Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 04; 100(4):627-637.AP

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the Mobility Enhancement roBotic (MEBot) wheelchair's capabilities with commercial electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs) by performing a systematic usability evaluation.

DESIGN

Usability in effectiveness, efficacy, and satisfaction was evaluated using quantitative measures. A semistructured interview was employed to gather feedback about the users' interaction with MEBot.

SETTING

Laboratory testing of EPW driving performance with 2 devices in a controlled setting simulating common EPW driving tasks.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of expert EPW users (N=12; 9 men, 3 women) with an average age of 54.7±10.9 years and 16.3± 8.1 years of EPW driving experience.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Powered mobility clinical driving assessment (PMCDA), Satisfaction Questionnaire, National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Task Load Index.

RESULTS

Participants were able to perform significantly higher number of tasks (P=.004), with significantly higher scores in both the adequacy-efficacy (P=.005) and the safety (P=.005) domains of the PMCDA while using MEBot over curbs and cross-slopes. However, participants reported significantly higher mental demand (P=.005) while using MEBot to navigate curbs and cross-slopes due to MEBot's complexity to perform its mobility applications which increased user's cognitive demands.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this usability evaluation demonstrated that MEBot is a promising EPW device to use indoors and outdoors with architectural barriers such as curbs and cross-slopes. Current design limitations were highlighted with recommendations for further improvement.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Center of Excellence in Wheelchairs and Associated Rehabilitation Engineering, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and Human Engineering Research Laboratories, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: rcooper@pitt.edu.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30148995

Citation

Candiotti, Jorge L., et al. "Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 100, no. 4, 2019, pp. 627-637.
Candiotti JL, Kamaraj DC, Daveler B, et al. Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(4):627-637.
Candiotti, J. L., Kamaraj, D. C., Daveler, B., Chung, C. S., Grindle, G. G., Cooper, R., & Cooper, R. A. (2019). Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 100(4), 627-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.432
Candiotti JL, et al. Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(4):627-637. PubMed PMID: 30148995.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation. AU - Candiotti,Jorge L, AU - Kamaraj,Deepan C, AU - Daveler,Brandon, AU - Chung,Cheng-Shiu, AU - Grindle,Garrett G, AU - Cooper,Rosemarie, AU - Cooper,Rory A, Y1 - 2018/08/25/ PY - 2018/04/02/received PY - 2018/07/09/revised PY - 2018/07/17/accepted PY - 2018/8/28/pubmed PY - 2019/12/25/medline PY - 2018/8/28/entrez KW - Accident prevention KW - Architectural accessibility KW - Rehabilitation KW - Robotics KW - Wheelchairs SP - 627 EP - 637 JF - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation JO - Arch Phys Med Rehabil VL - 100 IS - 4 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare the Mobility Enhancement roBotic (MEBot) wheelchair's capabilities with commercial electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs) by performing a systematic usability evaluation. DESIGN: Usability in effectiveness, efficacy, and satisfaction was evaluated using quantitative measures. A semistructured interview was employed to gather feedback about the users' interaction with MEBot. SETTING: Laboratory testing of EPW driving performance with 2 devices in a controlled setting simulating common EPW driving tasks. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of expert EPW users (N=12; 9 men, 3 women) with an average age of 54.7±10.9 years and 16.3± 8.1 years of EPW driving experience. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Powered mobility clinical driving assessment (PMCDA), Satisfaction Questionnaire, National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Task Load Index. RESULTS: Participants were able to perform significantly higher number of tasks (P=.004), with significantly higher scores in both the adequacy-efficacy (P=.005) and the safety (P=.005) domains of the PMCDA while using MEBot over curbs and cross-slopes. However, participants reported significantly higher mental demand (P=.005) while using MEBot to navigate curbs and cross-slopes due to MEBot's complexity to perform its mobility applications which increased user's cognitive demands. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this usability evaluation demonstrated that MEBot is a promising EPW device to use indoors and outdoors with architectural barriers such as curbs and cross-slopes. Current design limitations were highlighted with recommendations for further improvement. SN - 1532-821X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30148995/Usability_Evaluation_of_a_Novel_Robotic_Power_Wheelchair_for_Indoor_and_Outdoor_Navigation_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003-9993(18)31111-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -