Modification of the toronto rehabilitation institute—hand function test for integration into robot-assisted therapy: technical validation and usability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective rehabilitation of the upper extremity function is vital for individuals recovering from stroke or cervical spinal cord injury, as it can enable them to regain independence in daily tasks. While robotic therapy provides precise and consistent motor training, it often lacks the integration of real-world objects that stimulate sensorimotor experiences. The Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-Hand Function Test (TRI-HFT) utilizes 19 everyday items to assess hand function. This study aims to modify the 3D-printed TRI-HFT objects to ensure their compatibility with robotic manipulation, thereby enhancing the functional relevance of robot-assisted rehabilitation, and to evaluate the usability of the new robotic system to ensure its safety and technical performance. RESULTS: We successfully redesigned the 3D-TRI-HFT objects to enable manipulation by a robotic arm equipped with a gripper. The modified 3D-printed objects closely matched the original specifications, with most weight and size deviations within acceptable limits. Performance tests demonstrated reliable robotic manipulation, achieving a 100% success rate in 50 pick-and-place trials for each object without any breakage or slippage. Usability assessments further supported the system's performance, indicating that participants found the system engaging, useful, and comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: The modified 3D-printed TRI-HFT objects allow seamless integration into robotic therapy, facilitating the use of real-world objects in rehabilitation exercises. These modifications enhance functional engagement without compromising user interaction with the objects, demonstrating the feasibility of combining traditional rehabilitation tools with robotic systems, potentially leading to improved outcomes in upper extremity rehabilitation. Future research may focus on adapting these designs for compatibility with a broader range of robotic equipment, reducing the cost of the objects as 3D printing technology advances, and evaluating the system's performance among individuals with stroke and SCI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".