InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

1

Controlling Wheelchairs by Body Motions: ALearning Framework for the Adaptive

Remapping of SpaceTauseef Gulrez Member IEEE, Alessandro Tognetti, Alon Fishbach, Santiago Acosta,

Christopher Scharver, Danilo De Rossi and Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi Member IEEE,

Abstract— Learning to operate a vehicle is generally ac-complished by forming a new cognitive map between thebody motions and extrapersonal space. Here, we consider thechallenge of remapping movement-to-space representationsin survivors of spinal cord injury, for the control of poweredwheelchairs. Our goal is to facilitate this remapping bydeveloping interfaces between residual body motions andnavigational commands that exploit the degrees of freedomthat disabled individuals are most capable to coordinate. Wepresent a new framework for allowing spinal cord injuredpersons to control powered wheelchairs through signalsderived from their residual mobility. The main novelty ofthis approach lies in substituting the more common joystickcontrollers of powered wheelchairs with a sensor shirt. Thisallows the whole upper body of the user to operate as anadaptive joystick. Considerations about learning and riskshave lead us to develop a safe testing environment in 3DVirtual Reality. A Personal Augmented Reality ImmersiveSystem (PARIS) allows us to analyse learning skills and pro-vide users with an adequate training to control a simulatedwheelchair through the signals generated by body motionsin a safe environment. We provide a description of the basictheory, of the development phases and of the operation ofthe complete system. We also present preliminary resultsillustrating the processing of the data and supporting of thefeasibility of this approach.

Index Terms— Motor learning, Space remapping, wearablesensors, assistive technology, virtual reality

I. INTRODUCTION

ROBOTICS may be exploited to assist people in agreat variety of activities [1]–[4]. Elderly and dis-

abled people, in particular, are likely to benefit fromthese new technologies [3], [5], [6]. As they becomelimited in their mobility, they gain a greater degreeof independence through the use of assistive devicessuch as powered wheelchairs(Fig. I). However, loss of

T. Gulrez is with Robotics Lab. of Sensory Motor Performance Pro-gram, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Feinberg School of Medicine,Northwestern University, Chicago, USA & also with the Virtual and In-teractive Simulations of Reality (VISOR) Labs, Department of Comput-ing, Division of Information and Communication Sciences, MacquarieUniversity Sydney,Australia

A. Tognetti and D.De Rossi are with Inter-Departmental ResearchCenter “E.Piaggio”, University of Pisa, Italy.

F.A. Mussa-Ivaldi, A. Fishbach, S. Acosta and C. Scharver are withRobotics Lab. of Sensory Motor Performance Program, RehabilitationInstitute of Chicago, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Uni-versity, Chicago, USA.

coordination and cognitive impairments can render dif-ficult or impossible to execute steering maneuvers, withconsequent fatigue, frustration, reduced social life andrisks of dangerous accidents. One way to overcomethese difficulties is to equip the chair with an intelligentcontroller, sharing planning and execution of actionswith the user. This cooperation between human andmachine can be compared to the cooperation betweena horse and its rider: the rider navigates (global plan-ning, ride control), while the horse avoids obstacles andmakes path adjustments(fine motion control). A differentapproach - pursued here - is to allow the users to controlthe vehicle’s motions at all levels. This second approachrequires establishing a rapid communication betweenhuman and machine. However, one of the most chal-lenging tasks does not concern the technology of com-munications and control, but rather the reorganizationof movements and the development of new cognitivemaps of motor space. This is something most of us arefamiliar with, as we learn to drive a car. At first, thecontrols are foreign objects that require constant focusand attention. But, as we become expert drivers, the carbecomes an extension of our bodies and the acts thatwe perform on the steering wheel and the pedals aredirectly and seemlsessly mapped into into their spatialand temporal consequences. Here, we plan to achievethe same result in disabled populations through theinteraction of human and machine learning. This paperdesctibes the basic platform, which includes wearablesensing, interfacing and VR technologies.

A typical powered wheelchair [7]–[12] is operated bytwo rear differential and two front castor wheels. Twohigh torque motors drive the rear wheels. Most poweredwheelchairs come with a programmable joystick to driveand operate it. The joystick controller has four directionalcommands i.e. forward, backward, left and right anda zero position to halt the wheelchair operations. Thevelocity of the wheelchair incrementally increases upto a fixed limit by holding the joystick continuouslyin the desired direction. While the joystick is a simplecontrol device, it still represents a fixed interface thatthe user must learn to operate by mapping joystickinto wheelchair motions. Accidents are often caused bythe insufficient training on the handling of the joystick

arX

iv:1

107.

5387

v1 [

cs.R

O]

27

Jul 2

011

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

2

Fig. 1. System concept. The virtual environment provides a safe training platform, where the control parameters are set according to the motorskills of the users. Once a satifactory behavior is reached, the control parameters will be applied to an actual powered wheelchair.

and on the proper control procedures. Moreover, thewheelchair’s training itself is a dangerous process, es-pecially for spinal cord injured users.

The need to apply learning technologies to controlassistive devices is highlighted by a recent survey onthe use of powered wheelchairs [13]. The authors inter-viewed 200 clinicians in spinal cord injury facilities, reha-bilitation centers and geriatric care facilities. They askedabout wheelchair user’s feedback on the performanceof different control interfaces, such as the joystick, sip-and-puff systems and head-an-chin devices. The studyshowed that about 10 percent of the disabled users “findit extremely difficult or impossible” to use the wheelchairwhile 40 percent of the users report difficulties in steer-ing and maneuvering tasks. It is noteworthy that thesefigures refer to users that received specific (althoughconventional) training for controlling the wheelchair. Inlight of these difficulties, our approach is based on twocharacteristic features of the sensorimotor system:

• Its ability to adapt to changes in the environmentand

• Its ability to exploit a large number of degrees offreedom for carrying out a variety of tasks.

We exploit these features for designing a body-machineinterface that will allow disabled users to operate avariety of devices [4], [14]–[18]. In particular, we will aimat creating a learning and design framework for spinalcord injured people with complete injuries at the C5-6cervical level, or incomplete injuries in the cervical cord.These injuries result in tetraplegia with limited residualbody motions.

II. OVERALL METHODOLOGY AND SYSTEMDESCRIPTION

This article describes a novel method for controllinga powered wheelchair by spinal cord injured people.A wearable sensor shirt which is adequate to detectupper body (wrist, elbow and shoulder) movements, iscustom built to extract some residual body movementsof the users. A combination of virtual reality and signalprocessing methods is used for developing an effectivebody/device interface and for carrying out training pro-cedures. The proposed system architecture is sketched inFig. 1 and is based on four modules:

proposed system architecture is sketched in Fig.I andis based on three modules:

• Sensor Shirt: The sensor shirt is composed of 52piezoresistive sensors that detect local fabric defor-mation caused by the movement of the user’s upperbody (i.e. wrist, elbow and shoulder; see section III).

• Data Acquisition and Signal Processing: Signalsacquired from the sensors are processed and thecontrol parameters for the wheelchair control aredetermined (Section III-A).

• Virtual Reality: Preliminary system tests are per-formed on a virtual reality simulator of a poweredwheelchair (section IV). The patient is trained toexecute maneuvers of variable complexity, such asnavigating a desert scene, moving among obstaclesand following other moving objects.

• Human ControlUsers are immersed in the PARISsystem. After an initial calibration (Section V)they begin practising the control of the simulatedwheelchair. The signals generated by the shirt aretransformed in command variables, which are in-tegrated and combined with a head tracker (Flock

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

3

Fig. 2. Sensor Shirt front view

Fig. 3. Sensor Shirt back view

of Birds, Ascension Technology [19]–[21]) to gen-erate the current viewpoint from the simulatedwheelchair.

III. SENSOR SHIRT

The sensors of the shirt (Figures 2, 3 and 4) are madeof a conductive elastomer (CE) material (commercialproduct provided by Wacker LTD [22]) printed on aLycra/cotton fabric previously covered by an adhesivemask.

CE composites show piezoresistive properties when adeformation is applied [23]. CE materials can be appliedto fabric or to other flexible substrate, they can be em-ployed as strain sensors [24], [25] and they represent anexcellent trade-off between transduction properties andpossibility of integration in textiles. Quasi-statical anddynamical sensor characterization has been done in [24].CE sensors exhibit some non-linear dynamical propertiesand relatively long relaxation times [26], [27] whichshould be taken into account in the control formulation.

Fig. 4. a) Sensors on the back portion of the shoulder. b)Sensors onthe muscle arm joint, elbow and wrist. c)Front view of the sesnorscovering front shoulders and limb area.

(a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 5. a) Virtual reality scene of our floor plan including corridorsand small rooms which is projected in the PARIS. b)Robotics Virtualwheelchair is navigating through a door way. c)Patient is driving theRobotics wheelchair on the marked path inside the virtual reality.

A. Signal AcquisitionThe analog signals acquired from the sensors are

amplified and then digitized using a general purpose 64channels acquisition card and real-time processed usinga personal computer. Real-time signal processing hasbeen performed by using the xPC-Target R©toolbox ofMatlab R©. The output of the signal processing stage, i.ethe wheelchair controls, are sent to the virtual wheelchairdescribed in the section below by using UDP connection.

IV. VIRTUAL WHEELCHAIR AND PERSONALAUGMENTED REALITY IMMERSIVE SYSTEM (PARIS)

A. SoftwareThe virtual wheelchair and its surrounding environ-

ment are designed using VRCO’s CAVELib TM3D Graph-ics [28], Coin3D graphics libraries and VRML models[29]. The whole program was simulated on a PersonalAugmented Reality Immersive System (PARIS) as de-scribed in [30] and [31]. PARIS provides the user with aperspective view of the scene. By wearing the speciallydesigned goggles and head-tracker, users observe thescene from the viewpoint of the moving wheelchair. Thegoggles are actively switched and synchronized withthe projection system to provide 3D stereo vision ofthe artificially generated images. The scene is updatedasynchronously, based on an external input from thesensor shirt and from a head mounted 3D tracker. Fig. 5shows a layout for the virtual environment, composedof several corridors, walls, obstacles and doorways. Apath (represented by the white track of Fig.5) is drawnon the floor as guide for the subject to track during thelearning phase (Section VI).

B. Virtual Wheelchair Kinematics ModelThe wheelchair is modeled as a simple two-wheel

vehicle [32], [33], as shown in Fig. 6. The non-holonomic

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

4

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. a) Virtual wheelchair kinematics model based upon unicyclerobot. b)Virtual wheelchair’s 3D model created using Coin3d [29]libraries.

Fig. 7. Virtual wheelchair’s position update.

kinematic equations of the wheelchair are:

x(t) = v(t)cos(θ(t))y(t) = v(t)sin(θ(t)) (1)θ(t) = ω(t)

The kinematic model of the wheelchair has two inputs,the translational velocity, v and the rotational velocity(ω). In discrete time, the wheelchair’s laws of motionare:

xk+1 = xk + vkcos(θk)∆t

yk+1 = yk + vksin(θk)∆t (2)θk+1 = θk + ωk∆t

The two control inputs, u1 and u2, are generated by pro-cessing algorithms applied to the shirt signals (SectionV-A). The virtual wheelchair position update from point(xk, yk) to point (xk+1, yk+1) (Fig. 7) is given by:

∆S = vk∆t = u1Vf∆t (3)∆θ = ωk∆t = u2Vr∆t (4)

where Vr and Vf are the maximal rotational and for-ward velocities, respectively, and ∆t is the time intervalbetween the two consecutive frames of the PARIS.

V. MAPPING BODY MOVEMENTS INTO VIRTUALWHEELCHAIR (PARIS BASED) CONTROLS

As a first stage in forming a map from body move-ments to wheelchair control, the nature of the control

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8. (a) Right elbow signals extracted during user elbow flexion.(b) First principal component extracted from the raw signals retainingthe 80% of the variance.

needs to be determined. The controls u1 and u2, forexample, may specify the translational velocity v androtational velocity (ω). Alternatively, the controls mayspecify accelerations v and ω instead of velocities. Giventhat we would like to allow the patient to remain in afixed and comfortable position as much as possible wesuggest to map one of the controls to the linear acceler-ation of the wheelchair. This allows the patient to cruiseat a fixed velocity while maintaining the resting posture.Unlike the transitional velocity, the rotational velocity

would typically be maintained at zero and would set tononzero values for only short periods of time. For thatreason we decided to map the second control signal tothe rotational velocity. In order to map the shirt signals tothe controls one needs to assign certain body movementsto each control. This allows for great flexibility, as thevocabulary is determined by the users, based on theirspecific movement ability and personal preferences. Inour preliminary experiments, our subject decided to usethe following body movements:

• Right elbow flexion was used to increase the valueof u1.

• Left elbow flexion was used to decrease the valueof u1.

• Right shoulder movement forward (scapular pro-traction) was used to increase the value of u2.

• Left shoulder movement forward (scapular protrac-tion) was used to decrease the value of u2. (see Fig.9).

Since the shirt contains several sensors at each joint, weexamined the possibility of reducing the dimensionalityof the shirt signals by applying Principal ComponentAnalysis (PCA) [34]–[37] to the signals originating fromthe same joint. PCA was performed on data that were

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

5

Fig. 9. Virtual Robotics Wheelchair’s position update w.r.t. the bodymovements.

collected while the subject was moving his arms andshoulders in an uninstructed manner for a period of 10seconds. We found that the first principal component(PC) of each joint captures 80%− 90% of the same-joint-sensors variance (see Fig. 8). Thus, for the above controlscheme, which was chosen by the subject, we use foursignal combinations, the first PC of the right shoulder(hrs), the first PC of the left shoulder (hls), the first PCof the right elbow (hre), and the first PC of the left elbow(hle).

A. Description of Algorithms

For removing possible drift and noise artifacts fromthe shirt signals, we used the following algorithm. Thetime derivative of each of the four PC’s was calculatedand a dead-zone was applied to each of them. Thesignals were then positive-rectified, as we are only in-terested in the rising part of each PC ((see Fig. 10(a)).An example for the operation of the algorithm is shownin Fig. 11. The processed signals from the two elbows arethen subtracted from each other to generate the transi-tional acceleration, while the processed signals from thetwo shoulders are subtracted from each other to generatethe rotational velocity (see Fig. 10(b)).

(a)

(b)

Fig. 10. (a)Rectified Derivative Algorithm. (b)Control scheme blockdiagram.

Fig. 11. Rectified derivative algorithm example.

VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

A. Experimental Setup

We present the results of a preliminary study con-ducted on a consenting adult participant approved byNorthwestern University’s Institutional Review Board(IRB). The participant wore a shirt, embedded with 52piezo-resistive sensors, capable of detecting the wearer’sresidual mobility. With the shirt on, the subject wasseated in front of a virtual reality system (discussed insection III & IV). The virtual scene depicted in Fig.13(c)was modelled on a generic building floorplan, with mul-tiple rooms, doors and corridors. A thick white line wasmarked on the floor and the subject was asked to navi-gate through the corridors and doorways following thewhite track Fig. 13(d). The subject was able to navigate

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

6

in the environment with little practice using arm andshoulder movements. Fig. 13(a) shows the trajectory ofthe virtual wheelchair (red line) as the subject attemptedto track the pathway (blue line). The raw shirt signals,extracted principal components and relative controls forthe trajectory experiment are shown in Fig. 12(c).

B. Trajectory Analysis

After each trial, the trajectories obtained from theparticipant’s body movements were plotted against theprescribed path. It is important to note here that all of thetrajectories were obtained using a uniform sensor shirtcontrol scheme. We analyzed the trajectories using thefollowing measures:

1) The distance travelled by the subject from the startpoint to the end point of the prescribed path called(Dist) (shown in fig12(a,b)).

2) The error between the prescribed trajectory and thesubject’s actual trajectory obtained by calculatingthe segmented area between both trajectories, fromthe start point to the end point of the prescribedpath called (Ediff ).

In the first trial result shown in fig.13(a) the subjectbegan by familiarizing himself with the control strategy(through arm and shoulder movements) without follow-ing the prescribed trajectory. When the subject completedthis initial step he started following the prescribed path(also shown in 13(a)). The participant moved in differ-ent directions in the virtual environment as shown infig.13(a), to learn the control criteria. As the subject spentmore time moving in the virtual scene the understandingof the control map improved and the subject was ableto navigate the scene with greater accuracy.

The data in fig.14(c,d) shows a monotonic reductionin the subject’s trajectory error from trial to trial. Thisis consistent with the hypothesis that, through practice,a subject is able to adapt to their environment usingthe novel control strategy of moving a wheelchair withshoulder and arm movements. The decreasing errortrend is evident for both Ediff and dist over all of thetrials.

The results in fig.14(a,b,c&d) plot the total distancetraveled by the subject for each trial to reach the pre-scribed endpoint from the starting point. The drasticreduction in area and distance error between the first,second and third trials, shows that the subject’s initialmobility adjustments are significant. In subsequent trials,the subject’s movement adjustments are more finelytuned as the subject’s familiarity of the sensor shirt-wheelchair control plan improves resulting in smallerdistance errors.

VII. CONCLUSION

The combination of robotics technology, intelligentinterfaces and virtual reality allow us to develop new ap-proaches to the design of assistive devices. Our approach

−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25−10

−5

0

5

10

15

20

25Trajectory

Prescribed TrajectorySubject Trajectory

(a)

−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25−10

−5

0

5

10

15

20

25Trajectory Area−wise Segmentation

(b)

0 50 100 150 200

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

Rotation Velocity Control

0 50 100 150 200

−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

PC Right Shoulder

0 50 100 150 200

−2

−1

0

PC Left Shoulder

0 50 100 150 200

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Translation Velocity control

0 50 100 150 200

−1

0

1

2

3PC Right Elbow

0 50 100 150 200−1

0

1

2PC Left Elbow

(c)

Fig. 12. (a) Subject trajectory obtained from one of the experiments.The black circles show the intersection points of both trajectories (b)The subject trajectory is segmented area wise (i.e. in portions, afterconsidering the points of intersections), inorder to calculate the errorarea. (c) Principal components of shirt’s raw signals responsible toproduce control signals neccessary for navigating the wheelchair inthe virtual reality environment.

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

7

−25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25−30

−20

−10

0

10

20

30First Trajectory

First TrajectoryPrescribed Trajectory

(a)−15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25

−10

−5

0

5

10

15

20

25All Trajectories

(b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 13. In (a) red trajectory is obtained on the first day of experiment when subject used the sensor shirt and was asked to move on themarked line (in blue). (b) Shows all trajectories (in red) obtained after 22 preliminary experiment obtained from the subject’s travel on themarked line in the immersive virtual environment. In (c) subject sitting infront of Virtual Reality is immersed in the 3D scene and navigatingthe wheelchair by the residual mobility captured by sensors, along the line marked on the floor. In (d) the top view of the virtual environmentis shown with the line (blue coloured) marked on the floor.

0 5 10 15 20 250

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

No of Trials

Tra

ject

ory

Dis

tanc

e (D

ist)

Body Machine Interface Control

Distance Reduction Learning Trend

(a)

0 5 10 15 20 250

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

No of Trials

Tra

ject

ory

Are

a E

rror

Trajectory Area Error with Prescribed Trajectory

Error in Path Trend

(b)

Fig. 14. (a) Distance reduction in the trajectories after every trial. (b) Area error measure (Ediff ) between the prescribed and subject’s trajectoryat each time per day trial.

InPr

oc. C

ogsy

s 2008

8

is based on the key concept that the burden of learningshould not fall entirely on the human operator. The fieldof machine learning has been rapidly developing in therecent decade and is now sufficiently mature to designinterfaces that are capable of learning the user as the useris learning to operate the device. In this case, “learningthe user” means learning the degrees of freedom that theuser is capable to move most efficiently and mappingthese degrees of freedom onto wheelchair controls. Weshould stress that such mapping cannot be static, asin some cases the users will eventually improve withpractice. In other, more unfortunate cases, a disabilitymay be progressive and the mobility of the disableduser will gradually deteriorate. In both situations thebodymachine interface must be able to adapt and toupdate the transformation from body-generated signalsto efficient patterns of control.The final aim is to facilitatethe formation of new and efficient maps from bodymotions to operational space.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported by NINDS1R21HD053608, and by a grant of the Craig H.Neilsen Foundation. TG received support from theMacquarie University’s Post-graduate research fund.

REFERENCES

[1] F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi and J. L. Patton, “Robots can teach people howto move their arm,” in Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE InternationalConference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2000.

[2] F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi(Sandro), “Real brains for real robots,” Nature- Neural engineering, vol. 408, pp. 305–306, 2000.

[3] R. G. Platts and M. H. Fraser, “Assistive technology in therehabilitation of patients with high spinal cord injury lesions.”Paraplegia, vol. 31, pp. 280–287, 1993.

[4] F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, A. Fishbach, T. Gulrez, A. Tognetti, andD. De, Rossi, “Remapping the residual motor space of spinal-cord injured patients for the control of assistive devices.” inNeuroscience 2006, Atlanta, Georgia-USA., October 14-18, 2006.

[5] M. W. Post, F. W. van Asbeck, A. J. van Dijk, and A. J. Schri-jvers, “Spinal cord injury rehabilitation: 3 functional outcomes.”Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation., vol. 87, pp. 59–64,1997.

[6] C. C. Flynn and C. M. Clark, “Rehabilitation technology: Assess-ment practices in vocational agencies.” Assistive Technology, vol. 7,pp. 111–118, 1995.

[7] R. A. Cooper, Wheelchair Selection and Configuration. DemosMedical Publishing LLC. ISBN 1888799188., 1998.

[8] ——, “Stability of a wheelchair controlled by a human pilot,” IEEETransactions on Rehabilitation Engineering., vol. 1(4), pp. 193–206.

[9] E. Prassler, J. Scholz, and P. Fiorini, “A robotics wheelchairfor crowded public environment.” IEEE Robotics & AutomationMagazine, vol. 8(1), pp. 38–45.

[10] S. Levine, D. Bell, L. Jaros, R. Simpson, Y. Koren, and J. Borenstein,“The navchair assistive wheelchair navigation system,” IEEETransactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 7(4), pp. 443–451.

[11] H. A. Yanco, Assistive Technology and Artificial Intelligence.Springer Berlin / Heidelberg., 2004.

[12] R. Simpson, D. Poirot, and F. Baxter, “The hephaestus smartwheelchair system,” IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineer-ing, vol. 10(2), pp. 118–122.

[13] L. Fehr, W. E. Langbein, and S. B. Skaar, “Adequacy of powerwheelchair control interfaces for persons with severe disabilities:a clinical survey,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development,vol. 37, pp. 353–360, 2000.

[14] A. Kubler, “Brain computer communication: unlocking thelocked,” Psychology Bulletin, vol. 127, pp. 358–375, 2001.

[15] F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi and S. A. Solla, “Neural primitives for motioncontrol,” IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 29, pp. 640–650,2004.

[16] K. K. Mosier, R. A. Scheidt, S. Acosta, and F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi,“Remapping hand movements in a novel geometrical environ-ment,” Neurophysiology, vol. 94, pp. 4362–4372, 2005.

[17] J. P. Donoghue, “Connecting cortex to machines: recent advancesin brain interfaces,” Nature Neuroscience Reviews, vol. 5, pp. 1085–1088, 2002.

[18] F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi and L. E. Miller, “Brain machine interfaces:computational demands and clinical needs meet basic neuro-science,” Review, Trends in Neuroscience., vol. 26, pp. 329–334, 2003.

[19] J. L. Patton, M. Kovic, and F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, “Custom-designedhaptic training for restoring reaching ability to individuals withstroke.” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development (JRRD),vol. 43 (5), pp. 643–656, 2006.

[20] C. Scharver, J. Patton, R. Kenyon, and E. Kersten, “Comparingadaptation of constrained and unconstrained movements in threedimensions.” in Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference onRehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 2005.

[21] “Flock of birds, ascension technology corporation,”http://www.ascension-tech.com/products/flockofbirds.php.

[22] “Elastosil lr3162,” www.wacker.com.[23] W. Peng, D. Tianhuai, X. Feng, and Q. Yuanzhen, “Piezoresistivity

of conductive composites filled by carbon black particles,” ActaMaterlae Compositae Sinica, vol. 21, no. 6, 2004.

[24] F. Lorussi, W. Rocchia, E. P. Scilingo, A. Tognetti, and D. De Rossi,“Wearable redundant fabric-based sensors arrays for reconstruc-tion of body segment posture,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 4, no. 6,pp. 807–818, December 2004.

[25] F. Lorussi, E. Scilingo, M. Tesconi, A. Tognetti, and D. De Rossi,“Strain sensing fabric for hand posture and gesture monitoring,”IEEE Transactions On Information Technology In Biomedicine, vol. 9,no. 3, pp. 372–381, September 2005.

[26] W. Peng, X. Feng, D. Tianhuai, and Q. Yuanzhen, “Time depen-dence of electrical resistivity under uniaxial pressures for carbonblack/polymer composites,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 39,no. 15, 2004.

[27] X. Zhang, Y. Pan, Q. Zheng, and X. Yi, “Time dependenceof piezoresistance for the conductor-filled polymer composites,”Journal of Polymer Science, vol. 38, no. 21, 2000.

[28] “Vrco cavelib,” www.vrco.com/CAVELib/OverviewCAVELib.html.[29] “Coin 3d graphics library,” www.coin3d.org.[30] A. Johnson, D. Sandin, G. Dawe, Z. Qiu, and D. Plepys, “Devel-

oping the paris : Using the cave to prototype a new vr display.”in Proceedings of IPT 2000, Ames, Iowa, USA., Jun 2000.

[31] S. Colin, M. Harrison, A. Grant, B, and Conway, “Haptic interfacesfor wheelchair navigation in the built environment,” Presence:Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (MIT Press)., vol. 13, no. 5,pp. 520–534, Oct,2004.

[32] K. ByungMoon and T. Panagiotis, “Controllers for unicycle-typewheeled robots : Some theoretical results and experimental val-idation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 18,no. 3, pp. 294–307, 2002.

[33] T. Satoshi, T. Gulrez, D. C. Herath, and G. W. M. Dissanayake,“Environmental recognition for autonomous robot using slam.real time path planning with dynamical localised voronoi divi-sion,” International Journal of Japan Society of Mech. Engg (JSME),vol. 3, pp. 904–911, 2005.

[34] K. Pearson, “On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of pointsin space.” Philosophical Magazine, vol. (6)2, p. 559572, 1901.

[35] H. Hotelling, “Analysis of a complex of statistical variables intoprincipal components.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 24,pp. 41744,498–520, 1933.

[36] M. Jordan, “Memoire sur les formes bilineaires,” Journal of Maths.Pures. Appl., vol. 19, pp. 35–54, 1874.

[37] E. Bryant and W. Atchley, Multivariate statistical methods: withingroup covariation. Stroudsberg: Halsted Press, 1975.