Usability and Functional Outcomes of the Obi3 Robotic Feeding Device: A Mixed-Methods Study Among Persons with Disabilities, Caregivers, and Providers (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loss of self-feeding ability due to severe bilateral upper extremity motor impairment (BUEMI) limits functional independence with a critical activity of daily living, increases medical risks, reduces social participation, and affects overall well-being. Robotic feeding devices are an emerging category of assistive technology. Obi3 is a third-generation, robotic feeding device, regulated in the United States as a Class I medical device and CE marked as a Class I device under the European Union Medical Device Regulation. The device is designed to enable people with BUEMI to independently select and safely consume food and liquid using accessible switches or interfaces while maintaining culturally normative dining practices. Although earlier Obi generations showed promise, comprehensive usability data across multiple stakeholder groups remains limited. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the usability, safety, and clinical relevance of Obi3 in real-world use from the perspectives of people with BUEMI, caregivers, and rehabilitation providers. The findings were intended to generate evidence to inform clinical decision-making and determinations of medical necessity for potential DME coverage, consistent with the device's intended use and clinician-assessed implementation. METHODS: A mixed methods usability study provided a 1-week home trial of Obi3. Quantitative measures included the System Usability Scale (SUS), survey items adapted from the Matching Person and Technology (MPT) framework, and self-feeding ratings based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health impairment scale. Paired-sample t tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and effect sizes (Cohen d) assessed changes in self-feeding scores. Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses and follow-up semistructured interviews were analyzed thematically to complement quantitative findings. RESULTS: =10.75; P<.001; Cohen d=3.40). All patient participants demonstrated improvement in functional self-feeding ability. Mean SUS scores exceeded the benchmark for acceptable usability (≥68) across stakeholder groups: 82.8 (SD 17.2) for people with BUEMI, 85.2 (SD 12.6) for caregivers, and 85.0 (SD 10.7) for providers. Responses to MPT items indicated strong alignment between user goals and device capabilities, perceived safety, and low complexity. Caregivers reported reduced feeding-related workload and stress, and providers endorsed ease of clinical integration. No adverse events or device malfunctions occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Obi3 demonstrated high usability, safety, and clinical use in restoring self-feeding independence among individuals with severe BUEMI. Findings across people with BUEMI, caregivers, and providers support Obi3 as an effective DME that may enhance user autonomy and reduce caregiver burden. Lengthier longitudinal studies are needed to establish long-term clinical efficacy and health outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".