Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T05:00:31.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Muscle weakness assessment tool for automated therapy selection in elbow rehabilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2022

Sakshi Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Rupnagar, India
Anupam Agrawal
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Rupnagar, India
Ekta Singla*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Rupnagar, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: ekta@iitrpr.ac.in
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Clinical observations and subjective judgements have traditionally been used to evaluate patients with muscular and neurological disorders. As a result, identifying and analyzing functional improvements are difficult, especially in the absence of expertise. Quantitative assessment, which serves as the motivation for this study, is an essential prerequisite to forecast the task of the rehabilitation device in order to develop rehabilitation training. This work provides a quantitative assessment tool for muscle weakness in the human upper limbs for robotic-assisted rehabilitation. The goal is to map the assessment metrics to the recommended rehabilitation exercises. Measurable interaction forces and muscle correlation factors are the selected parameters to design a framework for muscular nerve cell condition detection and appropriate limb trajectory selection. In this work, a data collection setup is intended for extracting muscle intervention and assessment using MyoMeter, Goniometer and surface electromyography data for upper limbs. Force signals and human physiological response data are evaluated and categorized to infer the relevant progress. Based upon the most influencing muscles, curve fitting is performed. Trajectory-based data points are collected through a scaled geometric Open-Sim musculoskeletal model that fits the subject’s anthropometric data. These data are found to be most suitable to prescribe relevant exercise and to design customized robotic assistance. Case studies demonstrate the approach’s efficacy, including optimally synthesized automated configuration for the desired trajectory.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Mapping of task planning to task-based robotic synthesis through automatic muscle weakness assessment tool.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Data acquisition and signal processing.

Figure 2

Table I. Details of subjects demographic and health information. Here, SD represents standard deviation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. A sample subject’s biceps brachii muscle responses while undergoing elbow flexion/extension exercise with three trials: (a) Pictorial representation of raw sEMG responses and (b) Processed sEMG responses to extract linear envelope.

Figure 4

Figure 4. A sample subject’s triceps brachii muscle responses while undergoing elbow flexion/extension exercise with three trials: (a) Pictorial representation of raw sEMG responses and (b) Processed sEMG responses to extract linear envelope.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Joint ROM exercise for muscular flexibility performing elbow flexion/extension when shoulder flexion angle is at $0^\circ$ (parallel to sagittal plane), Courtesy: Indian Spinal Injury Centre, New Delhi, India. (b) Experimental setup for human motion data collection.

Figure 6

Figure 6. A chart presenting a graphical depiction of the processed sEMG signal responses of the biceps brachii and triceps brachii muscles during elbow flexion/extension exercise for all ten participants.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Open-Sim software validating results for dominant muscle identification by simulating musculoskeletal model: (a) posture of upper extremity musculoskeletal model and (b) muscles involvement during task completion.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Correlation factor for combined data (all 10 participants).

Figure 9

Figure 9. Curve fitting of the estimated force to the actual force in graphical form (one of the participant).

Figure 10

Table II. Comparative results of proposed model and kim et al. [21] model for all 10 healthy participants in completing the assigned task, that is elbow flexion movement.

Figure 11

Figure 10. (a) Comparison of an individual participant’s actual data to Kim et al.’s model and proposed model data, (b) Comparison of proposed model to Open-Sim musculoskeletal model data.

Figure 12

Table III. Using Open-Sim software, transformed human motion data of the wrist with respect to the shoulder as a reference frame (one of the participants).

Figure 13

Figure 11. Case Study 1: Some clicks of sensors integration with Patient of Quadriplegia (injury less than 3 months), Courtesy: Indian Spinal Injury Center (ISIC).

Figure 14

Figure 12. Case Study 1: Illustration of Pearson Product Moment Correlation for the weaker limb.

Figure 15

Figure 13. Case Study 1: Comparison of disability between both upper extremity.

Figure 16

Table IV. Case Study 1: Collecting natural human motion data using a scaled Open-Sim musculoskeletal model that corresponds to the participant’s anthropometric data for the weaker limb.

Figure 17

Figure 14. Case Study 1: Graphical depiction of the therapeutically desirable natural human motion trajectory.

Figure 18

Figure 15. Steps being taken in the development of trajectory-oriented robotic assistance systems.

Figure 19

Figure 16. Case Study 2: Illustration of Pearson Product Moment Correlation for the effected limb.

Figure 20

Table V. Case Study 2: Natural human motion data collection utilizing a scaled model of Open-Sim software that corresponded to the anthropometric data of the participant.

Figure 21

Figure 17. Case Study 2: Optimal synthesized results based upon clinical trajectory.

Figure 22

Figure 18. Case Study 2: Results of workspace computation and singularity analysis for selected four bar with single-bar configuration: (a) Contours for conditioning index, (b) Contours for manipulability, and (c) Workspace analysis.

Figure 23

Table VI. Case Study 2: Optimal synthesised results for the configurations for their corresponding active joint angles and conditioning index and manipulability at each TSLs data points.

Figure 24

Table VII. Case Study 2: Torque requirement for elbow flexion/extension.