Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Design and evaluation of exoskeleton device for rehabilitation of index finger using nature-inspired algorithms

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work proposes a novel robotic exoskeleton for rehabilitation of the index finger. Though all motions of index finger are essential, the major range of motion is covered by flexion/extension motion. Hence, a Stephenson III six-bar mechanism has been synthesized for the robotic exoskeleton device for a pre-defined trajectory to address post stroke rehabilitation of patients. The flexion/extension trajectory was obtained experimentally using image processing. Based on the trajectory, a mathematical model was formulated which was used as the objective function for the optimization problem. To eliminate any defects that may be encountered during the synthesis, “loop-by-loop defect rectification” procedure was implemented along with well-established optimization algorithms such as TLBO, BWP, GWO and PSO for synthesis of the desired mechanism. It has been found that TLBO outperformed all the others as it could reduce the objective function value to 0.69849. whereas, BWP reduced it to 8.9952, GWO reduced it to 13.1388, and PSO could only reduce it to 6 × 105. Therefore, the design obtained using TLBO was considered for developing the prototype of the device. The device was validated experimentally using image processing, and it is found to cover the prescribed range of motion. Thus, the proposed exoskeleton is deemed to be a viable solution for post stroke index-finger rehabilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

MCP:

Metacarpophalangeal

PIP:

Proximal interphalangeal

DIP:

Distal interphalangeal

\({P}_{xd},{P}_{yd}\) :

X and Y coordinates of precision points

\({r}_{xy}\) :

Link vectors

\({L}_{i}, {U}_{i}\) :

Upper and Lower limits of design variables

\({B}_{i}\) :

Boolean function

\({\theta }_{i}\) :

Links orientation angles

α:

Vector \({r}_{32}\) is constrained to vector \({r}_{35d}\) by angle α at point \(A\)

β:

Here, vector \({r}_{32}\) is constrained to vector \({r}_{35d}\) by angle α at point \(A\), \(A_{ox}\), \(A_{oy}\) 

TLBO:

Teaching and Learning Based Optimization

BWP:

Best-Worst Play

PSO:

Particle Swarm Optimization

GWO:

Grey Wolf Optimization

SE:

Structural Error

PLA:

Polylactic acid

References

  1. Kamalakannan S, Gudlavalleti AS, Gudlavalleti VS, Goenka S, Kuper H (2017) Incidence & prevalence of stroke in India: A systematic review. Indian J Med Res 146(2):175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, Cockroft KM, Gutierrez J, Lombardi-Hill D, Kamel H, Kernan WN, Kittner SJ, Leira EC, Lennon O (2021) Guideline for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2021 May 24:STR-0000000000000375

  3. Mohr JP, Wolf PA, Moskowitz MA, Mayberg MR, Von Kummer R (2011) Stroke E-Book: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. Elsevier Health Sciences. May 13

  4. Pinter MM, Brainin M (2012) Rehabilitation after stroke in older people. Maturitas 71(2):104–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagg S, Pombo AP, Hopman W (2002) Effect of age on functional outcomes after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 33(1):179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G (2011) Stroke rehabilitation. The Lancet 377(9778):1693–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dirette D, Hinojosa J (1994) Effects of continuous passive motion on the edematous hands of two persons with flaccid hemiplegia. Am J Occup Ther 48(5):403–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR, Cramer SC (2008) Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain 131(2):425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hwang CH, Seong JW, Son DS (2012) Individual finger synchronized robot-assisted hand rehabilitation in subacute to chronic stroke: a prospective randomized clinical trial of efficacy. Clin Rehabil 26(8):696–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahuja CS, Wilson JR, Nori S, Kotter MR, Druschel C, Curt A, Fehlings MG (2017) Traumatic spinal cord injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fasoli SE, Krebs HI, Stein J, Frontera WR, Hogan N (2003) Effects of robotic therapy on motor impairment and recovery in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84(4):477–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferraro M, Palazzolo JJ, Krol J, Krebs HI, Hogan N, Volpe BT (2003) Robot-aided sensorimotor arm training improves outcome in patients with chronic stroke. Neurology 61(11):1604–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Aurora RN, Kristo DA, Bista SR, Rowley JA, Zak RS, Casey KR, Lamm CI, Tracy SL, Rosenberg RS (2014) The Treatment of Restless Legs Syndrome and Periodic Limb Movement Disorder in Adults—An Update for 2012: Practice Parameters with an Evidence-Based Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline. Focus 12(1):99–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stroke Statistic (2009) Update. Centennial, CO: National Stroke Association

  15. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34(9):2181–2186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lelieveld MJ, Maeno T, Tomiyama T (2006) Design and development of two concepts for a 4 DOF portable haptic interface with active and passive multi-point force feedback for the index finger. Int Des Eng Tech Conf Comput Inf Eng Conf 42568:547–556

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fu Y, Wang P, Wang S, Liu H, Zhang F (2007) Design and development of a portable exoskeleton based CPM machine for rehabilitation of hand injuries. In: 2007 IEEE Int Conf Robot Biomim (ROBIO). IEEE, 1476–1481

  18. Wege A, Kondak K, Hommel G (2005) Mechanical design and motion control of a hand exoskeleton for rehabilitation. In: IEEE Int Conf Mechatron Autom, 2005, vol 1. IEEE, pp 155-159

  19. Yamaura H, Matsushita K, Kato R, Yokoi H (2009) Development of hand rehabilitation system for paralysis patient–universal design using wire-driven mechanism–. In2009 Annual Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, IEEE, pp 7122–7125

  20. Worsnopp TT, Peshkin MA, Colgate JE, Kamper DG (2007) An actuated finger exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation following stroke. In: 2007 IEEE 10th Int Conf Rehab Robot, IEEE, pp 896–901

  21. Chiri A, Giovacchini F, Vitiello N, Cattin E, Roccella S, Vecchi F, Carrozza MC (2009) HANDEXOS: Towards an exoskeleton device for the rehabilitation of the hand. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robots Syst IEEE, pp 1106–1111

  22. Mulas M, Folgheraiter M, Gini G (2005) An EMG-controlled exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation. In: 9th Int Conf Rehab Robotics, ICORR, IEEE, pp 371–374

  23. Brown P, Jones D, Singh SK, Rosen JM (1993) The exoskeleton glove for control of paralyzed hands. In: [1993] Proceedings IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom, IEEE, pp 642–647

  24. Shields BL, Main JA, Peterson SW, Strauss AM (1997) An anthropomorphic hand exoskeleton to prevent astronaut hand fatigue during extravehicular activities. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybernetics-Part A: Syst Hum 27(5):668–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Orlando MF, Akolkar H, Dutta A, Saxena A, Behera L (2010) Optimal design and control of a hand exoskeleton. In: 2010 IEEE Conf RoboT Autom Mechatronics, IEEE, pp 72–77

  26. Li J, Zheng R, Zhang Y, Yao J (2011) iHandRehab: An interactive hand exoskeleton for active and passive rehabilitation. In: 2011 IEEE Int ConF Rehab Robot, IEEE, pp 1–6

  27. Patton JL, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (2004) Robot-assisted adaptive training: custom force fields for teaching movement patterns. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51(4):636–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liepert J, Bauder H, Miltner WH, Taub E, Weiller C (2000) Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 31(6):1210–1216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kolb B, Gibb R (1991) Environmental enrichment and cortical injury: behavioral and anatomical consequences of frontal cortex lesions. Cereb Cortex 1(2):189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Will BE, Rosenzweig MR, Bennett EL, Hebert M, Morimoto H (1977) Relatively brief environmental enrichment aids recovery of learning capacity and alters brain measures after postweaning brain lesions in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 91(1):33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krebs HI, Volpe BT, Ferraro M, Fasoli S, Palazzolo J, Rohrer B, Edelstein L, Hogan N (2002) Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: from evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 8(4):54–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chi-Yeh H (1966) A general method for the optimum design of mechanisms. J Mech 1(3–4):301–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kramer SN, Sandor GN. Selective precision synthesis—a general method of optimization for planar mechanisms

  34. Sohoni VN, Haug EJ. A state space technique for optimal design of mechanisms

  35. Cabrera JA, Simon A, Prado M (2002) Optimal synthesis of mechanisms with genetic algorithms. Mech Mach Theory 37(10):1165–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cabrera JA, Ortiz A, Nadal F, Castillo JJ (2011) An evolutionary algorithm for path synthesis of mechanisms. Mech Mach Theory 46(2):127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Prange GB, Jannink MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Hermens HJ, Ijzerman MJ (2009) Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(2):171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Tejero-González CM, del Campo-Vecino J, Bavaresco N (2014) The concurrent validity and reliability of a low-cost, high-speed camera-based method for measuring the flight time of vertical jumps. J Strength Conditioning Res 28(2):528–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Puig-Diví A, Escalona-Marfil C, Padullés-Riu JM, Busquets A, Padullés-Chando X, Marcos-Ruiz D (2019) Validity and reliability of the Kinovea program in obtaining angles and distances using coordinates in 4 perspectives. PLoS ONE 14(6):e0216448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang TH, Lu SC, Lin WJ, Zhao K, Zhao C, An KN, Jou IM, Lee PY, Kuo LC, Su FC (2016) Assessing finger joint biomechanics by applying equal force to flexor tendons in vitro using a novel simultaneous approach. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0160301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gasser BW, Martínez A, Sasso-Lance E, Kandilakis C, Durrough CM, Goldfarb M (2020) Preliminary Assessment of a Hand and Arm Exoskeleton for Enabling Bimanual Tasks for Individuals With Hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 28(10):2214–2223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang D, Meng Q, Meng Q, Li X, Yu H (2018) Design and development of a portable exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 26(12):2376–2386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wege A, Hommel G (2005) Development and control of a hand exoskeleton for rehabilitation of hand injuries. In2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, pp 3046–3051

  44. Gosselin CM, Laliberte T (1998) inventors; Universite Laval, assignee. Underactuated mechanical finger with return actuation. United States patent US 5,762,390

  45. Baek SF, Lee SH, Chang JH (1999) Design and control of a robotic finger for prosthetic hands. InProceedings 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human and Environment Friendly Robots with High Intelligence and Emotional Quotients (Cat. No. 99CH36289), vol. 1, IEEE, pp 113–117

  46. Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW (1996) Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science 272(5269):1791–1794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schaechter JD, Kraft E, Hilliard TS, Dijkhuizen RM, Benner T, Finklestein SP, Rosen BR, Cramer SC (2002) Motor recovery and cortical reorganization after constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke patients: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 16(4):326–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Singh R, Chaudhary H, Singh AK (2017) A new hybrid teaching–learning particle swarm optimization algorithm for synthesis of linkages to generate path. Sādhanā 42(11):1851–1870

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Chakraborty D, Rathi A, Singh R, Pathak VK, Chaudhary K, Chaudhary H (2021) Design of a Stephenson III six-bar path generating mechanism for index finger rehabilitation device using nature-inspired algorithms. Neural Comput Appl 22:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pathak VK, Singh AK, Singh R, Chaudhary H (2017) A modified algorithm of Particle Swarm Optimization for form error evaluation. tm-Technisches Messen 84(4):272–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Purves WK, Berme N, Paul JP (1979) Finger joint biomechanics. In: Disability, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 318–332

  52. Singh R, Chaudhary H, Singh AK (2017) Defect-free optimal synthesis of crank-rocker linkage using nature-inspired optimization algorithms. Mech Mach Theory 1(116):105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Singh R, Gaurav K, Pathak VK, Singh P, Chaudhary H. Best-Worst-Play (BWP): A metaphor-less Optimization Algorithm. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series 2020 Feb 1 (Vol. 1455, No. 1, p. 012007). IOP Publishing.

  55. Orlando MF, Behera L, Dutta A, Saxena A (2020) Optimal Design and Redundancy Resolution of a Novel Robotic Two-Fingered Exoskeleton. IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics 2(1):59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Carbone G, Gerding EC, Corves B, Cafolla D, Russo M, Ceccarelli M (2020) Design of a Two-DOFs driving mechanism for a motion-assisted finger exoskeleton. Appl Sci 10(7):2619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hu D, Howard D, Ren L (2014) Biomechanical analysis of the human finger extensor mechanism during isometric pressing. PLoS ONE 9(4):e94533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Singh R, Chaudhary H, Singh AK (2019) A loop-by-loop defect rectification procedure for optimal synthesis of Stephenson III path generators. Meccanica 54(11):1869–1888

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  59. Seyedali Mirjalili, Seyed Mohammad Mirjalili, Andrew Lewis (2014) Grey Wolf Optimizer, Advances in Engineering Software, vol 69, p 46–61, ISSN 0965–9978, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965997813001853)

  60. Faris H, Aljarah I, Al-Betar MA et al (2018) Grey wolf optimizer: a review of recent variants and applications. Neural Comput & Applic 30:413–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3272-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Eberhart and Yuhui Shi (2001)Particle swarm optimization: developments, applications and resources," Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546), vol. 1, p 81–86 https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2001.934374

  62. Y. Shen et al (2018) Research on Swarm Size of Multi-swarm Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm," 2018 IEEE 4th International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pp. 2243–2247, https://doi.org/10.1109/CompComm.2018.8781013

  63. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B et al (2022) Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat Med 28:924–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Robert Seifert, Manuel Weber, Emre Kocakavuk, Christoph Rischpler, David Kersting

  65. (2021) Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Nuclear Medicine: Future Perspectives, Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 51(2):170–177,https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.08.003ISSN 0001-2998

  66. Abbasi Hamid, Yaghoobi Mahdi (2023) Optimized cascade chaotic fuzzy system (OCCFS) and its application to function approximation and chaotic systems identification. Soft Comput 27(13):8561–8582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08171-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Abbasi H, Olyaee M, Ghafari H (2013) Rectifying Reverse Polygonization of Digital Curves for Dominant Point Detection. Int J Comput Sci Issues 10:154–163

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors acknowledge the support and facilities provided by Manipal University Jaipur for successfully conclude this work with fruitful results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Manipal University Jaipur, Jaipur-Ajmer Express Highway, Dehmi Kalan, Near GVK Toll Plaza, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303007, India

    Debaditya Chakraborty, Ayush Rathi & Ramanpreet Singh

Authors
  1. Debaditya Chakraborty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayush Rathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramanpreet Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramanpreet Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chakraborty, D., Rathi, A. & Singh, R. Design and evaluation of exoskeleton device for rehabilitation of index finger using nature-inspired algorithms. Appl Intell 54, 10206–10223 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05725-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05725-2

Keywords