Next Article in Journal
Inflammatory Cell-Targeted Delivery Systems for Myocardial Infarction Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
Round Well Inset for Uniform Electric Field Distribution in Electroporation Applications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Exploring the Impact of Socially Assistive Robots in Rehabilitation Scenarios

by
Arianna Carnevale
1,
Alessandra Raso
1,
Carla Antonacci
1,2,
Letizia Mancini
1,2,
Alessandra Corradini
1,
Alice Ceccaroli
1,
Carlo Casciaro
1,
Vincenzo Candela
1,
Alessandro de Sire
3,4,
Pieter D’Hooghe
5 and
Umile Giuseppe Longo
1,6,*
1
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Álvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128 Roma, Italy
2
Laboratory of Measurement and Biomedical Instrumentation, Department of Engineering, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Álvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Roma, Italy
3
Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Catanzaro “Magna Graecia”, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
4
Research Center on Musculoskeletal Health, MusculoSkeletalHealth@UMG, University of Catanzaro “Magna Graecia”, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy
5
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sportsmedicine, Aspetar Hospital, Doha 29222, Qatar
6
Research Unit of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Roma, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bioengineering 2025, 12(2), 204; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020204
Submission received: 2 January 2025 / Revised: 28 January 2025 / Accepted: 13 February 2025 / Published: 19 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Biomedical Engineering and Biomaterials)

Abstract

Background: Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) represent an innovative approach in rehabilitation technology, significantly enhancing the support and motivation for individuals across diverse rehabilitation settings. Despite their growing utilization, especially in stroke recovery and pediatric rehabilitation, their potential in musculoskeletal and orthopedic rehabilitation remains largely underexplored. Although there is methodological and outcome variability across the included studies, this review aims to critically evaluate and summarize the research on SARs in rehabilitation, providing a thorough overview of the current evidence and practical applications. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, resulting in the selection of 20 studies for analysis. The reviewed papers were categorized into three main classes based on the roles of the robots in rehabilitation: Motivation, Imitation, and Feedback Providers. Results: The analysis highlights that SARs significantly improve adherence to rehabilitation programs, enhance motor function, and increase motivation across clinical and home settings. Robots such as NAO, Pepper, and ZORA demonstrated high efficacy, particularly in stroke recovery and pediatric rehabilitation. Conclusions: SARs offer transformative benefits in rehabilitation, providing scalable, personalized solutions through motivational support, guided exercises, and real-time feedback. Their integration into orthopedic rehabilitation could address critical clinical needs, enhancing precision in exercises, adherence to long-term programs, and overall patient outcomes. Future research should prioritize the development and validation of SAR-based interventions for musculoskeletal disorders to unlock their full potential in this domain.

1. Introduction

Robotics, as a technological domain, encompasses the design, operation, and application of computer systems, electronics, and software programming to perform tasks involving information processing, signal control, and feedback measurement [1]. This field has led to the development of automated machines capable of replicating or replacing human functions across various industries. In recent years, a significant rise in robotic applications has been observed in rehabilitation and assistive technology [1,2]. The increased utilization can be attributed to the robots’ ability to provide consistent, repeatable movements, offer treatments with controlled intensity, and engage patients in their therapy, ultimately improving their independence and social interaction [2,3]. Additionally, robot-assisted therapy enables rehabilitation teams, including physiotherapists, physicians, and bioengineers, to customize therapy by adjusting parameters like exercise type, assistance level, and kinematics [4,5]. Robots can assist psychologically and physically, especially when an affected limb is no longer functional.
In the past decade, research into social robots capable of autonomous interaction has expanded [6,7,8,9]. Among these, Assistive Robots and Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) have seen significant development. Assistive Robots are primarily designed to provide physical support or assistance to patients during rehabilitation or daily activities [10,11]. These robots typically interact with users through mechanical means, such as offering resistance during exercises, supporting movements, or compensating for physical disabilities (e.g., robotic exoskeletons or end-effectors used in rehabilitation) [12,13,14]. Their primary focus is on enhancing motor recovery and improving physical function [10]. On the other hand, SARs aim to provide social and therapeutic support without direct physical interaction [14]. They often feature personalized interactions, encouragement, and real-time feedback, creating a more engaging and supportive therapeutic environment. SARs have shown great potential in engaging patients in various therapeutic settings, including autism treatment and rehabilitation exercises [12,15,16,17]. Their growing relevance is also driven by the rising elderly population and the increased incidence of conditions such as strokes and neurodegenerative diseases, which call for scalable, effective rehabilitation solutions [18,19,20]. SARs are primarily utilized to enhance motor and cognitive functions, motivate patients, and improve overall quality of life, especially for individuals recovering from strokes, managing chronic diseases, or with musculoskeletal disorders. These robots employ communication techniques like gestures, speech, and eye contact to engage patients, guiding them through the rehabilitation process. They have been developed in multiple forms and designs, serving specialized purposes across different interventions, including rehabilitation, treatment, and diagnostics. Humanoid robots, animal-like robots, toy robots, and robotics kits are just a few examples [17,21]. Research has shown that intensive and repetitive practice of functional tasks is essential for recovery, and SARs provide an effective way to deliver this type of therapy [22]. By keeping patients motivated and offering real-time feedback, SARs improve treatment adherence and reduce the need for constant human supervision [23]. This ability to offer continuous, personalized care makes them invaluable in rehabilitation, not only supporting patients but also relieving caregivers from more routine tasks so they can focus on more complex aspects of care. Given the increasing demand for rehabilitation services, SARs play a pivotal role in lightening the workload for healthcare professionals and caregivers [10]. These robots deliver real-time feedback, monitor progress, and provide personalized therapy in both clinical and home environments, enhancing scalability and effectiveness in rehabilitation programs [22]. Overall, the use of SARs in rehabilitation signifies a promising advancement in healthcare and robotics, presenting innovative methods to engage and support patients while enhancing the scalability and efficiency of rehabilitation.
While other reviews have addressed SARs in fields such as mental health, pain management for children, and care for the elderly [24,25,26], this review primarily focuses on their application in motor rehabilitation, emphasizing their role in supporting patients’ physical recovery and functional improvement. Despite the heterogeneity of the included studies—varying in methodologies, sample sizes, and outcome measures—this review aims to critically evaluate and synthesize research on SARs in rehabilitation settings, providing a comprehensive overview of current findings and practical applications. Moreover, certain rehabilitation domains, such as musculoskeletal and orthopedic conditions, remain underexplored in the existing literature, highlighting important avenues for future investigation.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines [27]. The protocol of the systematic review was officially registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) database, with the registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6XECG, accessed on 28 January 2025. This paper was focused on qualitatively synthesizing and summarizing the existing literature without employing advanced statistical methods or quantitative analysis [28,29]. The literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science, to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant studies published between 2008 and September 2024. The search encompassed a range of conferences, journals, and technical publications. The database search query was designed around two key concepts: the intervention (Socially Assistive Robots, SARs) and the context (rehabilitation). Free-text terms and Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used to construct the search strategy. The following keywords were applied individually and in combination: “Socially Assistive Robots”, “Rehabilitation”, and “Robot-Assisted Therapy. In detail, in each database, the search was executed as follows: (“Socially Assistive Robots” OR “rehabilitation robots” OR “robot-assisted therapy” OR “robotic rehabilitation” OR “robotic therapy” OR “assistive robots” OR “socially assistive technology”) AND (“rehabilitation” OR “physical therapy” OR “occupational therapy” OR “motor rehabilitation” OR “neurorehabilitation”) AND (“robot-assisted therapy” OR “robotic intervention” OR “robotic training” OR “robot-assisted rehabilitation”). This strategy ensured that all potential studies involving SARs and their application in rehabilitation were included, provided they met the following inclusion criteria:
  • The study must exclusively address rehabilitation, including only research that explicitly focuses on rehabilitation practices.
  • The study must incorporate the use of one or more robots in the rehabilitation process for individuals with various conditions, specifically utilizing SARs as a core component of the therapeutic or rehabilitative intervention.
  • The study must incorporate the use of one or more robots in the rehabilitation process for individuals with various conditions, specifically utilizing socially assistive robots (SARs) as a core component of the therapeutic or rehabilitative intervention.
The selection process is summarized in Figure 1. After duplicates were removed, the titles and abstracts of the articles retrieved from the search were independently screened by three reviewers. The same reviewers conducted a detailed assessment of each full-text article considered for inclusion. In cases of disagreement, the final decision on inclusion or exclusion was reached through discussion with three additional reviewers. From the initial screening process, 57 studies were identified as relevant to the review. Following a more detailed examination, 37 articles were excluded due to their focus on qualitative assessments rather than rehabilitation or reliance solely on interviews or non-empirical data.
After this filtering process, 20 studies were deemed eligible and were analyzed in full. Additionally, the reviewed articles were grouped into different categories. These categories highlighted the diverse roles of robots in rehabilitation, showcasing their potential to enhance therapeutic engagement, learning, and outcomes. The three categories were detailed as follows:
  • Studies focusing on motivation, where robots were used to enhance patient engagement during therapy. This category included studies where robots were primarily used to enhance patient motivation and encouragement during rehabilitation activities. Their primary role was to offer emotional and motivational support, fostering user engagement through intelligent interactions designed to improve health and psychological well-being by providing companionship.
  • Studies emphasize imitation, where robots demonstrate exercises for patients to replicate. In this category, robots were employed to demonstrate specific rehabilitation exercises, which patients were required to imitate. The primary objective was to guide patients through movements, ensuring they replicated the robot’s actions as accurately as possible.
  • Studies leveraging feedback, where robots provided real-time corrections and guidance to patients during rehabilitation. This category included studies where robots were utilized to provide corrections and feedback on the movements performed by patients during rehabilitation exercises, monitoring and improving their performance. The robots in these studies played a crucial role in ensuring that patients performed the exercises accurately, offering real-time guidance and adjustments.

3. Results

The characteristics of the reviewed studies, including titles, publication years, robots used, patient populations, and study aims, are summarized in Table 1.
A total of 225 patients with different characteristics were identified across the selected articles. The included studies addressed a variety of pathologies, with 40% focusing on neurological disorders, 20% on cardiovascular rehabilitation, 25% on motor or physical disabilities, and 15% on other types of pathologies. Regarding the age distribution of participants, 50% of the studies involved adults aged 18 to 65 years, 30% focused on individuals over 65 years, and 20% included pediatric populations under 18 years. The heterogeneity of the studies was also evident in the rehabilitation outcomes associated with the use of SARs. Specifically, 70% of the studies reported substantial improvements in patient rehabilitation, 20% showed moderate enhancements in recovery, and 10% found no significant or measurable effects.
Additionally, in this review, the studies were grouped into three primary categories based on the roles of SARs in rehabilitation: motivation, imitation, and feedback providers. The analysis of the categorized studies revealed notable heterogeneity in their approaches and objectives. Specifically, eight studies focused on motivation, emphasizing the role of robots in enhancing patient engagement and therapeutic adherence [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].
Robots such as NAO and Pepper provided continuous verbal feedback, encouragement, and gamified exercises to motivate patients, thereby reducing the need for constant therapist supervision. For example, in cardiac rehabilitation, studies by Céspedes et al. and Casas et al. reported improved patient adherence and faster recovery due to NAO’s motivational feedback [30,31]. In the study by Casas et al., NAO provided personalized motivational support during physical exercises in cardiac rehabilitation, improving patient adherence to the rehabilitation program [33]. Similarly, Buitrago et al. found that NAO enhanced walking performance in a child with cerebral palsy through regular encouragement and personalized guidance [37]. In elderly rehabilitation, Pérez et al. noted that SARs contributed to better physical and mental activity engagement, improving the overall quality of life [32]. Additionally, Meyer et al. and Irfan et al. highlighted the positive impact of motivational robots on patient confidence and participation during therapy sessions [34,35]. Polak et al. explored the use of Pepper in gamified upper-limb rehabilitation exercises, demonstrating enhanced patient engagement and bilateral hand use [36].
Four studies centered on imitation, where robots demonstrated exercises for patients to replicate, fostering learning and motor skill acquisition [38,39,40,41]. For instance, Carrillo et al. showed how NAO effectively led pediatric rehabilitation sessions for children with cerebral palsy, enabling more autonomous therapy [38]. Similarly, Van den Heuvel et al. demonstrated that ZORA’s imitation exercises improved motor skills and engagement in children with severe disabilities, although the novelty of the robot diminished over time [39]. Butchart et al. and Malik et al. highlighted NAO’s ability to increase motivation and participation in therapy for children with cerebral palsy while receiving positive feedback from parents and therapists [40,41].
Lastly, eight studies were classified as feedback providers, leveraging robotic systems to deliver real-time corrections and guidance, thereby optimizing movement accuracy and rehabilitation outcomes [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. For example, Tapus et al. demonstrated that SARs tailored to patient personality traits enhanced exercise performance during post-stroke rehabilitation [42].
Bryant et al. found that children preferred NAO’s corrective feedback in a virtual reality game over human feedback, which increased motivation and improved movement accuracy [43]. Sobrepera et al. developed Lil’Flo to monitor upper extremity motor rehabilitation, providing effective real-time feedback and a more interactive experience than traditional systems [44]. Polak et al. and Matarić et al. reported significant clinical improvements in stroke rehabilitation, with SARs enhancing measures like the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA-UE) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) [45,46]. Similarly, in the study by Pulido et al., the NAO robot demonstrated poses for pediatric patients with motor disabilities [48]. The robot provided verbal feedback and corrective actions as needed, focusing on keeping the children engaged in their exercises without the need for continuous human intervention. Additionally, Lee et al. showed that NAO’s real-time corrections achieved accuracy comparable to expert assessments, improving patient confidence and engagement [49].
Table 1. Summary of included studies.
Table 1. Summary of included studies.
TitleYearRobotParticipantsAim and MethodsFindings
#DiagnosisAge
A Socially Assistive Robot for Long-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Real World [30]2021NAO20Cardiac diseases43–80 yearsEvaluate NAO’s role in motivating long-term cardiac rehabilitation by providing continuous feedback and encouragementPatients in the robot-assisted group showed improved adherence and faster recovery in heart rate and physical performance
Architecture for a Social Assistive Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation [31]2018NAO1Myocardial infarction55 yearsTest NAO’s ability to monitor and correct posture during cardiac rehabilitation, offering support and motivational feedbackRobot successfully monitored and corrected posture; patient reported positive experience, but response time could be improved
Caregiver and Social Assistant Robot for Rehabilitation and Coaching for the Elderly [32]2015LEGO Mindstorms NXT28Elderly participants-Develop a robot to coach elderly people in physical and mental activities to maintain healthy habitsParticipants found the robot easy to use and motivating, with high satisfaction reported in questionnaires
Social Assistive Robots: Assessing the Impact of a Training Assistant Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation [33]2020NAO6Myocardial infarction or coronary bypass58 yearsEvaluate NAO’s impact on motivation during phase II cardiac rehabilitation by providing continuous feedback and monitoringRobot increased patient motivation and reduced heart rate at rest compared to the control group
Robotic Companions in Stroke Therapy: A User Study on the Efficacy of Assistive Robotics among 30 Patients in Neurological Rehabilitation [34]2017ROSEAS30StrokeVarious agesAssess ROREAS in guiding stroke patients during walking exercises, improving motivation and self-confidence60% of patients preferred robot-assisted walking exercises; confidence and motivation increased during the intervention
Using a Personalised Socially Assistive Robot for Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Long-Term Case Study [35]2020NAO1Myocardial infarction60 yearsEvaluate NAO’s personalized feedback in motivating a patient during long-term cardiac rehabilitationRobot successfully identified a critical health event, improved recovery and adherence over 35 sessions
Novel Gamified System for Post-Stroke Upper-Limb Rehabilitation Using a Social Robot [36]2022Pepper12Clinicians expert in post-stroke rehabilitation-Explore Pepper’s use in gamified rehabilitation for upper limb post-stroke, using functional movement gamesClinicians found the system engaging; suggestions included adding bilateral hand use options
A Framework for User Adaptation and Profiling for Social Robotics in Rehabilitation [47]2020NAO3Cerebral palsy and brachial plexus palsy7–9 yearsImprove rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy using NAO, adapting therapy sessions based on patient needsSystem achieved high accuracy in posture detection (85%), improving motivation and simplifying clinician workload
“Evaluating the Child–Robot Interaction of the NAOTherapist Platform in Pediatric Rehabilitation [48]2017NAO3Motor disabilities7–9 yearsEvaluate the interaction between NAO and children during upper-limb rehabilitation, monitoring pose accuracyChildren demonstrated high engagement; system worked autonomously without human intervention
Adapting a General-Purpose Social Robot for Paediatric Rehabilitation through In Situ Design [38]2018NAO9Cerebral palsy4–12 yearsAdapt NAO for pediatric rehabilitation, reducing therapist intervention and improving patient complianceRobot improved motivation and reduced session downtime; some technical issues reported (e.g., speech recognition)
Design, Development, and Evaluation of an Interactive Personalized Social Robot to Monitor and Coach Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Exercises [49]2023NAO15Stroke55 yearsDesign a personalized social robot for stroke survivors, providing real-time feedback and monitoring exercisesSystem showed 81% accuracy in movement monitoring; participants reported increased confidence in performing exercises
Robot ZORA in Rehabilitation and Special Education for Children with Severe Physical Disabilities: A Pilot Study [39]2017ZORA17Sever physical disabilities31 months–18 yearsExplore the feasibility and usability of ZORA in rehabilitation and special education for children with disabilitiesImproved motor, communication, and cognitive skills, though interest in the robot declined over time
A motor learning therapeutic intervention for a child with cerebral palsy through a social assistive robot [37]2019NAO1Dyskinetic cerebral palsy8 yearsEvaluate NAO’s role in improving motor learning in a child with cerebral palsy during walking exercisesChild improved walking performance, increasing steps without falling from 18 to 31 over 16 sessions
Hands-Off Therapist Robot Behavior Adaptation to User Personality for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Therapy [42]2007NAO11Healthy participants19–35 yearsDesign a robot that adapts feedback based on user personality (introvert/extrovert) during post-stroke rehabilitationRobot adapted its behavior to user personality, leading to improved exercise performance. Extroverts preferred faster interactions
The Effect of Robot vs. Human Corrective Feedback on Children’s Intrinsic Motivation [43]2019NAO10-4–8 yearsCompare the motivational impact of corrective feedback from NAO vs. human therapists in a VR rehabilitation gameChildren receiving feedback from NAO reported higher motivation compared to human feedback; however, differences were not significant
The Design of Lil’Flo, a Socially Assistive Robot for Upper Extremity Motor Assessment and Rehabilitation in the Community via Telepresence [44]2021Lil’Flo13Clinicians-Test Lil’Flo’s usability in upper extremity motor assessment and telepresence-based rehabilitationClinicians found Lil’Flo promising for remote rehabilitation, more interactive than traditional telepresence systems
Socially Assistive Robot for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Long-Term in-the-Wild Pilot Randomized Controlled Tria [45]2024Pepper33Post-stroke58 yearsEvaluate Pepper’s long-term role in providing feedback and monitoring in upper-limb post-stroke rehabilitationPatients in the robot group showed significant improvements in clinical measures like FMA-UE and ARAT
Socially Assistive Robotics for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation [46]2007-6Post-stroke-Evaluate a non-contact SAR in motivating stroke patients to use their affected arm, improving adherence to exercisesRobot improved motivation and adherence to exercises, offering feedback without physical contact
Child and Parent Perceptions of Acceptability and Therapeutic Value of a Socially Assistive Robot Used During Pediatric Rehabilitation [40]2019NAO5Cerebral palsy6–12 yearsAssess NAO’s acceptability and therapeutic value during pediatric rehabilitation by parents and childrenChildren and parents found the robot acceptable and motivating. Some preferred human interaction
Potential Use of Social Assistive Robot Based Rehabilitation for Children with Cerebral Palsy [41]2022NAO2Cerebral palsy5–14 yearsEvaluate the use of NAO in improving participation and motivation in children with cerebral palsy during rehabilitationChildren showed increased participation and motivation during therapy sessions with NAO

4. Discussion

This review highlights the versatility of SARs across rehabilitation contexts. Their ability to motivate patients, guide exercises through imitation, and provide precise real-time feedback underscores their potential as powerful tools to enhance therapeutic adherence. The analyzed studies consistently demonstrate that SARs can reduce therapist workload, foster patient independence, and improve clinical metrics, making them integral to modern rehabilitation practices. The statistical distribution of studies across different pathologies (40% neurological disorders, 25% motor disabilities, 20% cardiovascular rehabilitation, and 15% other conditions) highlights the areas where SARs have been most widely applied. This distribution reflected the broad applicability of SARs in rehabilitation, with particular emphasis on neurological and motor disorders where the potential for therapeutic assistance was most pronounced. Additionally, 70% of the studies reported substantial improvements in rehabilitation outcomes, underscoring the general effectiveness of SARs in enhancing recovery. A further 20% of the studies showed moderate improvements, while 10% found no measurable effects, indicating that SARs are highly effective in certain contexts, but the overall efficacy can vary depending on the pathology and the specific rehabilitation goals.
The integration of SARs into rehabilitation settings has shown significant promise across various applications, from enhancing patient motivation to demonstrating exercises and providing real-time feedback. By classifying SARs into three main roles—Motivation, Imitation, and Feedback Providers—it becomes clear that robots like NAO, Pepper, ZORA, and others are versatile tools that can be tailored to meet the needs of both clinical and home-based rehabilitation environments. The distribution of these roles across studies (with eight studies focusing on motivation, four on imitation, and eight on feedback provision) highlights the different functions SARs fulfill in rehabilitation settings. SARs are not only effective in promoting engagement and adherence to therapy but also offer precise guidance and correction, helping patients achieve better outcomes with reduced reliance on constant human supervision. This functionality could be particularly beneficial in scenarios where patients are required to complete long-term rehabilitation regimens or exercises independently. With ongoing technological advancements, SARs hold great potential to revolutionize rehabilitation by offering more personalized and efficient therapeutic interventions. As technology continues to evolve, SARs could become central to the future of rehabilitation, offering tailored solutions that meet the unique needs of individual patients while maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of rehabilitation therapies.
Despite these promising findings, a significant gap remains in the application of SARs for musculoskeletal disorders, particularly in orthopedic rehabilitation. The review revealed that a notable 70% of the studies focused on neurological and pediatric populations, while the application of SARs in musculoskeletal conditions remains underexplored. While SARs have demonstrated efficacy in neurological and pediatric rehabilitation, there is a lack of research on their use in musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., rotator cuff injuries, osteoarthritis) and post-surgical rehabilitation. Addressing this gap presents a substantial opportunity for future research and development.
Orthopedic rehabilitation, with its emphasis on restoring muscle strength, joint mobility, and motor control, presents unique challenges that SARs could effectively address. Robots capable of providing real-time feedback and personalized guidance could significantly enhance the quality and precision of rehabilitation exercises. Moreover, SARs could support patients in maintaining adherence to long-term rehabilitation programs, which is often a critical factor in orthopedic recovery. Considering the diversity of the reviewed studies, which focused on various pathologies and outcomes, applying SARs in musculoskeletal rehabilitation could lead to tailored solutions for specific patient needs. Future research should focus on developing and clinically validating SAR-based interventions for musculoskeletal rehabilitation, examining their effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and patient acceptance in orthopedic settings.
While SARs have shown substantial benefits in neurological and pediatric rehabilitation, their application in musculoskeletal and orthopedic rehabilitation remains underexplored [50,51,52]. Expanding the use of SARs in this area could offer significant clinical and economic benefits, improving patient outcomes and reducing the burden on healthcare providers. Addressing this research gap could pave the way for more comprehensive and effective rehabilitation strategies for musculoskeletal disorders.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Research under the complementary actions to the NRRP “Fit4MedRob-Fit for Medical Robotics” Grant (# PNC0000007)-CUP: B53C22006980001.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yakub, F.; Md Khudzari, A.Z.; Mori, Y. Recent trends for practical rehabilitation robotics, current challenges and the future. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2014, 37, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lauretti, C.; Cordella, F.; Guglielmelli, E.; Zollo, L. Learning by Demonstration for Planning Activities of Daily Living in Rehabilitation and Assistive Robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2017, 2, 1375–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Masiero, S.; Carraro, E.; Ferraro, C.; Gallina, P.; Rossi, A.; Rosati, G. Upper limb rehabilitation robotics after stroke: A perspective from the university of padua, Italy. J. Rehabil. Med. 2009, 41, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Giansanti, D. The Rehabilitation and the Robotics: Are They Going Together Well? Healthcare 2020, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lo Presti, D.; Carnevale, A.; D’Abbraccio, J.; Massari, L.; Massaroni, C.; Sabbadini, R.; Zaltieri, M.; Di Tocco, J.; Bravi, M.; Miccinilli, S.; et al. A Multi-Parametric Wearable System to Monitor Neck Movements and Respiratory Frequency of Computer Workers. Sensors 2020, 20, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dickstein-Fischer, L.A.; Crone-Todd, D.E.; Chapman, I.M.; Fathima, A.T.; Fischer, G.S. Socially assistive robots: Current status and future prospects for autism interventions. Innov. Entrep. Health 2018, 5, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ferrari, E.; Robins, B.; Dautenhahn, K. Therapeuticandeducationalobjectives in robot assisted play for children with autism. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan, 27 September–2 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cabibihan, J.J.; Javed, H.; Ang, M., Jr.; Aljunied, S.M. Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2013, 5, 593–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barakova, E.; Lourens, T. Interplay between natural and artificial intelligence in train ing autistic children with robots. In Natural and Artificial Models in Computation and Biology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mehrholz, J.; Pohl, M.; Platz, T.; Kugler, J.; Elsner, B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD006876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Sale, P.; Franceschini, M.; Waldner, A.; Hesse, S. Use of the robot assisted gait therapy in rehabilitation of patients with stroke and spinal cord injury. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2012, 48, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Pennazio, V. Social robotics to help children with autism in their interactions through imitation. Res. Educ. Media 2017, 9, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nertinger, S.; Naceri, A.; Haddadin, S. Identifying requirements for the implementation of robot-assisted physical therapy in humanoids: A user-centered design approach. In Proceedings of the 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Busan, Republic of Korea, 28–31 August 2023; pp. 2316–2321. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mohammed, S.; Park, H.W.; Park, C.H.; Amirat, Y.; Argall, B. Special issue on assistive and rehabilitation robotics. Auton. Robot. 2017, 41, 513–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Katsanis, I.A.; Moulianitis, V.C. Criteria for the Design and Application of Socially Assistive Robots in Interventions for Children with Autism. In Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Matarić, M.J.; Scassellati, B. Socially Assistive Robotics. In Springer Handbook of Robotics; Siciliano, B., Khatib, O., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1973–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Scassellati, B.; Admoni, H.; Matarić, M. Robots for Use in Autism Research. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2012, 14, 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dembovski, A.; Amitai, Y.; Levy-Tzedek, S. A Socially Assistive Robot for Stroke Patients: Acceptance, Needs, and Concerns of Patients and Informal Caregivers. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2022, 2, 793233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Fields, L.K.; Muxlow, C.J.; Caldwell, P.E. Arthroscopic treatment of subscapularis calcific tendonitis. Arthrosc. Tech. 2014, 3, e571–e573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Franceschi, F.; Longo, U.G.; Ruzzini, L.; Rizzello, G.; Maffulli, N.; Denaro, V. The Roman Bridge: A “double pulley-suture bridges” technique for rotator cuff repair. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2007, 8, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sartorato, F.; Przybylowski, L.; Sarko, D.K. Improving therapeutic outcomes in autism spectrum disorders: Enhancing social communication and sensory processing through the use of interactive robots. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2017, 90, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Obiedat, Q.M.; Ardehali, M.M.; Smith, R.O. Next Generation of Assistive Social Robotics: Therapeutic Applications. 2018. Available online: https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/conference/2018/other/Obiedat.html (accessed on 27 September 2024).
  23. Getson, C.; Nejat, G. Socially Assistive Robots Helping Older Adults through the Pandemic and Life After COVID-19. Robotics 2021, 10, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scoglio, A.A.; Reilly, E.D.; Gorman, J.A.; Drebing, C.E. Use of Social Robots in Mental Health and Well-Being Research: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21, e13322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Trost, M.J.; Ford, A.R.B.; Kysh, L.M.; Gold, J.I.; Matarić, M. Socially Assistive Robots for Helping Pediatric Distress and Pain: A Review of Current Evidence and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice. Clin. J. Pain 2019, 35, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Abdi, J.; Al-Hindawi, A.; Ng, T.; Vizcaychipi, M.P. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e018815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Baumeister, R.F.; Leary, M.R. Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1997, 1, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Paré, G.; Trudel, M.-C.; Jaana, M.; Kitsiou, S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Céspedes, N.; Irfan, B.; Senft, E.; Cifuentes, C.A.; Gutierrez, L.F.; Rincon-Roncancio, M.; Belpaeme, T.; Múnera, M. A Socially Assistive Robot for Long-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Real World. Front. Neurorobotics 2021, 15, 633248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Casas, J.; Gomez, N.C.; Senft, E.; Irfan, B.; Gutiérrez, L.F.; Rincón, M.; Múnera, M.; Belpaeme, T.; Cifuentes, C.A. Architecture for a Social Assistive Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 2nd Colombian Conference on Robotics and Automation (CCRA), Barranquilla, Colombia, 1–3 November 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pérez, P.; Garcia-Zapirain, B.; Mendez-Zorrilla, A. Caregiver and Social Assistant Robot for Rehabilitation and Coaching for the Elderly. Technol. Health Care 2015, 23, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Casas, J.; Senft, E.; Gutiérrez, L.F.; Rincón-Rocancio, M.; Múnera, M.; Belpaeme, T.; Cifuentes, C.A. Social Assistive Robots: Assessing the Impact of a Training Assistant Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2021, 13, 1189–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meyer, S.; Fricke, C. Robotic companions in stroke therapy: A user study on the efficacy of assistive robotics among 30 patients in neurological rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, Portugal, 28 August–1 September 2017; pp. 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  35. Irfan, B.; Gomez, N.C.; Casas, J.; Senft, E.; Gutiérrez, L.F.; Rincon-Roncancio, M. Using a Personalised Socially Assistive Robot for Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Long-Term Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Naples, Italy, 31 August–4 September 2020; pp. 124–130. [Google Scholar]
  36. Polak, R.F.; Bistritsky, A.; Gozlan, Y.; Levy-Tzedek, S. Novel gamified system for post-stroke upper-limb rehabilitation using a social robot: Focus groups of expert clinicians. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR), Tel Aviv, Israel, 21–24 July 2019; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  37. Buitrago, J.A.; Bolaños, A.M.; Caicedo Bravo, E. A motor learning therapeutic intervention for a child with cerebral palsy through a social assistive robot. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2019, 15, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Martí Carrillo, F.; Butchart, J.; Knight, S.; Scheinberg, A.; Wise, L.; Sterling, L.; McCarthy, C. Adapting a General-Purpose Social Robot for Paediatric Rehabilitation Through In Situ Design. ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot Interact. 2018, 7, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Heuvel, R.J.v.D.; Lexis, M.A.; de Witte, L.P. Robot ZORA in rehabilitation and special education for children with severe physical disabilities: A pilot study. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2017, 40, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Butchart, J.; Harrison, R.; Ritchie, J.; Martí, F.; McCarthy, C.; Knight, S.; Scheinberg, A. Child and parent perceptions of acceptability and therapeutic value of a socially assistive robot used during pediatric rehabilitation. Disabil. Rehabil. 2019, 43, 1163–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Malik, N.A.; Yussof, H.; Hanapiah, F.A. Potential use of Social Assistive Robot based rehabilitation for children with Cerebral Palsy. In Proceedings of the 2016 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Manufacturing Automation (ROMA), Ipoh, Malaysia, 25–27 September 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tapus, A.; Tapus, C.; Mataric, M.J. Hands-Off Therapist Robot Behavior Adaptation to User Personality for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Therapy. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome, Italy, 10–14 April 2007; pp. 1547–1553. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bryant, D.G.; Xu, J.; Chen, Y.P.; Howard, A. The Effect of Robot vs. Human Corrective Feedback on Children’s Intrinsic Motivation. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Republic of Korea, 11–14 March 2019; pp. 638–639. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sobrepera, M.J.; Lee, V.G.; Johnson, M.J. The Design of Lil’Flo, a Socially Assistive Robot for Upper Extremity Motor Assessment and Rehabilitation in the Community Via Telepresence. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Feingold-Polak, R.; Barzel, O.; Levy-Tzedek, S. Socially Assistive Robot for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Long-Term in-the-Wild Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. A Publ. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2024, 32, 1616–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Matarić, M.J.; Eriksson, J.; Feil-Seifer, D.J.; Winstein, C.J. Socially Assistive Robotics for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2007, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Martín, A.; Pulido, J.C.; González, J.C.; García-Olaya, Á.; Suárez, C. A Framework for User Adaptation and Profiling for Social Robotics in Rehabilitation. Sensors 2020, 20, 4792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pulido, J.C.; González, J.C.; Suárez-Mejías, C.; Bandera, A.; Bustos, P.; Fernández, F. Evaluating the Child–Robot Interaction of the NAOTherapist Platform in Pediatric Rehabilitation. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2017, 9, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hun Lee, M.; Siewiorek, D.P.; Smailagic, A.; Bernardino, A.; Bermudez i Badia, S. Design, Development, and Evaluation of an Interactive Personalized Social Robot to Monitor and Coach Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Exercises. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2305.07632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moggio, L.; de Sire, A.; Marotta, N.; Demeco, A.; Ammendolia, A. Exoskeleton versus end-effector robot-assisted therapy for finger-hand motor recovery in stroke survivors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2022, 29, 539–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Calafiore, D.; Negrini, F.; Tottoli, N.; Ferraro, F.; Ozyemisci-Taskiran, O.; de Sire, A. Efficacy of robotic exoskeleton for gait rehabilitation in patients with subacute stroke: A systematic review. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2022, 58, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Calafiore, D.; Invernizzi, M.; Ammendolia, A.; Marotta, N.; Fortunato, F.; Paolucci, T.; Ferraro, F.; Curci, C.; Cwirlej-Sozanska, A.; de Sire, A. Efficacy of Virtual Reality and Exergaming in Improving Balance in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 773459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Bioengineering 12 00204 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carnevale, A.; Raso, A.; Antonacci, C.; Mancini, L.; Corradini, A.; Ceccaroli, A.; Casciaro, C.; Candela, V.; de Sire, A.; D’Hooghe, P.; et al. Exploring the Impact of Socially Assistive Robots in Rehabilitation Scenarios. Bioengineering 2025, 12, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020204

AMA Style

Carnevale A, Raso A, Antonacci C, Mancini L, Corradini A, Ceccaroli A, Casciaro C, Candela V, de Sire A, D’Hooghe P, et al. Exploring the Impact of Socially Assistive Robots in Rehabilitation Scenarios. Bioengineering. 2025; 12(2):204. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020204

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carnevale, Arianna, Alessandra Raso, Carla Antonacci, Letizia Mancini, Alessandra Corradini, Alice Ceccaroli, Carlo Casciaro, Vincenzo Candela, Alessandro de Sire, Pieter D’Hooghe, and et al. 2025. "Exploring the Impact of Socially Assistive Robots in Rehabilitation Scenarios" Bioengineering 12, no. 2: 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020204

APA Style

Carnevale, A., Raso, A., Antonacci, C., Mancini, L., Corradini, A., Ceccaroli, A., Casciaro, C., Candela, V., de Sire, A., D’Hooghe, P., & Longo, U. G. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Socially Assistive Robots in Rehabilitation Scenarios. Bioengineering, 12(2), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020204

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop