| Title |
ARMin: a robot for patient-cooperative arm therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, August 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11517-007-0226-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tobias Nef, Matjaz Mihelj, Robert Riener |
| Abstract |
Task-oriented, repetitive and intensive arm training can enhance arm rehabilitation in patients with paralyzed upper extremities due to lesions of the central nervous system. There is evidence that the training duration is a key factor for the therapy progress. Robot-supported therapy can improve the rehabilitation allowing more intensive training. This paper presents the kinematics, the control and the therapy modes of the arm therapy robot ARMin. It is a haptic display with semi-exoskeleton kinematics with four active and two passive degrees of freedom. Equipped with position, force and torque sensors the device can deliver patient-cooperative arm therapy taking into account the activity of the patient and supporting him/her only as much as needed. The haptic display is combined with an audiovisual display that is used to present the movement and the movement task to the patient. It is assumed that the patient-cooperative therapy approach combined with a multimodal display can increase the patient's motivation and activity and, therefore, the therapeutic progress. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 376 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 7 | 2% |
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Guatemala | 1 | <1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 355 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 77 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 58 | 15% |
| Researcher | 52 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 61 | 16% |
| Unknown | 72 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 194 | 52% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 34 | 9% |
| Unknown | 85 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 November 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
#1,677
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,909
of 76,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 76,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.