Advanced Robotics

ISSN: 0169-1864 (Print) 1568-5535 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tadr20

Simulated crepitus and its reality-based
specification using wearable patient dummy
Shun Ishikawa, Shogo Okamoto, Yasuhiro Akiyama, Kaoru Isogai & Yoji
YamadaTo cite this article: Shun Ishikawa, Shogo Okamoto, Yasuhiro Akiyama, Kaoru Isogai & Yoji
Yamada (2015) Simulated crepitus and its reality-based specification using wearable patientdummy, Advanced Robotics, 29:11, 699-706, DOI: 10.1080/01691864.2014.1002530
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2014.1002530

Published online: 27 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 71

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tadr20
Download by: [Nagoya University]

Date: 11 July 2016, At: 09:01

Advanced Robotics, 2015
Vol. 29, No. 11, 699–706, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2014.1002530

FULL PAPER
Simulated crepitus and its reality-based specification using wearable patient dummy
Shun Ishikawa, Shogo Okamoto∗ , Yasuhiro Akiyama, Kaoru Isogai and Yoji Yamada
Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku Nagoya, Japan(Received 7 March 2014; revised 29 August 2014; accepted 9 October 2014)

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

Physical therapists are trained in manual examination techniques to test the impaired motor functions of patients. In thisstudy, we have introduced a wearable robotic dummy joint to simulate disordered joint resistances or behaviors to support
physical therapists in learning such techniques. We developed a discontinuous joint friction model based on a stick-slip
phenomenon to simulate knee joint resistances caused by crepitus, a typical symptom accompanied by osteoarthritis.
Practicing therapists participated in a reality-based evaluation test and specified acceptable parameter sets to adjust thesimulated crepitus for the exoskeletal patient robot. The simulated crepitus and wearable dummy joint are expected tosupport the training of physical therapists.
Keywords: rehabilitation; patient dummy; wearable robot

1. Introduction
Physical therapy has been attracting increasing attention
for the important role it plays in helping stroke or arthritis
patients to recover their impaired motor functions. Rehabilitation improves patients’ quality of life and reduces medical
costs by enhancing their recovery.
Patient rehabilitation is supported by trained physicaltherapists. In their training, therapists learn manual examination techniques using which they manually move andpalpate affected body parts to investigate biomechanical andneurological reactions. Then, they understand pathology
and identify the site to be treated. During manual examinations, therapists flex and stretch the patient’s joint to understand the degree of sensory-motor impairment based onresistance patterns, range of joint motion, and patient’s complaints such as pain. The resistance patterns of disorderedjoints differ from patient to patient. Therefore, trainee therapists need to experience various patient cases to learn these
testing techniques. However, they enjoy few opportunities
to interact with real patients in training institutions. Even
during internship training, it is ethically problematic for unlicensed trainees to treat patients. To supplement the dearthof experiences available in training institutions, studies havefocused on patient robots to support physical therapists
in learning manual techniques. Asahi Denshi Corp. et al.
developed a robot that simulates the muscle rigidity andlimited motion range of a disordered knee joint.[1] Kikuchi
et al. demonstrated a knee joint robot using a magnetorheological fluid clutch and servomotor to generate large anddynamic resistances, respectively.[2,3] Other researchers∗ Corresponding author. Email: okamoto-shogo@nagoya-u.jp© 2015 Taylor & Francis and The Robotics Society of Japandeveloped elbow robots to simulate spasticity.[4–6] Thesestudies simplified a robot joint as a uniaxial one. Several
researchers have also focused on complex human joint motions. Takahashi et al. simulated the stretch and shorteningof the forearm due to the extension and flexion of the upper
extremity using an oval cum.[7] Morita et al. developeda robotic knee with rotational movement accompanied byknee stretch and flex.[8] Oki Electric Industry Co. Ltd. introduced a rehabilitation training robot that has six degrees of
freedom.[9] Overall, many research groups have developed
patient dummy robots for supporting the training of physicaltherapists in manual examination techniques. To realize thewidespread practical use of these robots, it is crucial tobroaden the types of symptoms that are simulated.
This study aims to simulate crepitus, a discontinuous joint
friction condition caused by osteoarthritis (OA), using an
educational patient dummy robot. Earlier studies mainly
simulated joint rigidity, contracture, and spasticity. However, OA has not yet been simulated, partly because studies
on patient robots for physical therapy are still in their initialstage. Presently, OA is the most common causal symptom
for those who require support providers in daily living inJapan.[10] Therefore, enabling patient robots to simulate
crepitus will improve their effectiveness. It is preferable
that the simulation is grounded on the data collected byactual knee OA patients. However, owing to their possible
mental and physical burdens and little expected interest
that the patients would receive through and after data collection procedures, we avoided the measurement of actual
patients. Alternatively, as a criterion to maintain the validity

700

S. Ishikawa et al.

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016of the simulated symptom, we employed the subjective
similarity that the practicing clinicians perceive.
This study also introduces a wearable dummy robot tosimulate joint impairment. To the best of the authors’knowledge, this is the first study to do so. Wearable dummies
should allow trainee therapists to experience complex motions of human joints, skin, and bone features of humans,
as well as simulated joint disorders. Owing to their highrealism and simplicity, wearable dummies can be a new
approach for patient dummies.
The authors have previously presented the concepts of
the wearable dummy and the crepitus model.[11,12] This
study has additionally specified a model that represents the
typical crepitus experienced by physical therapists throughreality-based rating tasks.

2. Wearable dummy knee joint
Some technical issues must be considered for the development of patient dummies. First, the simulation accuracy
must be ensured. For example, during manual examination, some symptoms involve dynamic or large reaction
forces, which the dummy needs to precisely simulate. Second, the human joint is intrinsically different from robotic
or mechanical joints. For example, the human knee joint
undergoes minor stretch or contraction and rotation when
it extends and flexes; therefore, it has at least three degrees
of freedom. Finally, the dummy should mimic humans interms of factors, such as the appearance, skin, and bonefeatures, so that the trainees feel that they are facing patients. Balancing these issues generally involves a trade-off
between the cost and the simulation accuracy.
Figure 1 shows a wearable dummy joint used in thisstudy and worn by a healthy relaxed person. The dummy
joint has a simple construction, consisting of one motor
and two links. Each link is fixed to the subject’s lower
and femoral thighs through a brace called a cuff. Trainees
practice examination techniques in pairs, with one acting as
the patient and the other acting as the therapist performing
manual examinations. The trainee grasps the lower thighof the mock patient wearing a dummy joint and flexes orextends the knee. The wearer is relaxed and does not exert any voluntary movements. The motor installed on the
dummy joint simulates resistance forces around the knee,
depending on the simulated symptoms.
The dummy joint has neither the rotational nor the sliding
mechanisms of the human knee joint. These mechanicaldifferences between the human and wearable dummy are
resolved by the elasticity of human body tissues or clothes.
Therefore, the trainee can experience the inherent minor
rotations and slides of the human knee joint. Furthermore,unlike with previous dummy robots, the trainee touches
a real human leg, skin, and bones, which makes the patient simulator highly realistic. It should be noted that thisdummy delivers joint resistance forces through nonrigid

Figure 1. Wearable dummy joint to simulate knee-relateddisorders. Trainee extends and flexes the lower thigh to experiencesimulated joint resistances.

connections between the cuff and the human leg. Small
forces tend to be decayed by the wearer’s cloth and bodytissues and are therefore not imparted to the trainee’s hand.
The influence of such attenuation remains to be clarified;
nonetheless, this approach is apparently applicable to symptoms represented by sustained joint resistances, such as
contracture and rigidity.
A geared DC motor (RE35, Maxon, stalling torque949m N·m, 1/86 geared) was installed on the exoskeletal
robot, which was fitted to a healthy femur and lower thighs
using cuffs and cloth bands. The motor was controlled bya microcomputer through a motor driver (Maxon, 4-Q-DC
servo amplifier ADS 50/5) with a PI current controller. The
microcomputer also acquired the joint angle from an encoder mounted on the motor. We compensated for the kinetic
friction force of the reduction gear, which was measured as∼0.2 N·m regardless of the rotary speed.
In this study, the patient robot is aimed for the training of
examination techniques. It is also worthwhile to use it for the
training of therapeutic techniques. During physical therapy,
such as joint stretching, patients may feel pain and takeresistive behaviors against the therapist’s treatment owing
to fear. To extend the use of patient robots to the training oftherapeutic techniques, such patients’ reactivity needs to beconsidered.

3. Resistance model of crepitus
3.1. OA and crepitus
In this study, we focus on crepitus, a discontinuous joint
friction condition that is one of the major symptoms of
OA patients. OA is a chronic painful arthropathy characterized by the disruption and potential loss of joint cartilage
along with other joint changes.[13] Worldwide, 9.6% of
men and 18.0% of women over 60 years of age are estimatedto have symptomatic OA.[14] In Japan, an epidemiologic
study estimated 25 million potential knee OA patients [15];Advanced Robotics

701

Figure 2. Illustration of knee joint with OA.

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

Figure 3. Stick-slip model of rotary motion.

furthermore, arthropathy was found to be a major cause of
the need for long-term care (third cause) or support (firstcause) under the public insurance system.[10]OA can be diagnosed using X-rays, clinical tests, magnetic resonance imaging, or arthroscopes. An arthroscope
provides a more precise diagnosis of OA. However, a clinical test is useful for the early diagnosis of a patient with theinitial stages of disease. In such tests, physical therapists
examine symptoms such as joint stiffness, pain, synovial
swelling, bony enlargement, and crepitus.[16–18]
Crepitus is one of the criteria used to understand thedegree of OA. It is typically defined as an audible grinding
noise and/or palpable vibrations in the joint as detected by
the hand of the therapist.[14] As shown in Figure 2, crepitus
is developed by roughened joint cartilages or tendons.[13]Owing to cartilage wear, damaged meniscus, and bony spurs
in knee OA, the joint lubrication is lost and irregular friction
or stick occurs. In addition to palpable vibrations, acoustic
sounds are also developed in knee OA patients.[19,20]
3.2. Resistance model of crepitus
Because crepitus is characterized by discontinuous joint
friction, we simulate its resistance pattern based on a stickslip phenomenon model. Figure 3 shows the friction of
two bodies rotating around the same axis. A rectangularimaginary object attached to a rotational spring makes contact with a shaft that rotates at φ̇(t) rad/s. The angle ofthe shaft corresponds to that of the knee joint. We assume
that Coulomb friction acts between the two bodies. The
trainee experiences this frictional torque T (t) N·m as a joint
resistance torque. The variables involved in the model are
as follows:
J : inertia moment of the imaginary object [kg m2 ]θ (t): angle of the imaginary object [rad]φ(t): angle of the shaft [rad/s]
kr : rotary spring constant [N·m/rad]T (t): frictional torque between two bodies [N·m]Tk : kinetic frictional torque [N·m]Tsmax : maximum static frictional torque [N·m].
The stick-slip motion consists of sticking and slipping
phases. Figure 4 (left) shows a schematic view of the sticking phase, in which the imaginary object rotates at the sameangular velocity as the shaft, and the static frictional torqueis delivered to the trainee’s hand. During this phase, thetorque satisfies
T (t) = kr θ (t)−Tsmax ≤ T (t) ≤ Tsmax(1)where Tsmax , which is the maximum static friction, equals
the maximum resistance torque presented to the trainee.
Figure 4 (right) shows the two bodies during the slipping
phase. Because the two bodies are slipping, their angularvelocities do not match (φ̇(t) − θ̇(t) = 0), and the angularvelocity of the imaginary object is smaller than that of the
shaft. The kinetic frictional torque between the two bodies
is expressed as
T (t) = sign(φ̇(t) − θ̇(t)) · Tk .

(2)

During the slipping phase, this kinetic frictional torque ispresented to the trainee.
The contact status of the two bodies repetitively transfers
between the sticking and the slipping phases.Acondition forwhich the sticking phase transfers to the slipping one is thatthe sum of the restoring torque of the rotational spring andthe inertia of the imaginary object exceeds the maximum
frictional torque. This condition is expressed asJ θ̈(t) + kr θ (t) ≥ Tsmax .

(3)

The condition for which the slipping phase transfers to
the sticking one is that the angular velocity of the imaginary
object reaches that of the shaft; this is expressed asθ̇(t) ≥ φ̇(t).

(4)

702

S. Ishikawa et al.

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

Figure 4. Two phases of friction.

Furthermore, as shown in later samples, Tsmax practicallydetermines the period of the sticking phases. While the final
period is determined by the interaction between the human
hand force and the patient dummy, the sticking phases tend
to increase with Tsmax .

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of stick-slip motion.

When t0 denotes the onset of slippage, the angular velocity
and angle of the imaginary object at t0 are, respectively,θ̇ (t0 ) = φ̇(t0 ),Tsmax − J θ̈ (t0 ).
θ (t0 ) =
kr

(5)
(6)

With (5) and (6) being the initial conditions, θ̇(t) is computed as
Tsmax − Tkkrkrθ̇(t) = − √t + φ̇(t0 ) cos
t
sin
J
J
Jk
r

φ̇(t0 )kr
= A cost + arccos
,
(7)
J
A

(Tsmax − Tk )2+ φ̇(t0 )2 .
(8)
A=
J kr
Figure 5 shows a schematic of the stick-slip phenomenon.
While the two phases are alternatively repeated, discontinuous friction torques are generated. In the sticking andslipping phases, the static and kinetic frictional torques arepresented to the trainees, respectively. One of the factors
determining the period of the slipping phase is the frequencyof the imaginary object’s motion. According to (7), theratio of kr to J affects the period of the slipping phases;
Specifically, the period decreases as the ratio increases.

3.3. Example of simulated resistance torques
We implemented the above-described crepitus model into
the wearable knee joint. The variables used were as follows:
J = 0.01 kg m2 , kr = 100 N·m/rad, Tk = 0.25 N·m,
and Tsmax = 0.65 or 0.8 N·m. These parameter sets wereactually tested in the latter experiment.
Figure 6 shows samples of the angular velocity of theknee joint and exerted resistance torque when the lower
thigh was manually flexed. The torque was calculated basedon the force measured using a load cell (Model 1004, Tedea
Huntleigh) installed on the lower thigh. During the sticking
phase, the resistance torque increased up to the maximum
static friction torque. Owing to the increased friction, the angular velocity of the knee decreased. Conversely, during theslipping phase, the resistance torque decreased, and the knee
joint motion is expedited. As a result, discontinuous friction
generated frictional vibration. The difference between thetwo samples was in the Tsmax value. With larger Tsmax , thesticking phases became longer because the resistance torque
took longer to satisfy the stick-to-slip transition condition.
It should be noted that there is a difference between theschematic friction torques shown in Figures 5 and 6. In
Figure 5, during the slipping phase, T (t) has a constantvalue of Tk . However, in Figure 6, owing to the dynamismof human hand and limited response of the DC motor, T (t)does not have a constant value of Tk .
4. Experiment to specify parameters
Our simulated crepitus is characterized by a few parameters. Based on a subjective experiment involving practicing
physical therapists, we specified parameters that realize theresistances that physical therapists experience from typicalcrepitus.

703

Figure 6. Examples of knee angular velocity and presented resistance torque during simulation of crepitus. Shaded areas are sticking
phases.
Center ofparameter sets

1.5

1.5

1.0

0.03

0.0025
0.5

0.65

0.8

[N m]

[kg m2]

0.25
0.15
[N m]
0.1

1.5
2.0

1.4

0.01

1.9
2.0

2.3

1.9

2.0

2.2
1.5

1.8

1.5
1.8

1.3

0.0025

1.8

1.8
1.3

0.01

1.5

1.7

1.3

0.03
[kg m2]

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

Advanced Robotics

1.0

2.2

0.5

0.65

1.7
2.5

0.1

0.25

0.15
[N m]

0.8
[N m]

Figure 7. Combinations of parameters tested in a rating task.
Figure 8. Result of rating task.

4.1. Parameters as stimuli
Combinations of three parameters – Tsmax , Tk , and J –were tested in the experiment. Our crepitus model has fourparameters – Tsmax , Tk , kr , and J . Among these parameters,
Tsmax and Tk directly influence the maximum and minimum
friction torques. On the other hand, kr and J have limited
effects on the perception, although their ratio strongly influences the period of the slipping phase. Moreover, in practice,
the occurrence of the stick-slip phenomenon is sensitive
to a change in kr . To vary the perceptual characters of thesimulated resistances while sustaining the occurrence of the
stick-slip phenomenon, it is easier to manipulate J rather
than kr . Therefore, we fixed kr to 100 N·m/rad during theexperiment.
One of the authors, who is a practicing physical therapist
and did not participate in the latter experiment, carefully
determined a single combination of parameters: Tk = 0.15,
Tsmax = 0.65, J = 0.01, and kr = 100. Then, using
this combination as a reference, one of Tk , Tsmax , and J

was varied until the change in the stick-slip phenomenon
became just perceivable. The set of just perceivable parameters was determined to be Tk = {0.1, 0.15, 0.25}, Tsmax ={0.5, 0.65, 0.8}, and J = {0.0025, 0.01, 0.03}, as shownin Figure 7. Twenty-seven combinations were generatedusing these variables. These combinations were tested ina random order within a single set, and two sets (54 trials)
were performed for individual participants.

4.2. Task
Five voluntary physical therapists–other than the authors–with experience of treating knee OA patients and clinicalcareer of more than three years participated in the experiment. As shown in Figure 1, each grasped the lower thighof a man wearing the knee dummy on his right leg whilelying down on a bed and freely examined the knee joint
resistances for a minute in each trial. The participant was

704

S. Ishikawa et al.

asked to rate the simulated crepitus based on the resistances
felt at his/her hands. The judgment was made as follows:
3: I have treated patients with symptoms similar tothe simulated resistances.
2: The simulated resistance is partly similar to thatof real crepitus.
1: The simulated resistance is not at all similar tothat of crepitus.

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

The participants were also allowed to use decimal numbers
such as 2.5 as ratings.

4.3. Result
Figure 8 shows the average ratings of all combinations ofparameters. The highest average rating was 2.5, with thestandard deviation being 0.33 for (Tk , Tsmax , J ) = (0.1,
0.8, 0.0025) (bottom right in the figure). The combinationsneighboring this one tended to show higher ratings, andthose at a distance showed lower ratings.
To investigate the effects of the parameters on the ratings,
we performed a three-way ANOVA with three parameters
as factors. Tsmax had a significant impact on the ratings(F(2, 108) = 31.6, p = 1.53E-11). Larger Tsmax values
led to higher ratings. The sticking sense that the participants experienced became prominent with a larger Tsmax
value. Furthermore, a significant relationship was observed
between the rating and J (F(2, 108) = 11.2, p = 3.89E-5).
Specifically, the rate increased as J decreased. As described
before, lower J values led to shorter slipping phases. These
results suggest that the magnitude of sticking and theirperiods as well as the switching frequencies between the
sticking and the slipping phases were major perceptual characters of crepitus. Tk did not have a statistically significant
effect on the rating (F(2, 108) = 2.29, p = .11), in contrast
to our expectation. Tk was a secondary factor affecting thequality of crepitus. This is potentially because as long as Tk
is small enough compared with Tsmax , Tk does not significantly affect the subjective quality. This may be linked to
the nature of inaccurate and insensitive human perceptionof force during hand motion,[21] in which a resistive forceof 1 N was not successfully detected during rapid handmotions.

4.4. Short discussion
In their free introspective reports, the physical therapistscited the following two points as important judgment criteria: period between sticking, and the magnitudes of thefriction they felt at their hands. These two features areadjusted by Tsmax and J , as described above. Hence, ourcrepitus model can be used to present the features of typicalcrepitus by adjusting these parameters.

Figure 9. Sample of resistance torque and joint angular velocity
with the best parameter set specified in the experiment: (Tk , Tsmax ,J ) = (0.1, 0.8, 0.0025).

The highest average rating was 2.5 for (Tk , Tsmax , J ) =(0.1, 0.8, 0.0025). The individual ratings for the five participants were 2.5, 2.2, 3.0, 2.25, and 2.75, which means thatthey partly agreed that the simulated crepitus felt similar tothat of OA patients. Figure 9 shows a sample of measured
torques and angular velocity of the knee joint with thisparameter set. Although this was a result of the dynamismof the therapist’s arm and simulated crepitus, sticking was
experienced approximately two times per second. These
resistance torques or frequency of sticking depend on thesymptoms of an individual patient; nonetheless, they wereconsidered similar to those typically observed in clinicalsituations.
To improve the simulated crepitus further, flaws reportedby the participants need to be considered. First, crepitus
typically does not occur in the entire moving range of theknee joint; instead, it is observed only in a limited motion
range. Second, crepitus during knee extension typically differs from that during knee flexion. For example, in somepatients, it is often observed during flexion but rarely duringextension. The implementation of such irregularities may
promote the realism of simulated crepitus.
Although we specified one parameter combination, we
cannot deny that there may be even better parameter setsoutside the space that we examined. We informally tested
another parameter set (Tk , Tsmax , J ) = (0.1, 1.0, 0.0025) of
which Tsmax was larger than the one specified as best in theexperiment. This parameter combination exhibited crepitus
of even severer OA, indicating that it is worth exploring awider parameter space for the better simulation of crepitus.

5. Conclusion
To help trainee physical therapists learn manual examination techniques, we have developed a wearable patientdummy that simulates the characteristic resistance forcesof an impaired knee joint. Our simple and commercially
feasible mechanism is expected to afford high realism

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

Advanced Robotics

705

including complex human joint motions and human-likeskin and bone features. We developed a model to generate
the joint resistances caused by crepitus of knee OA patients.
Crepitus is characterized by palpable vibrations owing todiscontinuous friction of disrupted joint cartilages or bones.
Our crepitus model simulates stick-slip friction considering
the discontinuous frictions of roughened joint surfaces. To
specify the parameters of the model, we conducted a subjective evaluation test in which practicing physical therapists
rated various simulated crepitus with different parameter
sets. As a result, the therapists partially agreed with thevalidity of a well-tuned parameter combination in terms of
the similarity with clinical crepitus. Some issues remain
to be resolved for better simulating crepitus. Furthermore,
the parameters specified in this study need to be adjusted
slightly for other dummy robots with different mechanisms.
Nonetheless, the practical value of patient dummy robots
has been improved by introducing simulated crepitus as anadditional type of simulated symptom.

Yoji Yamada received a PhD degree from theTokyo Institute of Technology in 1990. He
has been an associate professor at the Toyota
Technological Institute, Japan since 1983. In
2004, he joined the National Institute ofAdvanced Industrial and Science Technology(AIST), as a group leader of the Safety
Intelligence Research Group at the Intelligent
Systems Research Institute. In 2008, he moved
to the Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, as aprofessor.

Funding

References

This study was in part supported by the Naito Research Grant.

[1] Asahi Denshi Kenkyusho KK, Kujima Denki KK, Nittamokei Corp, Yasuhiro M,Atsushi N. Patient simulating robot
for rehabilitation education and rehabilitation education
method. Japanese Patent, JP2006204832 (A). 2006.
[2] Kikuchi T, Oda K, Yamaguchi S, Furusho J. Leg-robot with
MR clutch to realize virtual spastic movements. J. Intell.
Mater. Syst. Struct. 2010;21:1523–1529.
[3] Kikuchi T, Oda K, Furusho J. Leg-robot for demonstrationof spastic movements of brain-injured patients with compact
magnetorheological fluid clutch. Adv. Robot. 2010;24:
671–686.
[4] Grow DI, Wu M, Locastro MJ, Arora SK, Bastian AJ,
Okamura AM. Haptic simulation of elbow joint spasticity.
In: Proceedings of IEEE Haptics Symposium; 2008. Reno,
Nevada, USA. p. 475–476.
[5] Fujisawa T, Takagi M, Takahashi Y, Inoue K. Basic researchon the upper limb patient simulator. In: Proceedings ofIEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics,
Noordwijk, Netherlands. 2007. p. 48–51.
[6] Park HS, Kim J, Damiano DL. Development of a haptic
elbow spasticity simulator (HESS) for improving accuracy
and reliability of clinical assessment of spasticity. IEEE
Trans. Neural Syst. Rehab. Eng. 2012;20:361–370.
[7] Takahashi Y, Komeda T, Koyama H, Yamamoto S, Arimatsu
T, Kawakami Y, Inoue K, Ito Y. Development of an
upper limb patient simulator for physical therapy exercise.
In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics; 2011. Zurich. p. 1–4.
[8] Morita Y, Hayashi Y, Hirano T, Ukai H, Sanaka K, Takao K.
Development of knee joint robot with flexion, extension androtation movements-experiments on imitation of knee joint
movement of healthy and disable persons. In: Proceedingsof International Workshop on Robot and Motion Control;
2011. Bukowy Dworek, Poland. p. 393–402.
[9] Oki Electric Industry Co Ltd. Robot for rehabilitation
education. Japanese Patent JP2008281926 (A). 2008.
[10] Ministry of health, labour and welfare. H22 kokuminn
seikatsu kiso chosa no gaikyo; 2010 [cited 2014 Mar 7].
Available from: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/
k-tyosa/k-tyosa10/

Notes on contributors
Shun Ishikawa is a mechanical engineer who
received BS and MS degrees in engineeringfrom Nagoya University in 2011 and 2014,
respectively. His study interests lie on the fieldof mechanical design and human perception.

Shogo Okamoto received MS and PhD degrees in information sciences in 2007 and2010, respectively, from the Graduate Schoolof Information Sciences, Tohoku University.
Since 2010, he has been an assistant professor
at the Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya
University. His research interests include
haptics and human-assistive technology.

Yasuhiro Akiyama received MS and PhD degrees in engineering from the University ofTokyo, Japan, in 2008 and 2011, respectively.
Since then, he has been a postdoctoral researcher at the Graduate School of Engineering,
Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. His mainareas of research interest are mechanical safety,
human-robot interaction, and manned space
mission.

Kaoru Isogai received a MS degree in physical and occupational therapy from Nagoya
University, Japan, in 2005. He worked as aphysical therapist for 24 years. From 2009,he has been a professor at the department ofphysical therapy, Tokoha University, Japan.
He is the chairperson of Society for Surface
Anatomy.

Downloaded by [Nagoya University] at 09:01 11 July 2016

706

S. Ishikawa et al.

[11] Ishikawa S, Okamoto S, Akiyama Y, Isogai K, Yamada Y,
Hara S. Wearable dummy to simulate joint impairment:
model for the discontinuous friction resistance due toarthritis. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conferenceon Robotics and Biomimetics; 2012. Guangzhou, China. p.
1409–1414.
[12] Ishikawa S, Okamoto S, Isogai K, Akiyama Y, Yanagihara N,
Yamada Y. Wearable dummy to simulate joint impairment:
severity-based assessment of simulated spasticity ofknee joint. In: Proceedings of IEEE/SICE International
Symposium on System Integration; 2013. Kobe, Japan. p.
300–305.
[13] Altman RD. The merck manual for health care professionals– Osteoarthritis (OA); 2013 [cited 2014 Mar 7]. Available
from: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/bone_joint_
and_muscle_disorders/joint_disorders/osteoarthritis_oa.
html[14] Schiphof D. Identifying knee osteoarthritis-classification,
early recognition and imaging [PhD thesis]. Erasmus
University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands; 2012.
[15] Yoshimura N. Epidemiolgy of osteoarthritis in Japanese
population -the road study. Clin. Cal. 2009;19:1572–1577.
[16] Wu CW, Morrell MR, Heinze E, Concoff AL, Wollaston
SJ, Arnold EL, FitzGerald JD, Moreland LW, Kalunian KC.
Validation of American college of rheumatology classification criteria for knee oateoarthritis using arthroscopicallydefined cartilage damage scores. Semin. Arthritis Rheum.
2005;35:197–201.

[17] Jones A, Hopkinson N, Pattrick M, Berman P, Doherty M.
Evaluation of a method for clinically assessing osteoarthritisof the knee. Ann. Rheum. Diseases. 1992;51:243–245.
[18] Zhang W, Doherty M, Peat G, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Arden
NK, Bresnihan B, Herrero-Beaumont G, Kirschner S, Leeb
BF, Lohmander LS, Mazieres B, Pavelka K, Punzi L, So
AK, Tuncer T, Watt I, Bijlsma JW. EULAR evidence-based
recommendations for the diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis.
Ann. Rheum. Diseases. 2010;69:483–489.
[19] Tanaka N, Hoshiyama M. Articular sound and clinicalstages in knee arthropathy. J. Musculoskeletal Res.
2011;14:115006–115014.
[20] Tanaka N, Hoshiyama M. Virbroarthrography in patientswith knee arthropathy. J. Back Musculoskeletal Rehab.
2012;25:117–122.
[21] Visell Y, Hayward V. An asymmetry in force perception
contingent on motion reversal. In: Proceedings ofIEEE World Haptics Conference; 2013, Daejeon, Korea.
p. 651–656.