Evaluation of the usability of an actively actuated arm support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic arm supports can be used to increase the autonomy of people with upper limb disabilities, but their usability is often poorly documented. The objective of this study is to evaluate the usability of an actuated arm support (AAS), namely the Gowing power-assisted arm support. Nine participants with neurological disorders restricting their upper limb capacities (DASH = 63.51 ± 7.72) completed various tasks (Upper Extremity Performance Test for the Elderly (TEMPA)) with and without the AAS. Users’ satisfaction (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST)) and perceived benefits of the device (semi-structured interviews) were assessed. Large (effect size ≥ 1.15) and statistically significant (p < .05) improvements were found in the TEMPA functional rating, range of motion, strength, precision of gross movements and prehension patterns subscales while using the AAS. Two third of the participants were quite or very satisfied with the arm support (QUEST > 4/5) and interviews were positive about its usefulness in daily living activities. Our study demonstrated that the use of an AAS could result in significant improvements in the autonomy of people with upper limb disabilities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".