↓ Skip to main content

A Framework for Measuring the Progress in Exoskeleton Skills in People with Complete Spinal Cord Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Framework for Measuring the Progress in Exoskeleton Skills in People with Complete Spinal Cord Injury
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00699
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosanne B. van Dijsseldonk, Hennie Rijken, Ilse J. W. van Nes, Henk van de Meent, Noel L. W. Keijsers

Abstract

For safe application of exoskeletons in people with spinal cord injury at home or in the community, it is required to have completed an exoskeleton training in which users learn to perform basic and advanced skills. So far, a framework to test exoskeleton skills is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop and test the hierarchy and reliability of a framework for measuring the progress in the ability to perform basic and advanced skills. Twelve participants with paraplegia were given twenty-four training sessions in 8 weeks with the Rewalk-exoskeleton. During the 2nd, 4th, and 6th training week the Intermediate-skills-test was performed consisting of 27 skills, measured in an hierarchical order of difficulty, until two skills were not achieved. When participants could walk independently, the Final-skills-test, consisting of 20 skills, was performed in the last training session. Each skill was performed at least two times with a maximum of three attempts. As a reliability measure the consistency was used, which was the number of skills performed the same in the first two attempts relative to the total number. Ten participants completed the training program. Their number of achieved intermediate skills was significantly different between the measurements XF2(2) = 12.36, p = 0.001. Post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase in the median achieved intermediate skills from 4 [1-7] at the first to 10.5 [5-26] at the third Intermediate-skills-test. The rate of participants who achieved the intermediate skills decreased and the coefficient of reproducibility was 0.98. Eight participants met the criteria to perform the Final-skills-test. Their median number of successfully performed final skills was 16.5 [13-20] and 17 [14-19] skills in the first and second time. The overall consistency of >70% was achieved in the Intermediate-skills-test (73%) and the Final-skills-test (81%). Eight out of twelve participants experienced skin damage during the training, in four participants this resulted in missed training sessions. The framework proposed in this study measured the progress in performing basic and advanced exoskeleton skills during a training program. The hierarchical ordered skills-test could discriminate across participants' skill-level and the overall consistency was considered acceptable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 27 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,000,448
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,539
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,043
of 443,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#57
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.