| Title |
The Three Laws of Neurorobotics: A Review on What Neurorehabilitation Robots Should Do for Patients and Clinicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40846-016-0115-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Iosa, Giovanni Morone, Andrea Cherubini, Stefano Paolucci |
| Abstract |
Most studies and reviews on robots for neurorehabilitation focus on their effectiveness. These studies often report inconsistent results. This and many other reasons limit the credit given to these robots by therapists and patients. Further, neurorehabilitation is often still based on therapists' expertise, with competition among different schools of thought, generating substantial uncertainty about what exactly a neurorehabilitation robot should do. Little attention has been given to ethics. This review adopts a new approach, inspired by Asimov's three laws of robotics and based on the most recent studies in neurorobotics, for proposing new guidelines for designing and using robots for neurorehabilitation. We propose three laws of neurorobotics based on the ethical need for safe and effective robots, the redefinition of their role as therapist helpers, and the need for clear and transparent human-machine interfaces. These laws may allow engineers and clinicians to work closely together on a new generation of neurorobots. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 33% |
| France | 2 | 13% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 93% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 175 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 20% |
| Researcher | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 42 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 55 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,822,809
of 25,643,886 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering
#8
of 120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,602
of 411,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,643,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 120 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 411,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them