Data extraction was performed manually. The extracted data included: (a) the sensing technology used in the research paper; (b) the type of system implemented, features about the communication protocols (wireless or wired), the needed calibration, the system technology readiness level (TRL) [16], the feedback modality and the metrics extracted from kinematic and kinetic data; (c) the main evaluation features, the evaluation setting (laboratory, clinical, home), the assessment targets regarding hand functions and population.
Following literature classification, retrieved systems were classified as: (a) glove-based system [17], (b) instrumented object [12], (c) body-networked sensor system when wearable sensor nodes (in smartband or body-mounted sensor) communicate among themselves or with other devices [18], (d) vision-based motion capture system [19], (e) end-effector, and (f) exoskeleton system [20]. When the system provided a feedback modality via haptic, visual, auditory, or virtual reality (VR) during the execution of the task, this information was reported. TRL of each system was assessed by authors following the “Technology Readiness Assessment Guide” [16].
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), that provides a comprehensive definition, measurement and policy formulations for health and disability in a consistent and internationally comparable manner, was adopted as reference to categorize existing technology-aided functional assessment approaches [6]. The assessment properties of each system were addressed considering when the activity, considered the ability to execute a task or actions, was evaluated at a singular time point in a structured environment (capacity) or when evaluated in unstructured free-living condition (performance) [6]. As described in De Los Reyes-Guzmán et al. work [10], activities were classified as (a) basic tasks involving a simple hand movement (such as finger flexion/extension, tapping, pinch, hand grasp), (b) functional tasks when the subject was invited to perform a point-to-point movement required in basic daily activity (reaching, grasping, releasing), and (c) real activities of daily living (ADLs), such as drinking, eating, cooking, and dressing.
With the aim to classify and discuss emerging technology-aided hand functional assessment in a general core set of hand conditions, van de Ven-Stevens et al. work [21] was adopted as reference to classify the investigated hand functioning domains in articles. Identified domains concerned “mobility of joint functions”, “muscle power functions”, “fine hand use”, and “hand and arm use”.
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.