired assistive robotics: service dogs as a model for human-robot interaction and mobile manipulation. . In 2008 2nd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp. 542–49. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Nguyen H, Ciocarlie M, Hsiao K, Kemp CC. 2013.. ROS Commander (ROSCo): behavior creation for home robots. . In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 467–74. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    Fan H, Poole MS. 2006.. What is personalization? Perspectives on the design and implementation of personalization in information systems. . J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commerce 16:(3–4):179–202
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Wobbrock JO, Kane SK, Gajos KZ, Harada S, Froehlich J. 2011.. Ability-based design: concept, principles and examples. . ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 3:(3):1–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Kinova. 2023.. Robotic arm: enabling new possibilities. . Kinova. https://assistive.kinovarobotics.com/product/jaco-robotic-arm
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Caleb-Solly P, Harper C, Dogramadzi S. 2021.. Standards and regulations for physically assistive robots. . In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Safety for Robotics (ISR), pp. 259–63. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    Torras C. 2019.. Assistive robotics: research challenges and ethics education initiatives. . Dilemata 30::63–77
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Mossfeldt Nickelsen NC. 2019.. Imagining and tinkering with assistive robotics in care for the disabled. . Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 10:(1):128–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062823-024352
Loading
Physically Assistive Robots: A Systematic Review of Mobile and Manipulator Robots That Physically Assist People with Disabilities
Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 7, 123 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-062823-024352
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062823-024352
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062823-024352
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error