GEARing smart environments for pediatric motor rehabilitation.
Elena Kokkoni, Effrosyni Mavroudi, Ashkan Zehfroosh and 4 others
PMID 32041623WHAT IT FOUND
Three young children completed eight sessions in a new playground environment with body-weight support and robots.
All children looked at and moved toward the robots, and all completed climbing tasks while following them. This shows the setup works for testing, not that it improves motor skills.
Key findings
01All three children completed the eight-session protocol, used the body-weight support device, and interacted with the robots in every session.
02When assisted by the body-weight support device, all subjects performed motor actions beyond their usual capability without adult help, such as independent steps and bouncing.
03Visual attention to the robots and movement toward them were evident in all sessions for all subjects, and all children successfully completed climbing tasks while following the robots.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was extremely small (three children), so no statistical conclusions about efficacy can be drawn. The study was a feasibility pilot, not a randomized controlled trial, so there is no control group to compare outcomes against. Visual attention was assessed by human annotation from video, not by eye-tracking technology, which is less precise. The exposure was short-term (four weeks), so long-term developmental effects are unknown. The action classification algorithms had significant errors, particularly confusing static postures like sitting and standing. The 'positive' results regarding the robot decision-making model were based on a single subject's data and were explicitly stated as not statistically significant.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors declare no competing interests, though the BWS device (Oasus™) is a commercial product co-designed by one of the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the children's engagement and successful task completion as evidence that the GEAR system improves motor development or clinical outcomes. This was a small feasibility study designed to test if the technology and protocol could be implemented safely and effectively in a lab setting. It does not provide evidence of efficacy for treatment.