Literature review on assistive devices available for quadriplegic people: Indian context

References

• Mathur N, Jain S, Kumar N, et al. Spinal cord injury: scenario in an Indian State. Spinal Cord. 2015;53(5):349–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birua GJS, Munda VS, Murmu NN. Epidemiology of spinal injury in North East India: a retrospective study. Asian J Neurosurg. 2018;13(4):1084–1086.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WHO | Seventy-first World Health Assembly adopts resolution on assistive technology [Internet]. WHO. 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/71stWHA-adopts-resolution-on-assistive-technology/en/#.YHfdLLENpUQ.mendeley
   Google Scholar
• Tello-Morales H, Pinos-Velez E, Serpa-Andrade L. Development of a system of aid for use the computer through a wireless system for people with quadriplegia in Ecuador. In: 2018 IEEE International Systems Engineering Symposium (ISSE); Oct 1–3; Rome, Italy. 2018. p. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Orejuela-Zapata JF, Rodriguez S, Ramirez GL. Self-help devices for quadriplegic population: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(4):692–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Bard B, Larson A, Herrera J, et al. Electrooculography based iOS controller for individuals with quadriplegia or neurodegenerative disease. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI); Aug 23–26; Park City, UT. 2017. p. 101–6.
   Google Scholar
• Bian Z, Hou J, Chau L, et al. Facial position and expression-based human–computer interface for persons with tetraplegia. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016;20(3):915–924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang H, Duerstock BS, Wachs JP. Variability analysis on gestures for people with quadriplegia. IEEE Trans Cybern. 2018;48(1):346–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury MR, Mollah MN, Raihan M, et al. Designing a cost effective prototype of an automated wheelchair based on EOG (electrooculography). In: 2018 21st International Conference of Computer And Information Technology (ICCIT); Dec 21–23; Dhaka, Bangladesh. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kim J, Park H, Bruce J, et al. Assessment of the tongue-drive system using a computer, a smartphone, and a powered-wheelchair by people with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016;24(1):68–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam Y, Koo B, Cichocki A, et al. GOM-Face: GKP, EOG, and EMG-based multimodal interface with application to humanoid robot control. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014;61(2):453–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury MR, Poonguzhali S, Ab KR, et al. Simplistic approach to design a prototype of an automated wheelchair based on electrooculography. In: 2018 International Conference on Computer, Communication, Chemical, Material and Electronic Engineering (IC4ME2); Jul 11–12; Rajshahi, Bangladesh. 2018. p. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Izzuddin TA, Ariffin MA, Bohari ZH, et al. Movement intention detection using neural network for quadriplegic assistive machine. In: IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE); Nov 27–29; Penang, Malaysia. 2015. p. 275–280.
   Google Scholar
• Andreasen Struijk LNS, Bentsen B, Gaihede M, et al. Error-free text typing performance of an inductive intra-oral tongue computer interface for severely disabled individuals. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017;25(11):2094–2104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang R, He S, Yang X, et al. An EOG-based human-machine interface to control a smart home environment for patients with severe spinal cord injuries. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019;66(1):89–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorp EB, Abdollahi F, Chen D, et al. Upper body-based power wheelchair control interface for individuals with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016;24(2):249–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hildebrand M, Bonde F, Kobborg RVN, et al. Semi-autonomous tongue control of an assistive robotic arm for individuals with quadriplegia. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019;2019:157–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudigkeit N, Gebhard M. AMiCUS-A head motion-based interface for control of an assistive robot. Sensors. 2019;19(12):2836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong F, Sahadat MN, Ghovanloo M, et al. A stand-alone intraoral tongue-controlled computer interface for people with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst. 2019;13(5):848–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackowski A, Gebhard M, Thietje R. Head motion and head gesture-based robot control: a usability study. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018;26(1):161–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyazze M, Wesson J, Naudé K. A conceptual framework for designing ambient assisted living services for individuals with disabilities in Uganda and South Africa. African J Disabil. 2019;8:477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lugo ZR, Bruno M-A, Gosseries O, et al. Beyond the gaze: communicating in chronic locked-in syndrome. Brain Inj. 2015;29(9):1056–1061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blabe CH, Gilja V, Chestek CA, et al. Assessment of brain-machine interfaces from the perspective of people with paralysis. J Neural Eng. 2015;12(4):43002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laumann A, Holbrook J, Minocha J, et al. Safety and efficacy of medically performed tongue piercing in people with tetraplegia for use with tongue-operated assistive technology. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015;21(1):61–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Folan A, Barclay L, Cooper C, et al. Exploring the experience of clients with tetraplegia utilizing assistive technology for computer access. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(1):46–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreasen Struijk LNS, Egsgaard LL, Lontis R, et al. Wireless intraoral tongue control of an assistive robotic arm for individuals with tetraplegia. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):110.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corallo F, Bonanno L, Lo Buono V, et al. Augmentative and alternative communication effects on quality of life in patients with locked-in syndrome and their caregivers. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2017;26(9):1929–1933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Ruijter LS, de Groot S, Adriaansen JJ, et al. Associations between time since onset of injury and participation in Dutch people with long-term spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2018;56(12):1134–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Park H, Bruce J, et al. Qualitative assessment of tongue drive system by people with high-level spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):451–465.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fried-Oken M, Mooney A, Peters B, et al. A clinical screening protocol for the RSVP keyboard brain-computer interface. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(1):11–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarosiewicz B, Sarma AA, Bacher D, et al. Virtual typing by people with tetraplegia using a self-calibrating intracortical brain-computer interface. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(313):313ra179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalid U, Conti GE, Erlandson RF, et al. Voice-activated lightweight reacher to assist with upper extremity movement limitations: a case study. Assist Technol. 2015;27(2):112–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski AJ, Bryce TN, Dijkers MP. Time and effort required by persons with spinal cord injury to learn to use a powered exoskeleton for assisted walking. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2015;21(2):110–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Struijk LNSA, Bentsen B, Gaihede M, et al. Speaking ability while using an inductive tongue-computer interface for individuals with tetraplegia: talking and driving a powered wheelchair – a case study. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018;2018:2483–2486.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lugo ZR, Rodriguez J, Lechner A, et al. A vibrotactile p300-based brain-computer interface for consciousness detection and communication. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2014;45(1):14–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim J-H, Kim Y-W, Lee J-H, et al. An emergency call system for patients in locked-in state using an SSVEP-based brain switch. Psychophysiology. 2017;54(11):1632–1643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang H-J, Han C-H, Lim J-H, et al. Clinical feasibility of brain-computer interface based on steady-state visual evoked potential in patients with locked-in syndrome: case studies. Psychophysiology. 2017;54(3):444–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmalfuß L, Rupp R, Tuga MR, et al. Steer by ear: myoelectric auricular control of powered wheelchairs for individuals with spinal cord injury. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016;34(1):79–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lesenfants D, Habbal D, Lugo Z, et al. An independent SSVEP-based brain-computer interface in locked-in syndrome. J Neural Eng. 2014;11(3):35002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentsen B, Gaihede M, Lontis R, et al. Medical tongue piercing – Development and evaluation of a surgical protocol and the perception of procedural discomfort of the participants. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2014;11(1):44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soekadar SR, Witkowski M, Gómez C, et al. Hybrid EEG/EOG-based brain/neural hand exoskeleton restores fully independent daily living activities after quadriplegia. Sci Robot. 2016;1(1).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwemmer MA, Skomrock ND, Sederberg PB, et al. Meeting brain-computer interface user performance expectations using a deep neural network decoding framework. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1669–1676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masse NY, Jarosiewicz B, Simeral JD, et al. Non-causal spike filtering improves decoding of movement intention for intracortical BCIs. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;236:58–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oken BS, Orhan U, Roark B, et al. Brain-computer interface with language model-electroencephalography fusion for locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(4):387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, Masse NY, et al. Neural point-and-click communication by a person with incomplete locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(5):462–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein E, Peters B, Higger M. Ethical considerations in ending exploratory brain-computer interface research studies in locked-in syndrome. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018;27(4):660–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopsky DJ, Winninghoff Y, Winninghoff ACM, et al. A novel spelling system for locked-in syndrome patients using only eye contact. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(20):1723–1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Käthner I, Kübler A, Halder S. Comparison of eye-tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state. J Neuroeng Rehab. 2015;12:76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers EW, Ryan DB, Hauser CK. Noninvasive brain-computer interface enables communication after brainstem stroke. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(257):257re7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tigra W, Navarro B, Cherubini A, et al. A novel EMG interface for individuals with tetraplegia to pilot robot hand grasping. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018;26(2):291–298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakonen M, Piitulainen H, Visala A. Current state of digital signal processing in myoelectric interfaces and related applications. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2015;18:334–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouillard J, Duprès A, Cabestaing F, et al. Hybrid BCI coupling EEG and EMG for severe motor disabilities. Procedia Manuf. 2015;3:29–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kothari M, Svensson P, Jensen J, et al. Tongue-controlled computer game: a new approach for rehabilitation of tongue motor function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):524–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghorbel A, Ben AN, Jallouli M. A survey on different human-machine interactions used for controlling an electric wheelchair. Procedia Comput Sci. 2019;159:398–407.
   Google Scholar
• Yan T, Cempini M, Oddo CM, et al. Review of assistive strategies in powered lower-limb orthoses and exoskeletons. Rob Auton Syst. 2015;64:120–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bockbrader M. Upper limb sensorimotor restoration through brain–computer interface technology in tetraparesis. Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2019;11:85–101.
   Google Scholar
• Choudhari AM, Porwal P, Jonnalagedda V, et al. An electrooculography based human machine interface for wheelchair control. Biocybern Biomed Eng. 2019;39(3):673–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labbé D, Jutras S, Coulombe S. Perceptions on well-being at home of families with people with disabilities: a psycho-environmental perspective. Eur Rev Appl Psychol. 2017;67(1):1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collinger JL, Boninger ML, Bruns TM, et al. Functional priorities, assistive technology, and brain-computer interfaces after spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(2):145–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kryger M, Wester B, Pohlmeyer EA, et al. Flight simulation using a brain-computer interface: a pilot, pilot study. Exp Neurol. 2017;287(Pt 4):473–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang W, Collinger JL, Degenhart AD, et al. An electrocorticographic brain interface in an individual with tetraplegia. PLOS One. 2013;8(2):e55344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai R, Ling SH, Hunter GP, et al. Classification of wheelchair commands using brain computer interface: comparison between able-bodied persons and patients with tetraplegia. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:989–992.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruíz-Serrano A, Posada-Gómez R, Sibaja AM, et al. Development of a dual control system applied to a smart wheelchair, using magnetic and speech control. Procedia Technol. 2013;7:158–165.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Rousan M, Assaleh K. A wavelet- and neural network-based voice system for a smart wheelchair control. J Franklin Inst. 2011;348(1):90–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squires LA, Rush F, Hopkinson A, et al. The physical and psychological impact of using a computer-based environmental control system: a case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):434–443.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O’Reilly MF, et al. Persons with multiple disabilities exercise adaptive response schemes with the help of technology-based programs: three single-case studies. Res Dev Disabil. 2012;33(3):849–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scardovelli TA, Frère AF. The design and evaluation of a peripheral device for use with a computer game intended for children with motor disabilities. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015;118(1):44–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caltenco HA, Andreasen Struijk LNS, Breidegard B. Tonguewise: tongue-computer interface software for people with tetraplegia. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:4534–4537.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lontis ER, Struijk LNSA. Design of inductive sensors for tongue control system for computers and assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(4):266–271.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leung B, Chau T. A multiple camera tongue switch for a child with severe spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):58–68.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roche L, Sigafoos J, Lancioni GE, et al. Microswitch technology for enabling self-determined responding in children with profound and multiple disabilities: a systematic review. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31(3):246–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch N, Graham J, Priestley T, et al. Results of the first interim analysis of the RAPPER II trial in patients with spinal cord injury: ambulation and functional exercise programs in the REX powered walking aid. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blankertz B, Tangermann M, Popescu F, et al. The berlin brain-computer interface. In: Zurada JM, Yen GG, Wang J, editors. Computational intelligence: research frontiers. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (WCCI 2008). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 79–101
   Google Scholar
• Jafar MR, Nagesh D. Classification of mental tasks by using statistical process control and artificial neural networks. Eur J Mol Clin Med. 2020;7(8):3085–3093.
   Google Scholar
• Linskell J, Bouamrane M-M. Assisted-living spaces for end-users with complex needs: a proposed implementation and delivery model. Health Informatics J. 2012;18(3):159–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Singh N, O’Reilly M, et al. Persons with multiple disabilities choose among environmental stimuli using a smile response and a technology–aided program. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2014;26(2):183–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tulsky DS, Kisala PA, Victorson D, et al. Developing a contemporary patient-reported outcomes measure for spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(10, Supplement):S44–S51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seáñez-González I, Pierella C, Farshchiansadegh A, et al. Body-machine interfaces after spinal cord injury: rehabilitation and brain plasticity. Brain Sci. 2016;6(4):61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson T, Gauthier M, Prochazka A. Evaluation of tooth-click triggering and speech recognition in assistive technology for computer access. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(2):188–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blain S, McKeever P, Chau T. Bedside computer access for an individual with severe and multiple disabilities: a case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(5):359–369.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kriz J, Relichova Z. Intermittent self-catheterization in tetraplegic patients: a 6-year experience gained in the spinal cord unit in Prague. Spinal Cord. 2014;52(2):163–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domingo MC. An overview of the internet of things for people with disabilities. J Netw Comput Appl. 2012;35(2):584–596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pouplin S, Robertson J, Antoine J-Y, et al. Effect of a dynamic keyboard and word prediction systems on text input speed in patients with functional tetraplegia. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):467–79. DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2012.05.0094
   Google Scholar
• Rigby P, Ryan SE, Campbell KA. Electronic aids to daily living and quality of life for persons with tetraplegia. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(3):260–267.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coignard P, Departe JP, Remy Neris O, et al. ANSO study: evaluation in an indoor environment of a mobile assistance robotic grasping arm. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;56(9–10):621–633.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wielandt T, Mckenna K, Tooth L, et al. Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1(1–2):29–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haller S, Karnouskos S, Schroth C. The internet of things in an enterprise context. In: Domingue J, Fensel D, Traverso P, editors. Future internet – FIS 2008. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 14–28.
   Google Scholar
• Chacko V, Joseph B, Mohanty SP, et al. Management of spinal cord injury in a general hospital in rural India. Paraplegia. 1986;24(5):330–335.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar