GEMINI: A Generic Multi-Modal Natural Interface Framework for Videogames

In recent years videogame companies have recognized the role of player engagement as a major factor in user experience and enjoyment. This encouraged a greater investment in new types of game controllers such as the WiiMote, Rock Band instruments and the Kinect. However, the native software of these controllers was not originally designed to be used in other game applications. This work addresses this issue by building a middleware framework, which maps body poses or voice commands to actions in any game. This not only warrants a more natural and customized user-experience but it also defines an interoperable virtual controller. In this version of the framework, body poses and voice commands are respectively recognized through the Kinect's built-in cameras and microphones. The acquired data is then translated into the native interaction scheme in real time using a lightweight method based on spatial restrictions. The system is also prepared to use Nintendo's Wiimote as an auxiliary and unobtrusive gamepad for physically or verbally impractical commands. System validation was performed by analyzing the performance of certain tasks and examining user reports. Both confirmed this approach as a practical and alluring alternative to the game's native interaction scheme. In sum, this framework provides a game-controlling tool that is totally customizable and very flexible, thus expanding the market of game consumers.Comment: WorldCIST'13 Internacional Conferenc

TANGO: Transparent heterogeneous hardware Architecture deployment for eNergy Gain in Operation

The paper is concerned with the issue of how software systems actually use Heterogeneous Parallel Architectures (HPAs), with the goal of optimizing power consumption on these resources. It argues the need for novel methods and tools to support software developers aiming to optimise power consumption resulting from designing, developing, deploying and running software on HPAs, while maintaining other quality aspects of software to adequate and agreed levels. To do so, a reference architecture to support energy efficiency at application construction, deployment, and operation is discussed, as well as its implementation and evaluation plans.Comment: Part of the Program Transformation for Programmability in Heterogeneous Architectures (PROHA) workshop, Barcelona, Spain, 12th March 2016, 7 pages, LaTeX, 3 PNG figure

Smart portable rehabilitation devices

BACKGROUND: The majority of current portable orthotic devices and rehabilitative braces provide stability, apply precise pressure, or help maintain alignment of the joints with out the capability for real time monitoring of the patient's motions and forces and without the ability for real time adjustments of the applied forces and motions. Improved technology has allowed for advancements where these devices can be designed to apply a form of tension to resist motion of the joint. These devices induce quicker recovery and are more effective at restoring proper biomechanics and improving muscle function. However, their shortcoming is in their inability to be adjusted in real-time, which is the most ideal form of a device for rehabilitation. This introduces a second class of devices beyond passive orthotics. It is comprised of "active" or powered devices, and although more complicated in design, they are definitely the most versatile. An active or powered orthotic, usually employs some type of actuator(s). METHODS: In this paper we present several new advancements in the area of smart rehabilitation devices that have been developed by the Northeastern University Robotics and Mechatronics Laboratory. They are all compact, wearable and portable devices and boast re-programmable, real time computer controlled functions as the central theme behind their operation. The sensory information and computer control of the three described devices make for highly efficient and versatile systems that represent a whole new breed in wearable rehabilitation devices. Their applications range from active-assistive rehabilitation to resistance exercise and even have applications in gait training. The three devices described are: a transportable continuous passive motion elbow device, a wearable electro-rheological fluid based knee resistance device, and a wearable electrical stimulation and biofeedback knee device. RESULTS: Laboratory tests of the devices demonstrated that they were able to meet their design objectives. The prototypes of portable rehabilitation devices presented here did demonstrate that these concepts are capable of the performance their commercially available but non-portable counterparts exhibit. CONCLUSION: Smart, portable devices with the ability for real time monitoring and adjustment open a new era in rehabilitation where the recovery process could be dramatically improved

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program

Bra.Di.P.O. and P.I.G.R.O.: Innovative Devices for Motor Learning Programs

Two mechatronics prototypes, useful for robotic neurotreatments and new clinical trainings, are here presented. P.I.G.R.O. (pneumatic interactive gait rehabilitation orthosis) is an active exoskeleton with an electropneumatic control. It imposes movements on lower limbs in order to produce in the patient’s brain proper motor cortex activation. Bra.Di.P.O. (brain discovery pneumatic orthosis) is an MR-compatible device, designed to improve fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) analysis. The two devices are presented together because both are involved in the study of new robotic treatments of patients affected by ictus or brain stroke or in some motor learning experimental investigations carried out on healthy subjects

On Neuromechanical Approaches for the Study of Biological Grasp and Manipulation

Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas

Brain-Switches for Asynchronous Brain−Computer Interfaces: A Systematic Review

A brain–computer interface (BCI) has been extensively studied to develop a novel communication system for disabled people using their brain activities. An asynchronous BCI system is more realistic and practical than a synchronous BCI system, in that, BCI commands can be generated whenever the user wants. However, the relatively low performance of an asynchronous BCI system is problematic because redundant BCI commands are required to correct false-positive operations. To significantly reduce the number of false-positive operations of an asynchronous BCI system, a two-step approach has been proposed using a brain-switch that first determines whether the user wants to use an asynchronous BCI system before the operation of the asynchronous BCI system. This study presents a systematic review of the state-of-the-art brain-switch techniques and future research directions. To this end, we reviewed brain-switch research articles published from 2000 to 2019 in terms of their (a) neuroimaging modality, (b) paradigm, (c) operation algorithm, and (d) performance