By Topic

Development of a Haptic Elbow Spasticity Simulator (HESS) for Improving Accuracy and Reliability of Clinical Assessment of Spasticity

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Hyung-Soon Park ; Rehabilitation Med. Dept., Nat. Inst. of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA ; Jonghyun Kim ; Damiano, D.L.

This paper presents the framework for developing a robotic system to improve accuracy and reliability of clinical assessment. Clinical assessment of spasticity tends to have poor reliability because of the nature of the in-person assessment. To improve accuracy and reliability of spasticity assessment, a haptic device, named the HESS (Haptic Elbow Spasticity Simulator) has been designed and constructed to recreate the clinical “feel” of elbow spasticity based on quantitative measurements. A mathematical model representing the spastic elbow joint was proposed based on clinical assessment using the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and quantitative data (position, velocity, and torque) collected on subjects with elbow spasticity. Four haptic models (HMs) were created to represent the haptic feel of MAS 1, 1+, 2, and 3. The four HMs were assessed by experienced clinicians; three clinicians performed both in-person and haptic assessments, and had 100% agreement in MAS scores; and eight clinicians who were experienced with MAS assessed the four HMs without receiving any training prior to the test. Inter-rater reliability among the eight clinicians had substantial agreement (). The eight clinicians also rated the level of realism (7.63 0.92 out of 10) as compared to their experience with real patients.

Published in:

Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:20 ,  Issue: 3 )