Table 1.
Summary of review results.
| Robot device used | Region/country | Author/organization (year of publication), publisher [ref. number] |
Number of patients/end users | Type of end users |
Location of the survey | Subjective measure used |
Language of scale used | Valid/reliable scale | Number of scale's items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A sensory system and upper limb biomechanical model combined with a graphical interface | Ontario, Canada | Abdullah et al. (2011), J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [17] |
20 | Patients | Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Unit | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 2 |
| Robotic exoskeleton arm | Italy | Ambrosini et al. (2014), Robotica [43] |
14 | 9 patients + 5 healthy | Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Centre | TSQ-WT, SUS | Italian | ?/?, ?/? | TSQ-WT (30), SUS (10) |
| Hand/wrist exoskeleton | United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy | Amirabdollahian et al. (2014), Robotica [44] | 12 | Patients | Not defined | SUS | English | V/R | 10 |
| H2 robotic exoskeleton | Not defined | Bortole et al. (2015), J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [18] |
3 | Patients | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 1 |
| Haptic human-robot partnered stepping | Atlanta, GA, USA | Chen et al. (2015), PLoS ONE [19] | 10 | Healthy | Healthcare Robotics Lab | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 14 |
| Direct physical interface for nursing assistant robots | Atlanta, GA, USA | Chen and Kemp (2010), HRI 2010 [20] |
18 | Healthy (nurses) | Healthcare Robotics Lab | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 11, 10 |
| Robot suit HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) | Tokyo, Japan | Chihara et al. (2016), Neurol. Med. Chir. [39] |
15 | Patients | Kyoto University Hospital | Interviews | |||
| Robot “El-E” | Atlanta, GA, USA | Choi et al. (2008), ASSETS '08 [21] | 8 | Patients | Healthcare Robotics Lab | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 8 |
| SAM robotic aid system (a mobile Neobotix base equipped with a semiautomatic vision interface and a Manus robotic arm) | France | Coignard et al. (2013), Annals of Phys. and Rehab. Med. [22] | 29 + 34 | 29 patients + 34 healthy (control group) | Hopale Foundation in Berck-sur-Mer and the Kerpape Rehabilitation Centre in Ploemeur | Unknown (developed by themselves) | French | —/— | 9 (technical aspects), 7 (acceptability and usage) |
| Hybrid FES-robot (exoskeleton) | Spain | del-Ama et al. (2014), J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [48] | 4 | Patients | Not defined | QUEST | English | V/R | 7 from 12 |
| Wheelchair mounted robotic assisted transfer device | Pittsburgh, USA | Grindle et al. (2015), BioMed Res. Int. 2015 [23] |
18 | Patients | 2011 National Veteran Wheelchair Games | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 4, 7 |
| iCat robot | Netherlands | Heerink et al. (2010), Int. J. Soc. Robot. [24] |
30 | Healthy | Not defined | Unknown (based on the UTAUT questionnaire) | English | —/— | 41 |
| ARM, HEXAR-KR40P | South Korea | Kim et al. (2014), Int. J. Precis. Eng. Man. [25] |
80 | Patients | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 1 |
| A-gear: wearable dynamic arm support | Netherlands | Kooren et al. (2015), J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [26] |
4 | 3 patients + 1 healthy | Radboud UMC Outpatient Clinic | Unknown (developed by themselves) | Not defined | —/— | Not defined |
| Grasping robot | France | Laffont et al. (2009), Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. [27] |
20 + 24 | 20 patients + 24 healthy (control group) | Four French departments of physical and rehabilitation medicine | Unknown (developed by themselves) | French | —/— | 3 |
| Haptic-robotic platform for upper limb | Canada | Lam et al. (2008), J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. [28] |
8 | Healthy (physical and occup. therapists) | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 9 |
| Teleoperated robot system Telenoid R3 | Japan | Liu et al. (2015), HRI 2015 [29] | 20 | Healthy (college students) | ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Labs, Kyoto | Unknown (developed by themselves) | Japanese | —/— | 2 |
| LEGO robot | Spain | Lopez-Samaniego et al. (2014), Bio-Med. Mater. Eng. [30] | 9 | Patients | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves), SUS | Spanish | —/—, ?/? | Not defined, SUS (10) |
| InMotion 2 robotic system | Italy | Mazzoleni et al. (2014), Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. [31] | 34 | Patients | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves) | Italian | —/— | 7 |
| Personal Transport Assistance Robot (PTAR) | Japan | Ozaki et al. (2013), Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. [32] |
8 | Patients | Fujita Health University | Unknown (developed by themselves) | Japanese | —/— | 2 |
| Rehabilitation robot | Canada | Pineau et al. (2010), Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing [33] | 7 | Healthy (university students) | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves) | Not defined | —/— | Not defined |
| Amadeo robot | Italy | Sale et al. (2012), Stroke Res. Treat. [41] |
7 | Patients | Department of Neurorehabilitation, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana | COPM | |||
| Robot-enhanced repetitive treadmill therapy (ROBERT) | Germany | Schroeder et al. (2014), Dev. Med. Child Neurol. [13] |
83 | Patients | Not defined | COPM | |||
| Robot companion (artificial health advisor) | Germany | von der Pütten et al. (2011), ICMI '11 [40] | 6 | Healthy | University of Duisburg-Essen | Semistructured interviews | |||
| Personal Mobility and Manipulation Appliance (PerMMA) | USA | Wang et al. (2013), Med. Eng. Phys. [34] |
15 | Patients | Center for Assistive Technology, University of Pittsburgh | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 12 |
| Kompaï (indoor assistive robot) | France | Wu et al. (2014), Clin. Interv. Aging [35] |
11 | Patients | Living lab | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | 25 |
| ASIBOT (portable robot to aid patients) | Spain | Jardón et al. (2011), Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. [49] | 6 | Patients | Not defined | QUEST | Spanish | V/R | 12 |
| Intelligent wheelchair | Portugal | Mónica Faria et al. (2013), Assist. Technol. [45] | 46 | Healthy (students) | School of Allied Health Sciences of Porto | SUS | Portuguese | ?/? | 10 |
| Socially assistive robot (Nao) | Austria | Werner and Krainer (2013), ICSR 2013 [36] | 14 | Healthy | Senior Citizen Centre Schwechat | Unknown (developed by themselves) | German | —/— | Not defined |
| Reo Therapy System | Israel | Treger et al. (2008), Eur. J. Phys. Rehab. Med. [37] | 10 | Patients | Loewenstein Rehabilitation Centre | Unknown (developed by themselves) | Not defined | —/— | 15 |
| Robotic and electrical stimulation therapy | United Kingdom | Hughes et al. (2011), Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. [38] | 5 | Patients | Not defined | Unknown (developed by themselves) | English | —/— | Not defined |
Note: TSQ-WT = Telehealthcare Satisfaction Questionnaire-Wearable Technology, SUS = System Usability Scale, QUEST = Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, UTAUT = Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, ? = unknown value, — = not valid (if it appears in the first position of the column “Valid/reliable scale”)/not reliable (if it appears in the second position of the column “Valid/reliable scale”), V = valid scale, and R = reliable scale.