Usability Assessments for Augmented Reality Motor Rehabilitation Solutions: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This article aims to understand which methods and user assessment approaches are most commonly used in motor rehabilitation studies that use Augmented Reality (AR) applications. The way in which this was performed and discussed was through a systematic review of the area. Firstly, the different uses of AR in these treatments, and the importance of improving usability studies to evaluate these interfaces and their interactions with their users, were discussed. Then, the systematic review of the literature was structured according to previous studies and covered the period from 2007 to September 2017, using the main scientific journals of the area. Of the 666 results collected in the initial search, 32 articles were selected within the planned requirements and scope. These publications were classified by relevance, using the QualSyst evaluation tool for health technology research, and the type of evaluation, approach, and methods used were catalogued. It was found that most of the studies prioritise methods of data collection, such as task execution and performance analysis. However, through QualSyst, it was verified that the best-evaluated studies chose to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis, through the application of methods such as user preference questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The results presented in this review may benefit designers who intend to design and conduct usability assessments for AR within this context.

Procedures of User-Centered Usability Assessment for Digital Solutions: Scoping Review of Reviews Reporting on Digital Solutions Relevant for Older Adults

“…Only 4 out of the 20 (20%) [ 29 , 36 , 37 , 46 ] included reviews briefly mentioned any characteristic of the evaluators' profile. One of the reviews [ 36 ] reported that one of the 32 articles included mentioned that the person who performed the usability assessment was a blind evaluator.…”

“…Only 4 out of the 20 (20%) [ 29 , 36 , 37 , 46 ] included reviews briefly mentioned any characteristic of the evaluators' profile. One of the reviews [ 36 ] reported that one of the 32 articles included mentioned that the person who performed the usability assessment was a blind evaluator. One review stated that several studies (exact numbers not provided) used graduate students as both evaluators to perform usability inspections and participants in experimental sessions (eg, think-aloud protocol, remote user testing) [ 37 ], whereas another review [ 46 ] reported that usability evaluations were conducted by researchers.…”

“…Half of the reviews included in this scoping review did not refer to the characteristics of the participants included in the primary studies reviewed. Of the reviews, 50% (10/20) reviews that reported on any of the participants' characteristics, 4 reported mean age or age range [ 36 , 41 , 46 , 49 ], 4 reported the gender of participants [ 36 , 41 , 44 , 46 ], 8 reported the sample size [ 35 , 36 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 49 ], and 7 reported on other characteristics of participants by describing them as healthy participants or as having a specific clinical condition [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 49 ]. Nevertheless, 20% (4/20) reviews that reported the age of the participants also reported that not all primary studies detailed such information.…”

“…These aspects will also inform whether the sample used is representative of the end users. The use of nonrepresentative users and, therefore, the failure to consider their needs and preferences may result in products with low usability [ 36 ]. In general, the sample sizes are small, and no rationale for the size of the sample is provided.…”

Validity of Hololens Augmented Reality Head Mounted Display for Measuring Gait Parameters in Healthy Adults and Children with Cerebral Palsy

“…Thanks to the miniaturization of the devices and the commercial development of affordable products, wearable technology-assisted devices appear to be an interesting tool for gait rehabilitation in overground condition (i.e., gait training without treadmill) [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Among existing tools, AR technology does not fully immerse the user in a simulated environment but superimpose virtual elements over the real-world.…”