Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T16:51:30.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Human Evaluation of Wheelchair Robot for Active Postural Support (WRAPS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2019

Chawin Ophaswongse
Robotics and Rehabilitation Laboratory (ROAR Lab), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. E-mails:,,
Rosemarie C. Murray
Robotics and Rehabilitation Laboratory (ROAR Lab), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. E-mails:,,
Victor Santamaria
Robotics and Rehabilitation Laboratory (ROAR Lab), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. E-mails:,,
Qining Wang
The Robotics Research Group, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China. E-mail:
Sunil K. Agrawal*
Robotics and Rehabilitation Laboratory (ROAR Lab), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. E-mails:,,
*Corresponding author. E-mail:


People with severe neuromuscular trunk impairment cannot maintain or control upright posture of the upper body in sitting while reaching. Passive orthoses are clinically available to provide support and promote the use of upper extremities in this population. However, these orthoses only position the torso passively without any degree of trunk movement.

We introduce for the first time a novel active-assistive torso brace called Wheelchair Robot for Active Postural Support (WRAPS). It consists of two rings over the hips and chest connected by a 2RPS-2UPS parallel robotic device. WRAPS can modulate the displacement of the upper ring and/or the forces applied on the torso through the ring in four degrees-of-freedom (DOF), including rotations and translation in the sagittal and frontal planes.

In the present study, we evaluate the design of WRAPS and its functions. Moreover, we discuss the potential effectiveness of WRAPS as a therapeutic robotic tool in people with severe trunk control deficits. The performance of WRAPS was evaluated in seated healthy subjects. Kinematics and surface electromyography (sEMG) were collected when the participants performed selective trunk movements. First, the torso range of motion (tROM) was calculated with WRAPS in transparent mode—zero-force control mode—which was compared with free-guided tROM (no WRAPS) with motion capture system. Second, a position control mode was configured to mobilize the torso along the trajectories obtained with the transparent mode.

Our results show that the design of WRAPS suited well the subject’s anthropometrics while supporting the weight of the torso. Importantly, WRAPS can be programmed to replicate the subject’s tROM, without the full activation of torso muscles. This can be critical in individuals with no trunk control. Altogether, these preliminary results indicate the potential applicability of WRAPS to promote active-assistive trunk mobility in people who cannot sit independently because of trunk dysfunction.

© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


“Spinal Cord Injury Facts and Figures at a Glance 2018,” National SCI Statistical Center, Birmingham, AL (2018).Google Scholar
Forslund, E. B., Roaldsen, K. S., Hultling, C., Wahman, K. and Franzén, E., “Concerns about falling in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury-validation of the swedish version of the spinal cord injury falls concern scale,Spinal Cord 54(2), 115119 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forslund, E. B., Jørgensen, V., Franzén, E., Opheim, A., Seiger, Å., Ståhle, A., Hultling, C., Stanghelle, J. K., Roaldsen, K. S. and Wahman, K., “High incidence of falls and fall-related injuries in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: A prospective study of risk indicators,J. Rehabil. Med. 49(2), 144151 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sezer, N., “S. Akku¸s and F. G. U˘gurlu, “Chronic complications of spinal cord injury,World J. Orthop . 6(1), 24 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, T., Itami, T., Yano, K., Mori, I. and Kameda, K., “An Assistance Device to Help People with Trunk Impairment Maintain Posture,” In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, London, UK (2017) pp. 358363.Google Scholar
Mahmood, M. N., Peeters, L. H. C., Paalman, M., Verkerke, G. J., Kingma, I. and van Dieën, J. H., “development and evaluation of a passive trunk support system for duchenne muscular dystrophy patients,J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 15, 22 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. C., Ophaswongse, C. and Agrawal, S. K., “Design of a Wheelchair Robot for Active Postural Support,” In: Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Anaheim, CA (2018) pp. V05AT07A059.Google Scholar
Nguyen, C. C., Antrazi, S. C., Zhou, Z. L. and Campbell, C. E., “Analysis and implementation of a 6 DOF stewart platform-based robotic wrist,Comput. Electr. Eng. 17(3), 191203 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, L. W., Robot Analysis: The Mechanics of Serial and Parallel Manipulators (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1999).Google Scholar
Gan, D., Dai, J. S., Dias, J., Umer, R. and Seneviratne, L., “Singularity-free workspace aimed optimal design of a 2T2R parallel mechanism for automated fiber placement,J. Mech. Robot. 7(4), 4102241029 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, G., Van der Helm, F. C., Veeger, H. D.,Makhsous, M., Van Roy, P., Anglin, C., Nagels, J., Karduna, A. R., McQuade, K., Wang, X. and Werner, F. W., “ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion–Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand,J. Biomech. 38(5), 981992 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, M. S., “Electromyographic activity of the abdominal and low back musculature during the generation of isometric and dynamic axial trunk torque: implications for lumbar mechanics,J. Orthop. Res. 9(1), 91103 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danneels, L., Coorevits, P., Cools, A., Vanderstraeten, G., Cambier, D., Witvrouw, E. and De Cuyper, H., “Differences in electromyographic activity in the multifidus muscle and the iliocostalis lumborum between healthy subjects and patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain,Eur. Spine J. 11(1), 1319 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, K., McCarthy, R., White, A., O’Sullivan, L. and Dankaerts, W., “Lumbar posture and trunk muscle activation during a typing task when sitting on a novel dynamic ergonomic chair,Ergonomics 55(120),15861595 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redfern, M. S., Hughes, R. E. and Chaffin, D. B., “High-pass filtering to remove electrocardiographic Interference from torso EMG recordings,Clin. Biomech. 8(1), 4448 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrad, P., The ABC of EMG: A Practical Introduction to Kinesiological Electromyography ver 1.4, (Noraxon U.S.A. Inc., 2006) pp. 161.Google Scholar
Panjabi, M., Abumi, K., Duranceau, J. and Oxland, T., “Spinal stability and intersegmental muscle forces. A Biomechanical model,Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14(2), 194200 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinoshita, H., “Pathology of hyperextension injuries of the cervical spine,Spinal Cord 32(6), 367 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, P. S., Mai, J., Zhou, Z., Agrawal, S. K. and Wang, Q., “Upper-Body Motion Mode Recognition Based on IMUs for a Dynamic Spine Brace,” In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cyborg and Bionic Systems, Shenzhen, China (2018) pp. 167170.Google Scholar