Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Exercise Specialists Evaluation of Robot-led Physical Therapy for People with Parkinsons Disease

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Exercise specialists who tried ZEST-E, a robot-led physical therapy system for Parkinson's disease, judged it useful, engaging, and capable of supplementing clinic care.

desk verdict Solid, transparent stakeholder study whose own mixed data undercut the abstract's strong claims about augmenting PT. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04635 v1 pith:VT2ZZJTG submitted 2025-02-07 cs.RO

Matthew Lamsey , Meredith D. Wells , Lydia Hamby , Paige Scanlon , Rouida Siddiqui , You Liang Tan , Jerry Feldman , Charles C. Kemp
show 1 more author
Madeleine E. Hackney
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords robot-ledphysicaltherapyParkinson'sdiseaseexercisespecialiststechnologyacceptancesociallyassistiveroboticsrehabilitationuserstudymixedmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a user study in which 11 exercise specialists—physical therapists, occupational therapists, an exercise physiologist, and exercise instructors who work with people with Parkinson's disease—tried ZEST-E, a robot-led stretching and exercise system. The study's central claim is that these professionals received the robot positively: they rated it useful, engaging, and worth incorporating into clinical and home care, while also pointing to concrete improvements. The authors argue that these favorable perceptions, drawn from questionnaires and interviews, indicate that robot-led physical therapy can add to human-supervised care for Parkinson's disease rather than replace it. The two areas they identify for refinement are more human-like feedback and greater ease of use.

What carries the argument

The central object is ZEST-E (Zesty Exercise System for Therapeutic Engagement), a lightweight mobile manipulator with a soft bubble end effector that leads users through stretching exercises by showing video instructions, speaking verbal cues, calibrating each user's range of motion, and moving a physical target to adjust difficulty and reward full motions with auditory feedback. The evaluative machinery is a mixed-methods battery: technology acceptance and robot opinion questionnaires, the NASA Task Load Index, the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices scale, a custom ZEST-E Evaluative Questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews coded by multiple raters. Together these measure perceived usefulness, ease of use, engagement, workload, and psychosocial impact, and the custom questionnaire separates patient-perspective items from healthcare-provider considerations.

What would settle it

Give the system to a cohort of people with Parkinson's to use at home for 8–12 weeks, with a control group following a standard paper home exercise program, and compare adherence, exercise quality, and patient-reported engagement; if the robot-led group does not match or beat the control on those measures, the paper's claim that ZEST-E enhances patient engagement and ensures consistent exercise support would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that exercise specialists, after one hour of robot-led exercise, report that ZEST-E is useful for their clinics and for their patients, engaging enough to support at-home exercise adherence, and adaptable to individual needs—and that these positive ratings coexist with specific criticisms about feedback authenticity, form monitoring, setup complexity, and cost. The authors interpret this as evidence that robot-led physical therapy can augment traditional therapy for Parkinson's disease by offloading repetitive coaching tasks, providing consistent external cues for full range of motion, and collecting adherence data, while flagging that the system needs more human-like communication and easier operation before it can be deployed independently at home.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the self-reported opinions of 11 exercise specialists after one scripted, hour-long session predict how the robot would actually perform in real clinic and home use for people with Parkinson's disease.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the specialists' perceptions hold, robot-led systems like ZEST-E could offload repetitive coaching tasks from clinicians and let one therapist supervise several patients at once.
  • Home deployment could improve adherence to prescribed exercise by giving patients consistent verbal encouragement and clear form cues between clinic visits, with session data sent back to the therapist.
  • The two improvement areas the paper identifies—more human-like, adaptable feedback and easier operation—become concrete design targets for next-generation rehabilitation robots.
  • Because the same specialists saw uses beyond Parkinson's disease (for example, stroke, multiple sclerosis, and healthy older adults), the perceived value may generalize to other movement-impaired populations.
  • Perceived ease of use for patients and concerns about cost were the clearest adoption barriers, and addressing them is what would turn favorable attitudes into actual use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the single-session design means the favorable attitudes may reflect novelty, so a longitudinal study tracking whether engagement and adherence persist over weeks would test whether the 'consistent exercise support' claim holds outside a lab.
  • Beyond the paper: the specialists' request for form-correcting feedback points toward computer-vision or wearable-sensor monitoring, and a testable extension is whether such feedback, compared with ZEST-E's current repetition scoring, reduces participants' tendency to shorten their range of motion to score points.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper does not measure patient outcomes, so the natural next step is a randomized controlled trial in which people with Parkinson's use ZEST-E at home and outcomes such as fall rates, exercise dose, and quality of life are compared with standard home exercise handouts.
  • Beyond the paper: the perceived usefulness for non-Parkinson's populations suggests the main determinants of adoption may be design constraints like portability, cost, and autonomy rather than disease-specific features.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods user study in which 11 exercise specialists (ES) with experience working with people with Parkinson's disease (PD) interacted with ZEST-E, a robotic physical therapy system, during a single approximately one-hour session. Data collection included the Technology Attitudes Questionnaire, the Robot Opinions Questionnaire (ROQ), the ZEST-E Evaluative Questionnaire (ZEQ), the PIADS scale, the NASA-TLX, and semi-structured exit interviews coded with an inter-rater reliability check. The authors report generally positive questionnaire means, positive qualitative themes about engagement and communication, and two main improvement areas (more human-like feedback and easier usability). The abstract and conclusion claim that the system can 'augment traditional PT', 'enhance patient engagement', and 'ensure consistent exercise support'.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, the study offers useful, stakeholder-informed evidence that professional exercise specialists perceive robot-led physical therapy as acceptable and potentially useful for PD. The paper's strengths include transparent reporting of negative interview counts (e.g., UR3 pos=4 neg=5), the use of validated questionnaires, and a clear qualitative coding procedure with reported kappa. However, the work is an exploratory, single-session, 11-participant study with no control condition, no direct patient outcome measures, and no longitudinal adherence data. Its primary contribution is therefore to perceived usefulness and acceptance rather than to demonstrated clinical efficacy or actual adoption. This distinction matters for the central claim and needs to be reflected in the manuscript's framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1.2] The abstract's claim that the findings 'highlight the system's capacity to augment traditional PT for PD, enhance patient engagement, and ensure consistent exercise support' is not supported by the study design. The data capture exercise specialists' self-reported attitudes after a single, scripted one-hour session (Section 2.1), with no baseline, no active control, and no longitudinal or patient-outcome measures. These data can support statements about perceived usefulness and intended use, but not the capacity to augment care or ensure consistent support. Please either soften the abstract and Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 to refer to 'perceived' or 'potential' benefits, or provide additional empirical evidence (e.g., longitudinal or controlled data).
  2. [Section 3.3 and Table 3] The phrase 'broadly positive reception' is a selective summary of the interview results. Several sub-themes have more negative than positive coded instances: UR3 (pos=4, neg=5), FS2 (pos=3, neg=4), HC1 (pos=1, neg=3), and AD1 (pos=2, neg=3). The Discussion (Section 4.1) emphasizes positive themes while largely omitting these substantial negative valences. Please report a balanced quantitative summary (e.g., proportions of positive vs. negative codes per theme) and revise the characterization to 'mixed-to-positive' rather than 'broadly positive'.
  3. [Figure 3 and Section 4.1.2] The assertion that ZEQ ratings for Performance and Accuracy (PERF M=3.7) and Therapeutic Efficacy (THER M=3.6) are 'high' is not well justified on a 5-point Likert scale, where these values are only moderately above the neutral midpoint. Similarly, the PIADS means (all between 1.0 and 1.33 out of ±3) indicate modest positive impact. Please either specify a threshold for 'high' (e.g., comparison with previous studies or an a priori criterion) or describe these results as 'moderately positive' to avoid overstatement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'Positive Attitidue' should be 'Positive Attitude'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The text introduces the ZEST-E Evaluative Questionnaire twice: 'We also administered a custom survey, the ZEST-E Evaluative Questionnaire (Table 1)' appears in two consecutive paragraphs. Please merge or remove the duplicate.
  3. [Section 1] The citation 'Mak et. al.' should be written as 'Mak et al.'.
  4. [Section 2.3] The inter-rater reliability threshold is stated as '85% consistency ... and Cohen's kappa > 0.6'. Clarify whether both criteria were required simultaneously or whether the 85% value refers to a preliminary agreement percentage; also cite the source for the 0.61 Cronbach's alpha criterion used in Section 2.2, as reference [52] is a prior paper, not a psychometric standard.
  5. [Section 5] The paper would benefit from an explicit Limitations subsection that acknowledges the single-session design, the use of exercise specialists as proxies for people with PD, the lack of a control condition, and the potential conflict of interest arising from a co-author's affiliation with the robot's manufacturer (though this is disclosed in Competing Interests).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a mixed-methods user study whose conclusions rest on independent survey and interview responses from exercise specialists, not on a fitted parameter, derived equation, or load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

This is an empirical acceptability study rather than a derivation, so there is no equation-level circularity. The abstract's claims about capacity to augment PT, enhance engagement, and ensure consistent exercise support are summaries of participant responses to the ROQ, ZEQ, PIADS, and TLX plus coded exit interviews, not outputs of a model fit to those same statements. The only same-author references are [1] (which introduced the robot and whose protocol was reused), [52] (an earlier questionnaire), and [54] (a robot design paper). None is used to prove the study's conclusions; the engagement and perceived-usefulness findings rest on the current participants' scores (e.g., ROQ Perceived Usefulness M=3.6, ZEQ Engagement M=3.8) and on interview coding with reported kappa. The custom ZEQ is a measurement instrument, not a fitted predictive model, so interpreting high ZEQ ratings as positive reception is not circular. The study's real weakness is external validity: one scripted session, ES as proxy exercisers, no patient outcomes, no control arm; however, that is a design/validity limitation, not circularity. The competing-interest disclosure regarding Hello Robot is also an author-interest issue, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study introduces no free parameters and no new physical or conceptual entities. The ZEST-E robot is carried over from prior work [1]. The central claim rests on three domain assumptions about the validity and generalizability of self-report and qualitative coding.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Exercise specialists' self-reported attitudes after a single session are a meaningful proxy for the clinical value and adoption potential of the system.
    The central claim about 'capacity to augment traditional PT' rests on this proxy. No patient outcomes, adherence measurements, or longitudinal use data were collected; the study only measures opinions at one time point.
  • domain assumption The custom ZEST-E Evaluative Questionnaire items measure the intended constructs.
    The ZEQ is a novel instrument. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.76-0.89) is reported, but content validity is not established against external measures of usability, engagement, or therapeutic efficacy.
  • domain assumption Thematic coding with Cohen's kappa greater than 0.6 and 85% consistency is sufficient for the qualitative conclusions.
    The authors cite McHugh (2012) for kappa thresholds and use two independent raters with a third adjudicator. This is a standard qualitative-analysis assumption, but the reliability of the resulting themes depends on the skill of the raters and the clarity of the codebook.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exercise Specialists Evaluation of Robot-led Physical Therapy for People with Parkinsons Disease." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT2ZZJTG

@misc{pith2026250204635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exercise Specialists Evaluation of Robot-led Physical Therapy for People with Parkinsons Disease},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT2ZZJTG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04635}
}
read the original abstract

Robot-led physical therapy (PT) offers a promising avenue to enhance the care provided by clinical exercise specialists (ES) and physical and occupational therapists to improve patients' adherence to prescribed exercises outside of a clinic, such as at home. Collaborative efforts among roboticists, ES, physical and occupational therapists, and patients are essential for developing interactive, personalized exercise systems that meet each stakeholder's needs. We conducted a user study in which 11 ES evaluated a novel robot-led PT system for people with Parkinson's disease (PD), introduced in [1], focusing on the system's perceived efficacy and acceptance. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, including technology acceptance questionnaires, task load questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews, we gathered comprehensive insights into ES perspectives and experiences after interacting with the system. Findings reveal a broadly positive reception, which highlights the system's capacity to augment traditional PT for PD, enhance patient engagement, and ensure consistent exercise support. We also identified two key areas for improvement: incorporating more human-like feedback systems and increasing the robot's ease of use. This research emphasizes the value of incorporating robotic aids into PT for PD, offering insights that can guide the development of more effective and user-friendly rehabilitation technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04635 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) Experimental setup with an Exercise Specialist (ES) performing a seated forward kick exercise with the Zesty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Technology Attitudes Questionnaire [51]. Positive attitude: (M = 4.3, IQR = 0.9); Negative attitude: (M = 3.0, IQR = 1.2); Anxiety: (M = 3.3, IQR = 0.2) with outliers S02 (4.3), S03 (4.0), S04 (2.7), and S05 (2.7); Task Switching: (M = 3.0, IQR = 0.6). 3.3 Exit Interviews Insights and quotes from the semi-structured exit interviews are arranged by parent theme and sub-theme ID ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Robot Opinions Questionnaire [52] (ROQ, Blue) and ZEST-E Evaluative Questionnaire (ZEQ, Green and Red). ROQ: Perceived Usefulness (PU): (M = 3.6, IQR = 1.2); Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU): (M = 4.0, IQR = 0.6) with outlier S03 (2.2); Positive Attitidue (ATT): (M = 3.0, IQR = 1.25); Intent to Use (ITU): (M = 3.5, IQR = 1.0); Perceived Enjoyment (PENJ): (M = 4.0, IQR = 1.1) with outlier S08 (1.3). ZEQ Attitudes: Usabil… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Community workshops with 22 participants yield four ethical questions (safety, beneficiaries, data ownership, necessity) as a reflective framework for wellbeing robot design.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Stretch with Stretch: Physical Therapy Exercise Games Led by a Mobile Manipulator

    M. Lamsey, Y. L. Tan, M. D. Wells, M. Beatty, Z. Liu, A. Majumdar, K. Wash- ington, J. Feldman, N. Kuppuswamy, E. Nguyen, et al., “Stretch with stretch: Physical therapy exercise games led by a mobile manipulator, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13279, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    W. H. Organization, World report on ageing and health . World Health Organiza- tion, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Burden of neurological disorders across the us from 1990-2017: a global burden of disease study,

    V. L. Feigin, T. Vos, F. Alahdab, A. M. L. Amit, T. W. Bärnighausen, E. Beghi, M. Beheshti, P. P. Chavan, M. H. Criqui, R. Desai, et al., “Burden of neurological disorders across the us from 1990-2017: a global burden of disease study, ”JAMA neurology, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 165–176, 2021

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Current and pro- jected future economic burden of parkinson’s disease in the us,

    W. Yang, J. L. Hamilton, C. Kopil, J. C. Beck, C. M. Tanner, R. L. Albin, E. Ray Dorsey, N. Dahodwala, I. Cintina, P. Hogan, et al. , “Current and pro- jected future economic burden of parkinson’s disease in the us, ”npj Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 15, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Freezing of gait subtypes have different cognitive correlates in parkinson’s disease,

    S. Factor, M. Scullin, A. Sollinger, J. Land, C. Wood-Siverio, L. Zanders, A. Freeman, D. Bliwise, and F. Goldstein, “Freezing of gait subtypes have different cognitive correlates in parkinson’s disease, ”Parkinsonism & related disorders, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1359–1364, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Global cognitive function and processing speed are associated with gait and balance dysfunction in parkinson’s disease,

    G. Pal, J. O’Keefe, E. Robertson-Dick, B. Bernard, S. Anderson, and D. Hall, “Global cognitive function and processing speed are associated with gait and balance dysfunction in parkinson’s disease, ”Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 13, pp. 1–8, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Timed up and go, cognitive, and quality-of-life correlates in parkinson’s disease,

    E. L. Stegemöller, J. Nocera, I. Malaty, M. Shelley, M. S. Okun, C. J. Hass, N. Q. I. I. Investigators, et al., “Timed up and go, cognitive, and quality-of-life correlates in parkinson’s disease, ”Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation , vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 649–655, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Parkinson’s disease: barriers and facilitators to optimizing function,

    I. Pretzer-Aboff, E. Galik, and B. Resnick, “Parkinson’s disease: barriers and facilitators to optimizing function, ”Rehabilitation Nursing, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 54– 60, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Mds task force on mild cognitive impairment in parkinson’s disease: critical review of pd-mci,

    I. Litvan, D. Aarsland, C. H. Adler, J. G. Goldman, J. Kulisevsky, B. Mollenhauer, M. C. Rodriguez-Oroz, A. I. Tröster, and D. Weintraub, “Mds task force on mild cognitive impairment in parkinson’s disease: critical review of pd-mci, ”Movement disorders, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Parkinson’s disease mild cognitive impairment: application and validation of the criteria,

    G. J. Geurtsen, J. Hoogland, J. G. Goldman, B. A. Schmand, A. I. Tröster, D. J. Burn, I. Litvan, et al., “Parkinson’s disease mild cognitive impairment: application and validation of the criteria, ”Journal of Parkinson’s disease, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 131–137, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Clinical decision making and examination,

    S. B. O’Sullivan, T. J. Schmitz, K. K. Chui, S.-C. Yen, E. Pappas, D. J. White, R. J. McKibben, L. G. Portney, J. M. Burnfield, G. M. Cesar,et al., “Clinical decision making and examination, ”Physical rehabilitation. 6th ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis , pp. 1–20, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    An evidence-based exercise regimen for patients with mild to moderate parkinson’s disease,

    S. Salgado, N. Williams, R. Kotian, and M. Salgado, “An evidence-based exercise regimen for patients with mild to moderate parkinson’s disease, ”Brain sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 87–100, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Exercise for people in early-or mid-stage parkinson disease: a 16-month randomized controlled trial,

    M. Schenkman, D. A. Hall, A. E. Barón, R. S. Schwartz, P. Mettler, and W. M. Kohrt, “Exercise for people in early-or mid-stage parkinson disease: a 16-month randomized controlled trial, ”Physical therapy, vol. 92, no. 11, pp. 1395–1410, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Effects of home exercises on motor performance in patients with parkinson’s disease,

    A. Caglar, H. Gurses, F. Mutluay, and G. Kiziltan, “Effects of home exercises on motor performance in patients with parkinson’s disease, ”Clinical rehabilitation, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 870–877, 2005

    2005

  7. [15]

    Does cognitive impairment affect rehabilitation outcome in parkinson’s disease?,

    D. Ferrazzoli, P. Ortelli, R. Maestri, R. Bera, N. Giladi, M. F. Ghilardi, G. Pezzoli, and G. Frazzitta, “Does cognitive impairment affect rehabilitation outcome in parkinson’s disease?, ”Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, vol. 8, p. 192, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Effects of exercise on mobility in people with parkinson’s disease,

    N. M. van der Kolk and L. A. King, “Effects of exercise on mobility in people with parkinson’s disease, ”Movement Disorders, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1587–1596, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Long-term effects of exercise and physical therapy in people with parkinson disease,

    M. K. Mak, I. S. Wong-Yu, X. Shen, and C. L. Chung, “Long-term effects of exercise and physical therapy in people with parkinson disease, ”Nature Reviews Neurology, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 689–703, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Self reported adherence to a home-based exercise programme among people with parkinson’s disease,

    R. M. Pickering, C. Fitton, C. Ballinger, L. Fazakarley, and A. Ashburn, “Self reported adherence to a home-based exercise programme among people with parkinson’s disease, ”Parkinsonism & related disorders , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 66–71, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Current and future state of the us nursing workforce,

    P. I. Buerhaus, “Current and future state of the us nursing workforce, ” Jama, vol. 300, no. 20, pp. 2422–2424, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Physiotherapy and occupational therapy vs no therapy in mild to moderate parkinson disease: a randomized clinical trial,

    C. E. Clarke, S. Patel, N. Ives, C. E. Rick, F. Dowling, R. Woolley, K. Wheatley, M. F. Walker, C. M. Sackley, P. R. collaborative group,et al., “Physiotherapy and occupational therapy vs no therapy in mild to moderate parkinson disease: a randomized clinical trial, ”JAMA neur...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Exercise for parkinson’s disease,

    M. K. Mak and I. S. Wong-Yu, “Exercise for parkinson’s disease, ”International review of neurobiology, vol. 147, pp. 1–44, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    A systematic review on exercise and training-based interventions for freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease,

    M. Gilat, P. Ginis, D. Zoetewei, J. De Vleeschhauwer, F. Hulzinga, N. D’Cruz, and A. Nieuwboer, “A systematic review on exercise and training-based interventions for freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease, ”npj Parkinson’s Disease, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 81, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Gait and step training to reduce falls in parkinson’s disease,

    E. J. Protas, K. Mitchell, A. Williams, H. Qureshy, K. Caroline, and E. C. Lai, “Gait and step training to reduce falls in parkinson’s disease, ” NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 183–190, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Occupational therapy interventions for instrumental activities of daily living for adults with parkinson’s disease: A systematic review,

    E. R. Foster, L. G. Carson, J. Archer, and E. G. Hunter, “Occupational therapy interventions for instrumental activities of daily living for adults with parkinson’s disease: A systematic review, ”The American Journal of Occupational Therapy , vol. 75, no. 3, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Robotics in physical rehabilitation: Systematic review,

    A. D. Banyai and C. Bri s,an, “Robotics in physical rehabilitation: Systematic review, ” inHealthcare, vol. 12, p. 1720, MDPI, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Design and evaluation of driver’s seat: A car steering simulation environment for upper limb stroke therapy,

    M. J. Johnson, H. M. Van der Loos, C. G. Burgar, P. Shor, and L. J. Leifer, “Design and evaluation of driver’s seat: A car steering simulation environment for upper limb stroke therapy, ”Robotica, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 13–23, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Rehabilitation robotics: pilot trial of a spatial extension for mit-manus,

    H. I. Krebs, M. Ferraro, S. P. Buerger, M. J. Newbery, A. Makiyama, M. Sandmann, D. Lynch, B. T. Volpe, and N. Hogan, “Rehabilitation robotics: pilot trial of a spatial extension for mit-manus, ”Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , vol. 1, pp. 1–15, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    The impact of two robotic-assisted devices on the functional hand recovery in post-stroke adult rehabilitation: a review,

    L. Vakili, “The impact of two robotic-assisted devices on the functional hand recovery in post-stroke adult rehabilitation: a review, ” 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Spasticity evalua- tion with the amadeo tyromotion device in patients with hemispheric stroke,

    R. Urrutia, A. Miren Gutiérrez-Muto, C. B. Sanz-Morère, A. Gómez, A. M. Politi, F. Lunardini, M. Baccini, F. Cecchi, N. León, A. Oliviero, et al., “Spasticity evalua- tion with the amadeo tyromotion device in patients with hemispheric stroke, ” Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol....

    2023

  22. [30]

    A versatile emulator for haptic commu- nication to alter human gait parameters,

    M. Wu, Y. Qiu, J. Ueda, and L. H. Ting, “A versatile emulator for haptic commu- nication to alter human gait parameters, ”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7335–7342, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Design methodology for robotic manipulator for over- ground physical interaction tasks,

    S. Regmi and Y. S. Song, “Design methodology for robotic manipulator for over- ground physical interaction tasks, ”Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics , vol. 12, no. 4, p. 041002, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Robotic rehabilita- tion: an opportunity to improve cognitive functions in subjects with stroke. an explorative study,

    I. Aprile, G. Guardati, V. Cipollini, D. Papadopoulou, A. Mastrorosa, L. Castelli, S. Monteleone, A. Redolfi, S. Galeri, and M. Germanotta, “Robotic rehabilita- tion: an opportunity to improve cognitive functions in subjects with stroke. an explorative study, ”Frontiers in Neu...

    2020

  25. [33]

    A com- prehensive review of wearable assistive robotic devices used for head and neck rehabilitation,

    A. S. A. Doss, P. K. Lingampally, G. M. T. Nguyen, and D. Schilberg, “A com- prehensive review of wearable assistive robotic devices used for head and neck rehabilitation, ”Results in Engineering, vol. 19, p. 101306, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hand exoskeleton systems, clinical rehabilitation practices, and future prospects,

    P. Tran, S. Jeong, K. R. Herrin, and J. P. Desai, “Hand exoskeleton systems, clinical rehabilitation practices, and future prospects, ” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 606–622, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults,

    J. Fasola and M. J. Mataric, “Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults, ”Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 2512–2526, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    A robot goes to rehab: a novel gamified system for long-term stroke rehabilitation using a socially assistive robot—methodology and usability testing,

    R. Feingold-Polak, O. Barzel, and S. Levy-Tzedek, “A robot goes to rehab: a novel gamified system for long-term stroke rehabilitation using a socially assistive robot—methodology and usability testing, ” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Exercising with baxter: preliminary support for assistive social-physical human-robot interaction,

    N. T. Fitter, M. Mohan, K. J. Kuchenbecker, and M. J. Johnson, “Exercising with baxter: preliminary support for assistive social-physical human-robot interaction, ” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , vol. 17, pp. 1–22, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Moffuly-ii: A robot that hugs and rubs heads,

    Y. Onishi, H. Sumioka, and M. Shiomi, “Moffuly-ii: A robot that hugs and rubs heads, ”International Journal of Social Robotics , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 299–309, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Aug- mented reality-based dance intervention for individuals with parkinson’s disease: A pilot study,

    T. Tunur, A. DeBlois, E. Yates-Horton, K. Rickford, and L. A. Columna, “Aug- mented reality-based dance intervention for individuals with parkinson’s disease: A pilot study, ”Disability and health journal , vol. 13, no. 2, p. 100848, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    The effects of augmented reality visual cues on turning in place in parkinson’s disease patients with freezing of gait,

    S. Janssen, J. de Ruyter van Steveninck, H. S. Salim, H. M. Cockx, B. R. Bloem, T. Heida, and R. J. Van Wezel, “The effects of augmented reality visual cues on turning in place in parkinson’s disease patients with freezing of gait, ”Frontiers in neurology, vol. 11, p. 185, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Wearable immersive virtual reality device for promoting physical activity in parkinson’s disease patients,

    P. Campo-Prieto, J. M. Cancela-Carral, and G. Rodríguez-Fuentes, “Wearable immersive virtual reality device for promoting physical activity in parkinson’s disease patients, ”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 3302, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Sánchez-Herrera-Baeza, R

    P. Sánchez-Herrera-Baeza, R. Cano-de-la Cuerda, E. D. Oña-Simbaña, D. Palacios- Ceña, J. Pérez-Corrales, J. N. Cuenca-Zaldivar, J. Gueita-Rodriguez, C. Balaguer- Bernaldo de Quirós, A. Jardón-Huete, and A. Cuesta-Gomez, “The impact of a novel immersive virtual reality technolo...

    2020

  35. [43]

    A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of virtual reality-based rehabilitation for people with parkinson’s disease,

    S.-H. Kwon, J. K. Park, and Y. H. Koh, “A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of virtual reality-based rehabilitation for people with parkinson’s disease, ”Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    A theoretical extension of the technology accep- tance model: Four longitudinal field studies,

    V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the technology accep- tance model: Four longitudinal field studies, ”Management science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions,

    V. Venkatesh and H. Bala, “Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions, ”Decision sciences, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 273–315, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research, ” inAdvances in psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139– 183, Elsevier, 1988

    1988

  39. [47]

    Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later,

    S. G. Hart, “Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later, ” inProceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , vol. 50, pp. 904–908, Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (piads),

    J. Jutai and H. Day, “Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (piads), ”Tech- nology and Disability, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 107–111, 2002

    2002

  41. [49]

    Therapists’ opinions on telehealth, robotics, and socially assistive robot-augmented telepresence systems for reha- bilitation,

    M. J. Sobrepera, V. G. Lee, and M. J. Johnson, “Therapists’ opinions on telehealth, robotics, and socially assistive robot-augmented telepresence systems for reha- bilitation, ” in2022 9th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioR...

    2022

  42. [50]

    Application of the extended technology acceptance model to explore clinician likelihood to use robotics in rehabilitation,

    M. Klaic, J. Fong, V. Crocher, K. Davies, K. Brock, E. Sutton, D. Oetomo, Y. Tan, and M. P. Galea, “Application of the extended technology acceptance model to explore clinician likelihood to use robotics in rehabilitation, ”Disability and rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, ...

    2024

  43. [51]

    The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation,

    L. D. Rosen, K. Whaling, L. M. Carrier, N. A. Cheever, and J. Rokkum, “The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation, ”Computers in human behavior, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2501–2511, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise,

    T. L. Chen, T. Bhattacharjee, J. M. Beer, L. H. Ting, M. E. Hackney, W. A. Rogers, and C. C. Kemp, “Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise, ”PloS one, vol. 12, no. 10, p. e0182736, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic,

    M. L. McHugh, “Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic, ” Biochemia medica , vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 276–282, 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    The design of stretch: A compact, lightweight mobile manipulator for indoor human environments,

    C. C. Kemp, A. Edsinger, H. M. Clever, and B. Matulevich, “The design of stretch: A compact, lightweight mobile manipulator for indoor human environments, ” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 3150–3157, IEEE, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.