Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Surface Electromyographic Biofeedback as a Rehabilitation Tool for Patients with Global Brachial Plexus Injury Receiving Bionic Reconstruction
Published on: September 28, 2019
Comparative evaluation of user satisfaction in stroke rehabilitation: Wearable vs traditional electromyography
Nidhi Katharani1, Ashish Kakkad1, Yagnik Dave1
1Faculty of Physiotherapy, Marwadi University, Rajkot, India.
Background:
After a stroke, wrist and hand dysfunction usually develops from extended non-use and lack of home-based repetitive training, greatly influencing affect daily living and general quality of life. Wearable mobile and traditional electromyography biofeedback devices as biofeedback-based rehabilitation tools offer an intriguing solution for task-specific training, thereby improving user involvement and functional recovery.
Purpose:
The main aim of this study was to find out how satisfied people with wrist and hand dysfunction who had recently had a stroke were with using a wearable mobile biofeedback device (Pheezee) compared to traditional electromyography biofeedback.
Study Design:
Crossover trial.
Methods:
Thirty subacute stroke (male 16 and female 14) participants with wrist and hand dysfunction participated in the study. All participants received 1 week of training using the Pheezee, then 1 week using traditional electromyography biofeedback. The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) scale measured user satisfaction.
Results:
The Mann-Whitney U test applied for between-group comparisons. The wearable mobile biofeedback device demonstrated significantly higher user satisfaction in terms of weight, safety, durability, comfort, simplicity of use, and effectiveness (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed between the two modalities concerning adjustment component (p > 0.05). QUEST 2.0 device subscale total eight items were higher in the Pheezee device group (3.69 ± 0.26) compared to the traditional electromyography biofeedback device group (3.18 ± 0.18) mean and SD respectively, demonstrating a mean difference of 0.52 points (16.3% higher user satisfaction).
Conclusions:
Wearable mobile biofeedback devices show promise as supportive tools in stroke rehabilitation and can be feasibly integrated into home-based task-specific training programs. Their ability to raise engagement and adherence to rehabilitation could help stroke survivors have better functional results and quality of life.
