Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Performance of cable suspended robots for
Giulio Rosati, Mattia Andreolli, Andrea Biondi and Paolo Gallina
Abstract- This work presents a general simulation tool to
evaluate the performance of a set of cable suspended rehabil-
itation robots. Such a simulator is based on the mechanical
model of the upper limb of a patient.
The tool was employed to assess the performances of two
cable-driven robots, the NeReBot and the MariBot, developed
at the Robotics & Mechatronics Laboratories of the Department
of Innovation in Mechanics and Management (DIMEG) of
University of Padua, Italy. This comparison demonstrates that
the second machine, which was conceived as an evolution of
the first one, yields much better results in terms of patient's
arm trajectories.
I. INTRODUCTION
Several examples of cable-driven robots can be found in
the rehabilitation field, even though not all of them under-
gone clinical evaluation so far. For instance, Takahashi and
Kobayashi [1] proposed an upper limb motion assist robot
for wheelchair bound, disabled people. The robot is mounted
on the wheelchair frame and provides three dimensional limb
movement assistance. Takahashi et al. [2] developed a haptic
device for rehabilitation aiming to integrate the motion and
sensory therapy without the patients loosing their interest.
Another example is the SPIDAR-G: a 7 degrees-of-freedom
(dof) wire-based robot, which allows the users to inter-
act with virtual objects by manipulating two hemispherical
grips [3]. More recently, the GENTLE/s project proposed
an interesting combination of wire-drive technology, serial
robotic structures and virtual reality technologies [4], [5].
Mayhew et al. [6] proposed a cable robot for upper limb
rehabilitation, the MACARM (multi-axis Cartesian-based
arm). The prototype configuration is composed of an array
of 8 motors mounted at the corners of a cubic support
frame. The machine provides, via 8 cables, the control of
a centrally located end-effector, equipped with a 6 dof load
cell. The wire-drive philosophy has been employed also for
gait rehabilitation with the STRING-MAN, a wire robotic
system for walking rehabilitation [7], [8].
In the late 1990's, our research group at the Department
of Innovation in Mechanics and Management (DIMEG) of
University of Padua, Italy [9], developed a first cable-driven
robot for upper limb rehabilitation, the NeReBot (NEuro
REhabilitation roBOT). This device was conceived to target
post-stroke patients in a very early stage. For this reason,
the machine was built over a wheeled base and can be used
both at bed-side and with wheel-chaired patients [10]. The
G. Rosati, M. Andreolli and A. Biondi are with DIMEG,
University of Padua, via Venezia 1, I-35131, Padova, Italy,
giulio.rosati@unipd.it, www.mechatronics.it
P. Gallina is with the Department of Energetics, University of Trieste, via
A. Valerio 10, 34127 Trieste, Italy, pgallina@units . it
1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
upper limb rehabilitation
use of cables was motivated by several technical reasons,
which are well explained in [11], and leaded to the design
of a very simple, low-cost machine. In fact, only three cables
were used to sustain and move the arm of the patient.
The first pilot study demonstrated that high gains in the
very acute setting can be achieved with a relatively simple,
low-degrees-of-freedom robot [12]. Although the NeReBot
is a good compromise between robot simplicity and range
of motion, a second cable-suspended robot was designed,
called the MariBot (MARIsa roBOT), which exploits two
added degrees-of-freedom to enlarge the working space in
the horizontal plane [11], [13].
This paper presents a general simulation tool to evaluate
the performance of a set of cable suspended rehabilitation
robots, based on a model accounting for the static interaction
between the patient's arm and the cable suspended system.
With the aid of this tool, the configuration of the human
arm during a passive therapy can be estimated and compared
to the pre-planned trajectory. This software tool has been
extensively used to design the two robots, optimizing robot
kinematics to obtain better trajectories of the human arm. In
the second part of the paper, by simulating four different mo-
tion exercises, NeReBot's and MariBot's ability to produce
passive motion of the patient's arm are compared.
II. CABLE SUSPENDED THERAPY
The basic principle from which the design of NeReBot
and MariBot originates is to suspend' the forearm of the
patient with three cables (see figure 1). In this way, only
three unidirectional constraints are given to the patient's arm,
which is a 5 dof kinematic chain2. As a result, the system
composed by the human arm and the cables has two residual
degrees-of-freedom, so that the arm can float over a sort of
upward-curved surface, the length of the cables being kept
constant3. This feature has been appreciated very much by
patients and therapists, since the patient is never given the
unpleasant feeling of being restrained by the robotic device.
On the contrary, the patient is guided very smoothly through
the execution of the exercise, as in the case of a hands-on
conventional therapy.
'The reason for not using downward-oriented cables is that these ma-
chines were designed to be used at bedside. Therefore, the 'pushing' effect
can be obtained only by exploiting the force of gravity. For more details on
cable-driven systems see [14], [15], [16].
2In this study, we do not account for shoulder translational degrees-of-
freedom, since in our rehabilitation robots the shoulder is sustained by a
fabric stripe fixed on the machine structure, whereas the trunk of the patient
is fastened either to the chair or to the hospital bed. Moreover, wrist motion
is locked by the splint. Please refer to next subsection for more details on
the arm model employed.
3Thus, these devices are not suitable for patients with high spasticity.
385
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
I shoulder flexion, shoulder abduction, shoulder axial rotation,
Fig. 1. The forearm of a patient fastened onto the splint. Three cables are
used to sustain and move the forearm of the patient.
In order to obtain a desired motion of the patient's arm,
the length of the wires can be controlled by means of three
motorized pulleys. At a given position of the pulleys, the arm
configuration will be the one and only one which minimizes
the potential energy of the arm-cables system. The therapy
exercise will be obtained as a sequence of such quasi-static
configurations of the arm4
The following subsections present the model of the human
arm employed in this study and the formulation for the
static interaction between the cables and the arm. Finally,
the simulation of a passive motion exercise defined in arm
joint space is addressed.
A. Human arm model
The model adopted for the human arm uses the shoulder
joint variables of a clinical well-known method: the Cardanic
decomposition, described by Grood and Suntay [17]. The
sequence of rotations which define the patient's shoulder
configuration consists of a flexion followed by abduction and
by an axial rotation. It is important to follow this sequence
to avoid the use of opposite terms to describe the same end
position of the arm, since after each rotation the axis of
the following rotation has changed. One drawback of using
this model is that some arm configurations are not uniquely
represented. For example, with a null abduction angle, the
flexion and axial rotation axes coincide, so their values can
be combined in different ways to describe the same end
configuration of the humerus. More recently, a different
approach called the "globe system" has been proposed, with
the aim of obtaining an unambiguous description of all
positions of the humerus with respect to the trunk [18], [19].
For the purpose of our study, the choice of using the Cardanic
decomposition did not compromise the results obtained by
simulations. In fact, the desired arm trajectories are defined
in arm joint space and no ambiguity on the arm configuration
arise. Also, none of the arm trajectories include singularities
such as the one described in the previous paragraph.
4This assumption is acceptable given that very slow velocities are
employed during the execution of this kind of exercises with sub-acute
post-stroke patients.
1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The arm model is completed with two additional rota-
tional joints, which account for elbow flexion and pronation-
supination of the forearm (please notice that no motion of
the patient's wrist is allowed by the splint, as clearly shown
in figure 1). Each arm configuration is defined by vector
v {=al, a2,a3,a4,a5 }, where angles axi (i = 1, ...,5) indicate
elbow flexion and pronation-supination respectively.
In conclusion, the kinematic chain is composed of two
rigid bodies, the forearm and the upper arm, whose relative
motion is described with two rotational joints, whereas the
upper arm is linked to the trunk by means of a spherical
joint. Dimensions, masses and centers of mass of the two
links have been estimated using the Dempster table for the
average Italian man [20].
B. Target arm trajectories
Figure 2 shows a set of desired configurations of the
patient's arm during an abduction-adduction exercise. This
sequence is obtained by cubic-spline interpolation of each
joint angle between its initial and final positions (in this
particular case, only the abduction and pronosupination an-
gles change during motion). The same principle has been
used to define all the trajectories used in this study. The
reason for this choice is that our rehabilitation robots allow
the therapist to define the exercise by recording a set of
via-points, which are then interpolated by the control system
according to a velocity limit chosen by the operator. In other
words, each exercise is recorded by manually moving the
patient's forearm while the motors produce a constant torque
to keep all wires stretched. By pressing a button, the therapist
makes the control system store motor angular positions to
define a via-point (learning phase). In this way, the therapist
1000
950 -
__ 900
E
N
850
800 -
750
100
-100
-200 00 350 600
y [mm] x [mm]
Fig. 2. An example of abduction-adduction exercise. The arm model is
fully represented in the first and last positions of the exercise (via-points),
showing the five reference frames connected to the different links of the
kinematic chain, plus the shoulder reference frame (with colored round spots
at axes extremities). The outline of the arm is depicted for a limited number
of additional intermediate configurations.
386

Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
does not specify the whole trajectory of the arm5, but simply
a set of n arm configurations vj = {°alj, a°2j a°j,, a5j}
(j= 1 ...,n) that must be reached during each repetition of
the exercise (therapy phase). For the purpose of this study,
we chose to obtain the desired trajectory of the patient's
upper limb vdes(t) by interpolating these via-points in arm
joint space, using cubic spline interpolation6.
C. Potential energy of a cable suspended upper limb
The position held in static conditions by a passive (flaccid)
human arm connected to three driven cables is the one which
minimizes the potential energy of the whole system. This
energy is given by the sum of two terms: the gravitational
potential energy of the patient's upper limb and the elastic
potential energy of the cables.
Let x {x,y, z} be the patient's shoulder position relative
to the robot, c be the vector which defines the configuration
of robot structure7 and q = {ql, ..., qm} be the vector of robot
joint angles, where m is the number of degrees-of-freedom of
the robot (this number includes, but is not necessarily limited
to, the number of cables used to sustain the human arm).
At a given shoulder position x and robot configuration
(q,c), the potential energy of the cable suspended arm is
given by the following equation:
f (xi,v,c,q) = (mfGf +maGa){o,O,g}T + 2 EkiAli (1)
it1
where v is arm angles vector, g is gravity acceleration, mf
and Ga are forearm mass and center of mass, ma and Ga are
upper arm mass and center of mass, ki is i -th wire stiffness
whereas Ali is i -th wire stretching. Clearly, Gf and Ga
are a function of x and v only, whereas the elastic potential
energy depends on all variables.
The arm position vi actually held by the human arm is
the one which minimizes the potential energy provided by
equation 1:
v = f (x,c, q) = {v C 95: dl (x, v, c, 4) = o} (2)
If the therapy is performed in quasi-static conditions (very
low velocities and accelerations) and the patient does not
exert any force on the splint (completely passive behavior),
the trajectory followed by the patient's arm during therapy
can be derived as a sequence of equilibrium positions given
by equation 2.
D. Simulation of a therapy exercise
Let qj {qij,...,qmj} (j= 1,...,n) be the set of motor
angular positions recorded during the learning phase. Each
one of these vectors corresponds to a different desired
position vj of the patient's arm, and can be calculated as
5This could be a valid and easy-to-implement alternative; however, the
use of via-points renders the learning phase easier and shorter, and proved
itself to be a good choice during the experimental testing.
6This kind of interpolation yields very regular trajectories with null speeds
at each via-point and no overshoot in the planned trajectory of each joint.
7This vector contains all machine structure parameters, and is assumed
to be constant during the execution of an exercise.
1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE 387
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
\~ IN
a function of vj, of shoulder position i, of robot structure
configuration c, and of the amount of wire tension used
during the learning phase. The reference trajectory for robot
joint actuators qref (t) is hence obtained by interpolating
vectors qj, according to the trajectory planner implemented
in the robot controller.
During therapy, assuming negligible motor position track-
ing errors, i.e. q(t) qref(t), the actual trajectory of the
human arm vact(t) can be estimated as:
Vact(t) = {v d9 l (x v, c, q (t)) o} (3)
This trajectory can be compared to the desired trajectory
Vdes(t), in order to assess the robot ability of producing the
desired motion of the patient's upper limb. In the following
section, this procedure will be applied to assess NeReBot and
MariBot performances. To compare the two machines, four
typical exercises were chosen: shoulder abduction-adduction,
elbow flexion, pronosupination and shoulder flexion. These
therapies were defined in the joint space of the patient's arm.
For each exercise a minimum of two via-points were chosen.
III. COMPARISON OF NEREBOT AND MARIBOT
As stated at the beginning of previous section, the two
robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation developed at
DIMEG exploit the same basic principle, i.e. using three
wires to sustain the forearm of the patient. However, they
use different mechanical structures to support the wires.
A. NeReBot
In the case of the NeReBot, the cables are supported by
a manually adjustable mechanical structure (see figure 3).
Each cable passes through a hollow aluminum link which is
connected to the main column by means of a rotational joint.
The angular position of each link and the distance between
WIRE
11;
PC
Fig. 3. The NeReBot 3 d.o.f. rehabilitation robot. The overhead structure
from which the cables originate can be manually adjusted by unlocking the
knob located on top of the central column. The electrical DC motors which
drive the cables are located at the base of the column.
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
the entry point of the wire and the central column can be
set independently (see figure 4 for details), by following a
very simple manual procedure. The NeReBot configuration
vector c is hence given by:
C {1, e2,e3,SI,S2,S3} (4)
where ei indicates the angular position of the i -th aluminum
link, whereas si is the linear position of the i -th cable
entry point along the link. Before beginning the learning
phase, with the aim of adapting the working space to the
specific needs of the patient and/or of the exercise, the
therapist can manually set these values. By extensively using
the simulation tool described in section II, the NeReBot
optimal configurations for most common therapy exercises
were calculated. The simulation results presented in this
paper have been obtained using these optimal configurations
of the machine.
r------------------------------------m
WIRE
0 2t >
ENTRY
I ;A POlINTS
.- M. %-
I3
(S
.7
Fig. 4. Schematic of the NeReBot, top view. As is shown, the angular
position of the links and the linear position of each wire entry point along
the links can be set independently. All these values can be only manually
changed before the beginning of therapy, and remain constant during the
execution of each therapy exercise.
Given that the NeReBot structure is only manually ad-
justable, the only degrees-of-freedom of the robot are the
ones used to control wire lengths during therapy (m = 3).
As a consequence, the vector q of robot joint angles can be
expressed as follows:
q {ql,q2,q3} (5)
The NeReBot joint trajectories qref(t) are calculated by
the trajectory planner as a cubic-spline interpolation of the
recorded via-points qj = {qlj, q2j, q3j} (j =1, n). ...,
Figures 5-8 show a comparison between the desired
movements of the patient's upper limb (dashed lines) and
the actual arm trajectories obtained by the simulation of
NeReBot therapy (continuous lines). Round spots represent
the via-points chosen by the therapist. Each figure plots arm
joint angles versus the execution time of the motion exercise.
1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE 388
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 5 shows the results for an abduction-adduction
therapy. Please notice that only shoulder abduction and
pronosupination angles are supposed to vary in the desired
trajectory. Simulation results indicate that shoulder flexion,
shoulder abduction and pronosupination are kept within a
suitable range from their target values, whereas axial rotation
and elbow flexion at starting point are rather far (±20') from
target.
100
Shoulder flexion
Shoulder abduction
S. axial rotation
Elbow flexion
50 Pronosupination
x,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... .......
0 =..7=.-=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
-50
-100
0%/ 50% 1 OO%
Fig. 5. Abduction-adduction with the NeReBot. Dashed lines are arm joint
target values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values.
Figure 6 shows the results for an elbow flexion exercise.
In this trial, shoulder abduction and pronosupination are
correctly executed by the human arm, shoulder axial rotation
and shoulder flexion are acceptable, whereas elbow flexion
is not correct. This trial and the one depicted in figure
5 were chosen for the purpose of this work, to clearly
demonstrate the difference between NeReBot and MariBot.
However, several different abduction-adduction and elbow-
flexion exercises can be properly executed with the NeReBot,
obtaining fully acceptable trajectories for all arm joints.
100O
Shoulder flexion
Shoulder abduction
S. axial rotation
Elbow flexion
50t Pronosupination
0J:
-50~
-100 _
O% 50% 1 00%
Fig. 6. Elbow flexion with the NeReBot. Dashed lines are arm joint target
values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values.
Figure 7 shows the results for a pronosupination therapy.
Shoulder abduction and pronosupination angles correctly
follow the desired trajectory (the angles are kept at nearly
±8' from their target value), while shoulder flexion, shoulder
axial rotation and elbow flexion are not fully acceptable.
This situation is due to the fact that the starting point of
the exercise has been chosen in a non-equilibrium point
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands

for the cable-suspended arm. Of course, a therapist would PCIO4 CONTROLLER

never choose such a starting point for a real therapy. On the
contrary, he/her would adapt patient or machine position to
obtain the proper motion of the arm. Once again, we chose
this sample trajectory to emphasize the differences between
NeReBot and MariBot.
100F LIFTING
Shoulder flexion CONSOLE
Shoulder abduction
S. axial rotation
Elbow flexion
500 Pronosupination

. 0:

POWER -

ELECTRONtCS
-50

-1oo
O% 50% 1 00%
Fig. 9. The MariBot 5 d.o.f. rehabilitation robot. On top, the 2 d.o.f. serial
Fig. 7. Pronosupination with the NeReBot. Dashed lines are arm joint robotic arm, made up of two links and two rotational joints [11].
target values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values.

Figure 8 shows the results for a shoulder flexion exercise. The MariBot structure configuration is described by the
In this case, we can say that the machine is not suitable following vector:
to execute the trial. To this regard, it must be noticed that
shoulder flexion is not the kind of exercise for which the
c {L=,L2} (6)
NeReBot was conceived. In fact, since the wires originate where L1 and L2 are the constant lengths of the links of the
from a static overhead structure, the horizontal range of serial structure (please refer to figure 10 for details). These
motion is rather limited. values have been optimized by using the simulation tool
100
presented in section II. The vector of MariBot joint angles
Shoulder flexion
Shoulder abduction
can be expressed as follows:
S. axial rotation
50 .. \
Elbow flexion
Pronosupination q = {qI,q2,q3, &,9 02} (7)
50, where qi indicates the angular position of the electric gear-
motor driving the i -th cable, whereas 01 and 02 are the
serial structure joint angles, which are controlled during the
execution of therapy. Vector qref (t) is obtained by combining
-50
two different trajectory planning algorithms: the first three
components (cables motion) are obtained by cubic spline
-1 00 interpolation, whereas the last two angles (serial structure
O% 50% 1 00%

Fig. 8. Shoulder flexion with the NeReBot. Dashed lines are arm joint
target values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values.
2

B. MariBot L2
The MariBot, which came up as an evolution of the
NeReBot, is a 5-dof serial-parallel robot (figure 9). The 3-
dof cable-drive philosophy of the first machine is maintained,
but an overhead 2-dof serial structure is used to support the
cables. By controlling the two rotational joints of the serial
structure, cable entry points configuration in the horizontal
plane can be changed during therapy, according to the current
position of the patient's arm. In this way, a very wide Fig. 10. Schematic of the MariBot mechanical structure, top view. Link
horizontal range of motion is obtained, overcoming the major lengths Ll, L2 (constant values) and link angular positions Oi, 02 (variable
values) are quoted. During the therapy phase, link angles are position-
weakness point of the NeReBot. controlled according to the recorded exercise.

1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE 389

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands

100r
motion) are planned using a specifically-designed planning Shoulder flexion
Shoulder abduction
algorithm [21]. S. axial rotation
Elbow flexion
Figures 11-14 show a comparison between the desired 500 Pronosupination

movements of the patient's upper limb (dashed lines) and

the actual arm trajectories obtained by the simulation of
MariBot therapy (continuous lines). Round spots represent 0

the via-points chosen by the therapist. Each figure plots

arm joint angles versus the execution time of the exercise. -50
These figures were obtained using the same target trajectories
of previous subsection, so that the different behavior of
NeReBot and Maribot can be appreciated immediately. -100
O% 50% 1 00%

100
Shoulder flexion Fig. 13. Pronosupination with the MariBot. Dashed lines are arm joint
Shoulder abduction target values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values.
S. axial rotation
Elbow flexion
50 Pronosupination 100
Shoulder flexion
Shoulder abduction
< S. axial rotation
Elbow flexion
5050,/ AY Pronosupination

-50 0

-100 -50T
0% 50% 1 00%

Fig. 11. Shoulder abduction-adduction with the MariBot. Dashed lines are
arm joint target values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values. -100L
O% 50% 1 00%

Figure 11 shows the results obtained with the MariBot for Fig. 14. Shoulder flexion with the MariBot. Dashed lines are arm joint
the abduction-adduction therapy of figure 5. We can notice target values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values.
that shoulder flexion, shoulder abduction, shoulder axial
rotation and pronosupination properly follow the desired
trajectory, whereas elbow flexion is acceptable. In this case, IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
also the first point of therapy is reached correctly. Figure 12 In order to quantify the different behavior of NeReBot
shows MariBot simulation results for the same elbow flexion and MariBot, a performance index Pi for each joint angle of
exercise of figure 6. All joint angles correctly follow the the patient's arm is defined, which entails the absolute mean
trajectory (the angles are kept within a ±6' range from their deviation of the trajectory following error:
target value).
N
100
E (d es aiobt )2
Shoulder flexion
Shoulder abduction
S. axial rotation
Pi =
h=lN (i = 1, ...,5) (8)
Elbow flexion
50 Pronosupination
where ai,h represents the h -th sample of i -th joint angle
ol~ ~ .E .....
(apex des indicates the desired value, apex obt the obtained
value), whereas N is the total nuber of samples considered
in the simulation of each exercise. The lower the values of
Pi are, the better the actual trajectory of the patient's arm
-50 approximates the desired motion8.
The performance indexes were calculated for each of the
-100
therapies introduced in section III. Results are summarized
01/1 50% 1 001/
in table I, where arm joints have been numbered as follows:
Fig. 12. Elbow flexion with the MariBot. Dashed lines are arm joint target #1=shoulder flexion, #2=shoulder abduction, #3=shoulder
values, continuous lines are simulated therapy values. axial rotation, #4=elbow flexion and #5=pronosupination.
The same results are also shown in figures 15-18.
Figures 13 and 14 show MariBot simulation results for the
same pronosupination and shoulder flexion trials of figures 8Clearly, the good performance at selected joints cannot compensate
for the insufficient/dangerous performance at other joint. For this reason,
7 and 8 respectively. In both cases, the MariBot yields very machine design was actually performed attempting to minimize not only
appropriate arm joint trajectories. the mean deviation error but also the peak errors.

1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE 390

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands

TABLE I
Simulation results demonstrate that the design of MariBot,
NEREBOT (N) AND MARIBOT (M) PERFORMANCE INDEXES.
which was conceived as an evolution of the NeReBot, yielded
major improvements in robot performance. In fact, the arm
Excercise Human arm joints trajectories obtainable during a passive motion exercise are
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
Shoulder N 2,80 0,99 10,68 8,28 1,39 much better than the ones produced with the aid of the
abduction M 2,18 0,81 1,32 3,68 2,27 NeReBot. This result was obtained not only in the case of
Elbow N 5,47 1,25 7,69 14,67 1,94 shoulder flexion (which was hard to obtain with the NeReBot
Flexion M 1,22 0,52 3,73 2,20 1,22
Prono N 12,78 0,15 15,43 5,75 3,14 and hence constituted the first goal of MariBot design), but
supination M 4,09 1,48 0,49 0,71 1,54 also in the execution of the therapies for which the use of
Shoulder N 42,15 9,70 4,38 5,43 6,45 NeReBot was already fully satisfactory.
Flexion M 1,36 0,82 2,40 1,06 0,39
Another comparison of the two robots can be made in
25-
terms of attainable Rage of Motion (RoM) for the patient's
MM NeReBot arm. Table II presents the predicted RoM, based on simu-
20 MariBot
lation data. Please note that shoulder flexion angles are not
15 absolute values, rather they must be read as range values.
In fact, the patient position can be arranged to choose a
10
different initial value for shoulder flexion, starting from
which the exercise can cover the specified range. The table
S. flexion S. abduction S. axial rotation Elbow flexion Pronosupination outlines a major difference between the two robots in terms
of shoulder flexion, and also significant improvements in
Fig. 15. Performance indexes for shoulder abduction-adduction.
shoulder abduction and elbow flexion.
25-
MM NeReBot TABLE 11
20 MariBot RoM WITH NEREBOT (N) AND MARIBOT (M).
15
Movements N M
10~
Shoulder flexion ±20' (r) ±90' (r)
Shoulder abduction 0 -1200 0 -150°
Shoulder axial rotation ±450 ±450
o Elbow flexion 0 -900 0 -1200
S. flexion S. abduction S. axial rotation Elbow flexion Pronosupination
Pronosupination ±450 ±450
Fig. 16. Performance indexes for elbow flexion.

25
M NeReBot V. CONCLUSION
20 MariBot
In this paper, a general simulation tool to evaluate the
15
performance of a set of cable suspended rehabilitation robots
10 was presented. This tool is based on the mechanical model
5
of the upper limb of a patient connected to a cable suspended
system. The model accounts for the static interaction between
0
S. flexion S. abduction S. axial rotation Elbow flexion Pronosupination the cables and the arm during a passive therapy exercise. The
model allows to predict the arm joint trajectories obtained
Fig. 17. Performance indexes for pronosupination.
with the aid of the robot, and to compare these values with
50 the ones prescribed by the exercise.
_ NeReBot
45 MariBot The simulation tool was employed to analyze the behavior
of two cable-suspended robots for rehabilitation, the NeRe-
40
Bot and the MariBot, which were designed and built at the
35 Robotics & Mechatronics Laboratories of the Department

MLM
30 of Innovation in Mechanics and Management (DIMEG) of
=
25
University of Padua, Italy. To quantify the difference between
the target trajectories and the simulated robot-aided motion
20
of the upper limb, a performance index for each joint
15 variable of the patient's arm was introduced. Simulation
10
results demonstrate that the design of MariBot addressed
all the issues arisen during NeReBot testing, providing a
5

u
S. flexion S. abduction
*LM
S. axial rotation Elbow flexion Pronosupination
wider working space in the horizontal plane. This allows
the MariBot to reach nearly the whole range of motion
of the patient's upper limb, obtaining better patient's arm
Fig. 18. Performance indexes for shoulder flexion. trajectories in the execution of most common exercises.

1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE 391

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12-15, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
The model presented in the paper can also be employed
as a powerful design tool, since user-defined trajectory
following performance indexes can be used to optimize
the mechanical structure of the machine. This is what we
actually did for NeReBot optimal configurations assessment
and MariBot 2 degrees-of-freedom serial structure design.
REFERENCES
[1] Y Takahashi and T. Kobayashi, Upper Limb Motion Assist Robot
using Wire Driven Control System. In Proc. of the 1999 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3: 1598-
1603, Kyongiu, South Korea, 1999.
[2] Y Takahashi, T. Tereda, K. Inoue, Y Ito, H. Lee, Y Ikeda and T.
komeda, Upper Limb Rehabilitation System Using Haptic Device with
Basic Motion Training Program. In Proc. of the 25th Annual Inter-
national Conference of the IEEE EMBS, Cancun, Mexico, September
17-21, 2003.
[3] S. Kim, M. Ishii, Y Koike and M. Sato, Development of a SPINDAR-
G and Possibility of its application to virtual reality, In Proc. of the
ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, Virtual
Reality and Associated Technologies, 199-205, 2000.
[4] R. Loureiro, F. Amirabdollahian, M. ToppingUpper and W. Har-
win, Limb Robot Mediated Stroke Therapy-GENTLE/s Approch.
Autonomous Robots, 15(1): 35-51, July 2003.
[5] R.C.V. Loureiro, C.F. Collin and W.S. Harwin, Robot aided therapy:
challenges ahead for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. 5th International
Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies,
Oxford, United Kingdom, 20-22 September 2004.
[6] D. Mayhew, B. Bachrach, W.Z. Rymer and R.F. Beer, Development of
the MACARM: a novel cable robot for upper limb neurorehabilitation.
In Proc. of the IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation
Robotics ICORR2005, 299-302, Chicago, IL, USA, June 28 - July 1,
2005.
[7] D. Surdilovic, R. Bernhardt, T. Schmidt. STRING-MAN: A New Wire
Robotic System for Gait Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the IEEE
8th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics ICORR2003,
Daejeon, Republic of Korea, April 2003.
[8] D. Surdilovic and R. Bernhardt, STRING-MAN: A New Wire Robot
for Gait Rehabilitation. In Proc. of the 2004 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics&Automation, New Orleans, LA, April 2004.
1-4244-1320-6/07/$25.00 (c)2007 IEEE 392
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universita della Calabria. Downloaded on February 05,2022 at 17:19:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[9] A. Rossi and G. Rosati, Rehabilitation robotics in Padua, Italy.
Acceptedfor publication in Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International
Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics ICORR2007.
[10] C. Fanin, P. Gallina, A. Rossi, U. Zanatta and S. Masiero, NeReBot:
a wire-based robot for neurorehabilitation. In Proc. of the IEEE
8th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics ICORR2003,
Daejeon, Republic of Korea, April 2003.
[11] G. Rosati, P. Gallina, A. Rossi and S. Masiero, Wire-based robots for
upper-limb rehabilitation. International Journal of Assistive Robotics
and Mechatronics, 7(2): 3-10, 2006.
[12] S. Masiero, A. Celia, G. Rosati, M. Armani, Robotic-Assisted Reha-
bilitation of the Upper Limb After Acute Stroke. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2007. In press.
[13] G. Rosati, P. Gallina, S. Masiero and A. Rossi, Design of a new
5 d.o.f. wire-based robot for rehabilitation. In Proc. of the IEEE
9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics ICORR2005,
430-433, Chicago, IL, USA, June 28 - July 1, 2005.
[14] Y. Shen,H. Osumi and T. Arai, Set of manipulating forces in wire
driven systems, in Proc. IEEE/RSJ/GI Int. Conf. on Int. Robot. and
Syst., 1626-1631, 1994.
[15] P. Gallina and G. Rosati, Manipulability of a planar wire driven haptic
device, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 37(2):215-228, 2002.
[16] P. Gallina, G. Rosati and A. Rossi, 3-d.o.f. Wire Driven Planar Haptic
Interface, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 32(1): 23-36,
September, 2001.
[17] ES Grood and WJ Suntay, A joint coordinate system for the clinical
description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J.
Biomech. Eng., 105(2): 136-144, 1983.
[18] M.L. Pearl, S.L. Harris, S.B. Lippitt, J.A. Sidles, D.T. Harrayman and
F.A. Matsen, A system for describing positions of the humerus relative
to the thorax and its use in the presentation of several functionally
important arm positions. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 1:
113-118, 1992.
[19] C.A.M. Doorenbosch, J. Harlaar and D. Veeger, The globe system:
An unambiguous description of shoulder positions in daily life move-
ments. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40(2):
147-156, 2003.
[20] D.A. Winter, Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement,
Wiley, 1990.
[21] G. Rosati, G. Volpe, A. Biondi, G. Boschetti and A. Rossi, Trajectory
planning of a two-link rehabilitation robot arm, Accepted for publi-
cation in Proc. of the 12th IFToMM World Congress, Besancon, June
18-21, 2007.