Usability Evaluation of a Novel Robotic Power Wheelchair for Indoor and Outdoor Navigation.

Ten participants completed the study, and the authors call it a pilot usability study, so it is not evidence that the chair improves everyday mobility. Two of the 12 consented participants stopped after reporting back pain or fatigue during training. The sample was convenience recruited and restricted to active, experienced users without pressure sores or back, pelvic or thigh pain, so it does not represent less experienced or medically complex wheelchair users. Half were veterans, who may use their wheelchairs more actively than non-veterans. Participants had an average of 16.3 years of experience with their own chair but only about thirty minutes of MEBot training in a single-day protocol. The study was done at a wheelchair games event and in a controlled lab, so observation and the simulated setting may have changed driving behaviour. True blinding was not possible, and there was no identical control chair without MEBot's mobility features. The results section reports a significant overall workload difference, while the discussion and conclusion state no overall workload difference; this inconsistency limits confidence in the workload finding. The long protocol and many steps for MEBot applications may have added fatigue and influenced self-reported workload.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The article is listed as supported by U.S. government, non-P.H.S. research.

Do not conclude that this robotic wheelchair is ready for everyday use. The better curb and slope performance came from ten experienced users in simulated courses, and routine indoor and outdoor driving, satisfaction and workload were not clearly improved.