Interaction Modalities Used on Serious Games for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to analyze the state-of-the-art regarding interaction modalities used on serious games for upper limb rehabilitation. A systematic search was performed in IEEE Xplore and Web of Science databases. PRISMA and QualSyst protocols were used to filter and assess the articles. Articles must meet the following inclusion criteria: they must be written in English; be at least four pages in length; use or develop serious games; focus on upper limb rehabilitation; and be published between 2007 and 2017. Of 121 articles initially retrieved, 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. Three interaction modalities were found: vision systems (42.4%), complementary vision systems (30.3%), and no-vision systems (27.2%). Vision systems and no-vision systems obtained a similar mean QualSyst (86%) followed by complementary vision systems (85.7%). Almost half of the studies used vision systems as the interaction modality (42.4%) and used the Kinect sensor to collect the body movements (48.48%). The shoulder was the most treated body part in the studies (19%). A key limitation of vision systems and complementary vision systems is that their device performances might be affected by lighting conditions. A main limitation of the no-vision systems is that the range-of-motion in angles of the body movement might not be measured accurately. Due to a limited number of studies, fruitful areas for further research could be the following: serious games focused on finger rehabilitation and trauma injuries, game difficulty adaptation based on user's muscle strength and posture, and multisensor data fusion on interaction modalities

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research