First Author/year Study Design Evidence Level [16 ] Duration Setting Country Sample size Age mean Age range Characteristics Gender Sampling Technology Description M F Aisen [17 ] 1997 Intervention study III-1 Overall duration not stated. Robot trained 4-5 hrs/wk on top of conventional training. Sham trained 1-2 sessions/wk Hospital rehabilitation clinic USA 20
Robot trained—45–68; Sham trained—38–72 Post-stroke, hemiplegia 11 9 Pseudorandomised “MIT-MANUS” Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. Morvan [18 ] 1997 Qualitative study IV <1 mnth § France 28 § § Young with either tetraplegia, myopathies or spasticity
# Not stated “MASTER” robotic arm system Psychological preparedness by older people for robots. Krebs [19 ] 1998 Intervention study III-1 Overall duration not stated. Robot trained 4-5 hrs/wk on top of conventional training. Sham trained 1 sessions/wk Hospital rehabilitation clinic USA 20 Robot trained—58.5; Sham trained—63 § § # Pseudorandomised “MIT-MANUS” Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. Cozens [20 ]1999 Intervention study III-3 <1 d Laboratory England 10 § 47–69 Stroke or MS with upper limb weakness # Pseudorandomised No name provided Robotic upper limb apparatus. Volpe [21 ] 1999 Intervention study III-1 1 wk treatment, 3 yr follow-up Hospital rehabilitation clinic USA 20 total, 12 of 20 measureat 3 yrs Robot trained—
Sham trained—
§ Post-stroke 7 5 Pseudorandomised “MIT-MANUS” Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. Reinkensmeyer [22 ] 1999 Intervention study III-3 <1 d § USA 5 § 24–79 Brain injury (TBA/ABI) # Convenience Robotic arm Arm guidance system.
Burgar[23 ] 2000 Intervention study (x3) III-2 1 wk–2 mnths Laboratory USA 24 § 21–80 Post-stroke hemiplegia # Convenience MIME Mirror Image Motion Enabler (MIME). Volpe [24 ] 2000 Intervention study III-1
hr sessionsHospital rehabilitation clinic USA 56 64.5 27–83 Post-stroke hemiplegia 30 26 Randomised control “MIT-MANUS” Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. Jezernik [25 ] 2003 Intervention study III-3
hr sessionsSpinal cord injury clinic Switzerland 6 § 38–73 Spinal cord # § “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton. Loureiro [26 ] 2003 Intervention study III-3 9 sessions over 3 wks Hospital England 30 § § Stroke hemiplegia # Randomised control “GENTLE/S” Haptic upper limb system. Rentschler [13 ] 2003 Technical report IV <1 d Laboratory USA 1 29 29 Healthy 1 — Case study PAMA Personal adaptive mobility aid (PAMA). Winchester [27 ] 2005 Other III-3 12 wks Laboratory USA 4 § 20–49 Spinal cord injury 4 — Convenience “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton. Spenko [28 ] 2006 Other III-3 <1 d Laboratory USA 6 § 85–95 Healthy older 1 5 Convenience “Smartcane” and “Smart walker” Walking aid for mobility and monitoring.
Isreal[29 ] 2006 Other III-3 5 sessions Laboratory USA 12 § 15–59 Spinal cord injury # Convenience “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Mehrholz[30 ] 2007 Systematic review I n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Assisted gait device Robotic-assisted gait training. Rocon [31 ] 2007 Other III-3 <1 d Laboratory Spain 10 52.3 § Tremor 7 3 Convenience “WOTAS” Robotic exoskeleton to reduce arm tremor. Saeki [32 ] 2008 Other IV 6 mnths Laboratory Japan 1 48 n/a Neuro-logical — 1 N/a “Bi-Manu-Track” Robotic arm trainer. Hidler [33 ] 2008 Intervention study III-2 6 mnths Laboratory USA 5 44.1 24–59 Spinal cord injury # Randomised control “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton. Janssen and Pringle [34 ] 2008 Intervention study III-3 6 wks Laboratory USA 12 36 20–70 Spinal cord injury 12 — Convenience “ERGYS 1” Functional electrical stimulator leg ergometry. Krebs [35 ] 2008 Intervention study III-2 6 wks Rehabilitation clinic USA 47 57.5 27–79 Stroke # Pre-post single group “MIT-MANUS” Robotic hand visuomotorguidancesystem. Patton [36 ] 2008 Other n/a n/a n/a USA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a “KineAssist” Discussion paper on robot to improve balance and gait. Querry [37 ] 2008 Intervention study III-2 <1 d Laboratory USA 26 35.5 § Spinal cord injury 17 9 Non-randomised control “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton. Rentschler [38 ] 2008 Intervention study III-2 1 d Laboratory USA 17 85.3 § Healthy # Pseudorandomised “GUIDO” Robotic walker. Galluppi [39 ] 2009 Intervention study IV § Hospital Italy § § § § # § Robotic wheelchair Collaborative control robotic wheelchair. Shimada [40 ] 2009 Intervention study III-2 <6 mths Retirement village Japan 15 78.3 72–85 Healthy 0 15 Convenience Stride assistance system Robotic exoskeleton stride assistance system to assist with walking but provide resistance for physical improvement. Flinn [41 ] 2009 Case study IV 6 wks Hospital USA 1 48 n/a Post-stroke n/a n/a “InMotion2” Upper limb visuomotor guidance system. Zeng [42 ] 2009 Intervention study IV § Hospital rehabilitation clinic Singapore 3 § 16–48 Cerebral palsy/TBI # Convenience Robotic wheelchair Collaborative control robotic wheelchair. Lo [43 ] 2010 Intervention study II 12 weeks (total of 36 hours training) Multi-rehabilitation centres USA 127 64.6 § >6 months post-stroke 122 5 Random control trial Modular robotic system (no name) for upper arm guidance. Modular robotic upper arm guidance system for shoulder, forearm, wrist, and grasping movements.
Frizera Neto[44 ] 2010 Intervention study III-3 <1 d Indoor installation Spain 5 § § Healthy # Convenience “SIMBIOSIS” Robotic walker—upper body force interaction. Sharma [45 ] 2010 Intervention study III-3 <1 d Laboratory USA 19 38.5 § Healthy 13 6 Convenience “Drive Safe” smart wheelchairs Joystick driven, sensor controlled wheelchairs. Wolpaw [46 ] 2010 Expert opinion n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Brain-computer interfaces Opinion based article on the progression in brain-computer interfaces and suggestions on where the technology paradigm should progress. Galvez [47 ] 2011 Intervention study III-3 n/a Laboratory USA 4 § 24–62 Spinal cord injury # Convenience Sensor orthoses Robotic body-weight support treadmill. Turiel [48 ] 2011 Intervention study III-3 1 hr/d, 5 d/wk, 30–45 mins/session Laboratory Italy 14 50.6 n/a Spinal cord injury 10 4 Pre-post single group “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton. Schwartz [49 ] 2011 Intervention study III-3 2-3 times/wk, Rehabilitaion clinic Israel 28 42 n/a Spinal cord injury 18 10 Single group, matched historical control “Lokomat” Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Conroy[50 ] 2011 Intervention study II 60 mins, 3 times/wk for 6 wks Laboratory USA 62 57.8 n/a Stroke, hemiplegia upper limb 34 28 Random control trial “InMotion2” Upper limb visuomotor guidance system. 2D versus 3D including antigravity training, comparing the combination of vertical and planar robot with planar alone.
Carlson and Demiris[51 ] 2012 Intervention study III-2 <1 d,
min sessions Simulated home England 21 § 17–47 Healthy # Convenience No name Collaborative controlled robotic wheelchair.
