↓ Skip to main content

Music meets robotics: a prospective randomized study on motivation during robot aided therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Music meets robotics: a prospective randomized study on motivation during robot aided therapy
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12984-018-0413-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kilian Baur, Florina Speth, Aniket Nagle, Robert Riener, Verena Klamroth-Marganska

Abstract

Robots have been successfully applied in motor training during neurorehabilitation. As music is known to improve motor function and motivation in neurorehabilitation training, we aimed at integrating music creation into robotic-assisted motor therapy. We developed a virtual game-like environment with music for the arm therapy robot ARMin, containing four different motion training conditions: a condition promoting creativity (C+) and one not promoting creativity (C-), each in a condition with (V+) and without (V-) a visual display (i.e., a monitor). The visual display was presenting the game workspace but not contributing to the creative process itself. In all four conditions the therapy robot haptically displayed the game workspace. Our aim was to asses the effects of creativity and visual display on motivation. In a prospective randomized single-center study, healthy participants were randomly assigned to play two of the four training conditions, either with (V+) or without visual display (V-). In the third round, the participants played a repetition of the preferred condition of the two first rounds, this time with a new V condition (i.e., with or without visual display). For each of the three rounds, motivation was measured with the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) in the subscales interest/enjoyment, perceived choice, value/usefulness, and man-machine-relation. We recorded the actual training time, the time of free movement, and the velocity profile and administered a questionnaire to measure perceived training time and perceived effort. All measures were analysed using linear mixed models. Furthermore, we asked if the participants would like to receive the created music piece. Sixteen healthy subjects (ten males, six females, mean age: 27.2 years, standard deviation: 4.1 years) with no known motor or cognitive deficit participated. Promotion of creativity (i.e., C+ instead of C-) significantly increased the IMI-item interest/enjoyment (p=0.001) and the IMI-item perceived choice (p=0.010). We found no significant effects in the IMI-items man-machine relation and value/usefulness. Conditions promoting creativity (with or without visual display) were preferred compared to the ones not promoting creativity. An interaction effect of promotion of creativity and omission of visual display was present for training time (p=0.013) and training intensity (p<0.001). No differences in relative perceived training time, perceived effort, and perceived value among the four training conditions were found. Promoting creativity in a visuo-audio-haptic or audio-haptic environment increases motivation in robot-assisted therapy. We demonstrated the feasibility of performing an audio-haptic music creation task and recommend to try the system on patients with neuromuscular disorders. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02720341. Registered 25 March 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02720341.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 292 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 45 15%
Student > Master 36 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Researcher 24 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 3%
Other 35 12%
Unknown 118 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 13%
Psychology 17 6%
Engineering 17 6%
Neuroscience 17 6%
Sports and Recreations 13 4%
Other 57 20%
Unknown 134 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,435,053
of 24,413,320 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#375
of 1,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,356
of 305,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,413,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.