ライブラリ登録: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begellデジタルライブラリー 電子書籍 ジャーナル 参考文献と会報 リサーチ集
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering
SJR: 0.207 SNIP: 0.376 CiteScore™: 0.79

ISSN 印刷: 0278-940X
ISSN オンライン: 1943-619X

Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.2016016046
pages 1-32

Haptic Neurorehabilitation and Virtual Reality for Upper Limb Paralysis: A Review

Leah Piggott
Psychology Department, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI, 49855
Samantha Wagner
Psychology Department, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI, 49855
Mounia Ziat
Department of Psychology, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI, 1401 Presque Isle Avenue, Marquette, MI, 49855

要約

Motor and sensory loss or dysfunction affects the quality of life for thousands of individuals daily. The upper limb, and especially the hand, are important for a person's ability to complete activities of daily living. Traditional therapy methods focus on motor recovery, but future methods should include sensory recovery and should promote the use of the affected limb(s) at home. In this review, we highlight the current state-of-art robotic devices for the upper limb, and we discuss benefits of including haptic feedback and virtual reality environments during neurorehabilitation. Robotic devices, such as end-effector devices, grounded and ungrounded exoskeletons, have been developed to assist with various functions including individual finger, whole hand, and shoulder movements. Many robots highlighted in this paper are inexpensive and are small enough to be in a patient's home, or allow for telerehabilitation. Virtual reality creates safe environments for patients to practice motor movements and interactive games improve enjoyment of therapy. Haptic feedback creates more immersive virtual reality, and contributes to the recovery of sensory function. Physiological studies conducted after brain trauma and with robotic devices contribute to the understanding of brain plasticity, and illustrate the efficacy of these technologies. We conclude by addressing the future direction of neurorehabilitation research.


Articles with similar content:

Muscle-Based Gene Therapy and Tissue Engineering
Critical Reviews™ in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, Vol.11, 2001, issue 1-3
Nobuo Adachi, Dalip Pelinkovic, Johnny Huard, Joon Yung Lee
Biological, Mechanical, and Technological Considerations Affecting the Longevity of Intracortical Electrode Recordings
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.41, 2013, issue 6
Dustin J. Tyler, James P. Harris
Instrumentation Related Complications in Spine Surgery
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.22, 2012, issue 4
Konstantinos Tolis, Konstantinos Soultanis, Eirineos Karamanis, Panayiotis J. Papagelopoulos, George Mimidis, Andreas F. Mavrogenis, Efstathios Ballas
Myoelectric Control in Neurorehabilitation
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.38, 2010, issue 4
Andrea d'Avella, Ning Jiang, Bernhard Graimann, Deborah Falla, Dario Farina
Biomedical Engineering Strategies for Peripheral Nerve Repair: Surgical Applications, State of the Art, and Future Challenges
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.39, 2011, issue 2
D. Kacy Cullen, Joseph R. Loverde, Bryan J. Pfister, Susan E. Mackinnon, Arshneel S. Kochar, Tessa Gordon