What is it like to walk with the help of a robot? Children’s perspectives on robotic gait training technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Robotic gait training is an emerging intervention that holds great therapeutic promise in the rehabilitation of children with neuromotor disorders such as cerebral palsy (CP). Little is known about children and parents' views on this new technology. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the expectations and experiences of children with CP in relation to robotic gait training using the Lokomat®Pro. METHOD: An interpretivist qualitative design was employed in which perspectives of children and parents were elicited through separate semi-structured interviews to examine expectations of and experiences with the Lokomat. RESULTS: Four themes related to children's expectations and experiences using the Lokomat were identified: (1) Not sure what to expect, but okay, I will do it; (2) It's more than just the Lokomat, it's the people that make the difference; (3) Having mixed impressions about the Lokomat; and (4) It's probably helping me, but I don't really know. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation professionals, researchers and parents are encouraged to reflect on why and how one might engage children in gait-related rehabilitation in ways that appeal to children's desires and expectations. This may shape how interventions are presented to children and how goals and outcomes are framed. Implications for Rehabilitation Children in this study did not consistently feel excited about, have a wish to use, or have a sustained interest in the use of a robotic technology, and at times experienced some anxiety in relation to their participation in the intervention. Contrary to assumptions that disabled children value walking "normally", children in this study did not express a desire to walk in typical (non-disabled) gait patterns, and equated so-called "normal" walking with their usual walking styles. Thus, we encourage clinicians, researchers and parents to reflect on why, when and how best to engage children in gait-related rehabilitation in ways that appeal to and align with children's desires and expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".