Influence of Robotic Hand Gloves on Hand Function in Stroke Survivors Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Rehabilitation on Upper Limb Functional Recovery After Stroke
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jul 24, 2026
Keywords:
Hand rehabilitation, Task-Oriented Training, Robotic Hand Gloves, Neurorehabilitation, Stroke Survivors, Hand Function
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-term disability worldwide and frequently results in impaired upper limb and hand functions. Recent advances in rehabilitation technology have introduced wearable robotic devices to enhance repetitive, task-oriented training and promote neuroplasticity. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of robotic hand glove therapy integrated with task-oriented training on hand motor function among stroke survivors.
Method: A quasi-experimental design with forty-two individuals with subacute stroke survivors were recruited from Thulir physiotherapy & rehabilitation center. Erode. Participants were allocated into two groups: a robotic glove group receiving task-oriented training combined with robotic-glove exercises, and another group receiving task-specific exercises along with sham robotic glove. The intervention was conducted for eight weeks under supervised conditions. Outcome measures included the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), assessed at baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention to evaluate changes in dexterity, functional performance, and perceived recovery.
Result: Statistical analysis with repeated measures ANOVA showed significant time effects across outcomes (p < 0.001), and Bonferroni analysis confirmed progressive differences between all intervals. In the robotic hand group, mean ARAT improved from 16.33 to 23.52 and 34.38, whereas TOG improved from 16.38 to 20.33 and 25.57. NHPT time decreased in RHG from 85.86 to 65.48 and 49.67, while TOG reduced from 85.10 to 72.91 and 63.24. SIS scores increased in RHG from 29.14 to 51.48 and 61.43, compared to TOG improvement from 29.33 to 38.24 and 47.29.
Conclusion: This study concluded as robotic-gloves along with task-oriented rehabilitation offers excellent hand recovery in stroke survivors.
Method: A quasi-experimental design with forty-two individuals with subacute stroke survivors were recruited from Thulir physiotherapy & rehabilitation center. Erode. Participants were allocated into two groups: a robotic glove group receiving task-oriented training combined with robotic-glove exercises, and another group receiving task-specific exercises along with sham robotic glove. The intervention was conducted for eight weeks under supervised conditions. Outcome measures included the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), assessed at baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention to evaluate changes in dexterity, functional performance, and perceived recovery.
Result: Statistical analysis with repeated measures ANOVA showed significant time effects across outcomes (p < 0.001), and Bonferroni analysis confirmed progressive differences between all intervals. In the robotic hand group, mean ARAT improved from 16.33 to 23.52 and 34.38, whereas TOG improved from 16.38 to 20.33 and 25.57. NHPT time decreased in RHG from 85.86 to 65.48 and 49.67, while TOG reduced from 85.10 to 72.91 and 63.24. SIS scores increased in RHG from 29.14 to 51.48 and 61.43, compared to TOG improvement from 29.33 to 38.24 and 47.29.
Conclusion: This study concluded as robotic-gloves along with task-oriented rehabilitation offers excellent hand recovery in stroke survivors.
Article Details
How to Cite
Balasubramaniam, A., Duraisamy, A., Veerasamy, A., & Viswam, S. K. (2026). Influence of Robotic Hand Gloves on Hand Function in Stroke Survivors. Indonesian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 15(1), 1 -8. https://doi.org/10.36803/indojpmr.v15i1.548
Section
Original Article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in the Indonesian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (IJPMR) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows others to share, copy, distribute, adapt, and build upon the work for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as proper attribution is given to the original authors.
Indonesian Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is Full license terms: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
References
1. Jones SP, Baqai K, Clegg A, Georgiou R, Harris C, Holland EJ, Kalkonde Y, Lightbody CE, Maulik PK, Srivastava PM, Pandian JD, Kulsum P, Sylaja PN, Watkins CL, Hackett ML. Stroke in India: A systematic review of the incidence, prevalence, and case fatality. Int J Stroke. 2022 Feb;17(2):132-140. doi: 10.1177/17474930211027834. Epub 2021 Jul 2. PMID: 34114912; PMCID: PMC8821978.
2. Bhagwat Y, Kumar S. A Review on Case Burden of Diabetes Mellitus Before and After the Implementation of National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke. Cureus. 2023 Nov 26;15(11):e49446. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49446. PMID: 38149165; PMCID: PMC10751034.
3. Gorthi SP, Garg D. Stroke Epidemiology among Young Persons in India: Every Step Counts. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2022 Jan-Feb;25(1):1-2. doi: 10.4103/aian.aian_935_21. Epub 2022 Feb 8. PMID: 35342255; PMCID: PMC8954312.
4. Al-Qazzaz NK, Ali SH, Ahmad SA, Islam S, Mohamad K. Cognitive impairment and memory dysfunction after a stroke diagnosis: a post-stroke memory assessment. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014 Sep 9;10:1677-91. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S67184. PMID: 25228808; PMCID: PMC4164290.
5. Avan A, Digaleh H, Di Napoli M, Stranges S, Behrouz R, Shojaeianbabaei G, Amiri A, Tabrizi R, Mokhber N, Spence JD, Azarpazhooh MR. Socioeconomic status and stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and worldwide burden: an ecological analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. BMC Med. 2019 Oct 24;17(1):191. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1397-3. PMID: 31647003; PMCID: PMC6813111.
6. Bharati B, Sahu KS, Pati S. Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients in India: An Exploratory Study from a National-Level Survey Data. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy. 2021 Jul 1;15(3). . doi:10.37506/ijpot.v15i3.16457
7. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021 Dec 19;396(10267):2006-2017. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0. Epub 2020 Dec 1. Erratum in: Lancet. 2021 Jan 16;397(10270):198. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32592-7. PMID: 33275908; PMCID: PMC7811204.
8. Harris JE, Eng JJ. Individuals with the dominant hand affected following stroke demonstrate less impairment than those with the nondominant hand affected. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006 Sep;20(3):380-9. doi: 10.1177/1545968305284528. PMID: 16885424; PMCID: PMC3432641.
9. Zhang J, Zhu A, Bao B, Li M, Zhang Y, Wang J, Wu X, Zheng C, Li X. Bionic soft robotic glove with EMG-based gesture and grip strength synchronized prediction for grasping assistance. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control. 2026 Feb 1;112:108516. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2025.108516
10. Calabrò RS, Accorinti M, Porcari B, Carioti L, Ciatto L, Billeri L, Andronaco VA, Galletti F, Filoni S, Naro A. Does hand robotic rehabilitation improve motor function by rebalancing interhemispheric connectivity after chronic stroke? Encouraging data from a randomised-clinical-trial. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 May;130(5):767-780. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.02.013. Epub 2019 Mar 15. PMID: 30904771.
11. Thimabut W, Terachinda P, Kitisomprayoonkul W. Effectiveness of a Soft Robotic Glove to Assist Hand Function in Stroke Patients: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study. Rehabil Res Pract. 2022 Apr 25;2022:3738219. doi: 10.1155/2022/3738219. PMID: 35509444; PMCID: PMC9061070.
12. Bay?nd?r O, Akyüz G, Sekban N. The effect of adding robot-assisted hand rehabilitation to conventional rehabilitation program following stroke: A randomized-controlled study. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Jun 1;68(2):254-261. doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.8705. PMID: 35989963; PMCID: PMC9366479.
13. Karishma B, Srithulasi PR, Apparao P. Effectiveness of soft robotic hand aided therapy in hemiparetic stroke. Int J All Res Educ Sci Methods. 2024;12(3):2896–2904.
14. Patel B, Bachkaniwala A. A Review on Combined Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation and Robotic Hand Glove for Hand Rehabilitation in Post-Stroke Patients. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2023;13(10):146-51. doi: 10.52403/ijhsr.20231020
15. Souhail A, Vessakosol P. Low-cost soft robotic gloves for at-home rehabilitation and daily living activities. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems. 2019;13. doi:10.14313/JAMRIS/3-2019/22
16. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
17. Nudo RJ, Plautz EJ, Frost SB. Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to motor cortex. Muscle Nerve. 2001 Aug;24(8):1000-19. doi: 10.1002/mus.1104. PMID: 11439375.
18. Kwakkel G, Veerbeek JM, van Wegen EE, Wolf SL. Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):224-34. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70160-7. PMID: 25772900; PMCID: PMC4361809.
2. Bhagwat Y, Kumar S. A Review on Case Burden of Diabetes Mellitus Before and After the Implementation of National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke. Cureus. 2023 Nov 26;15(11):e49446. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49446. PMID: 38149165; PMCID: PMC10751034.
3. Gorthi SP, Garg D. Stroke Epidemiology among Young Persons in India: Every Step Counts. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2022 Jan-Feb;25(1):1-2. doi: 10.4103/aian.aian_935_21. Epub 2022 Feb 8. PMID: 35342255; PMCID: PMC8954312.
4. Al-Qazzaz NK, Ali SH, Ahmad SA, Islam S, Mohamad K. Cognitive impairment and memory dysfunction after a stroke diagnosis: a post-stroke memory assessment. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014 Sep 9;10:1677-91. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S67184. PMID: 25228808; PMCID: PMC4164290.
5. Avan A, Digaleh H, Di Napoli M, Stranges S, Behrouz R, Shojaeianbabaei G, Amiri A, Tabrizi R, Mokhber N, Spence JD, Azarpazhooh MR. Socioeconomic status and stroke incidence, prevalence, mortality, and worldwide burden: an ecological analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. BMC Med. 2019 Oct 24;17(1):191. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1397-3. PMID: 31647003; PMCID: PMC6813111.
6. Bharati B, Sahu KS, Pati S. Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients in India: An Exploratory Study from a National-Level Survey Data. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy. 2021 Jul 1;15(3). . doi:10.37506/ijpot.v15i3.16457
7. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021 Dec 19;396(10267):2006-2017. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0. Epub 2020 Dec 1. Erratum in: Lancet. 2021 Jan 16;397(10270):198. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32592-7. PMID: 33275908; PMCID: PMC7811204.
8. Harris JE, Eng JJ. Individuals with the dominant hand affected following stroke demonstrate less impairment than those with the nondominant hand affected. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2006 Sep;20(3):380-9. doi: 10.1177/1545968305284528. PMID: 16885424; PMCID: PMC3432641.
9. Zhang J, Zhu A, Bao B, Li M, Zhang Y, Wang J, Wu X, Zheng C, Li X. Bionic soft robotic glove with EMG-based gesture and grip strength synchronized prediction for grasping assistance. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control. 2026 Feb 1;112:108516. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2025.108516
10. Calabrò RS, Accorinti M, Porcari B, Carioti L, Ciatto L, Billeri L, Andronaco VA, Galletti F, Filoni S, Naro A. Does hand robotic rehabilitation improve motor function by rebalancing interhemispheric connectivity after chronic stroke? Encouraging data from a randomised-clinical-trial. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019 May;130(5):767-780. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.02.013. Epub 2019 Mar 15. PMID: 30904771.
11. Thimabut W, Terachinda P, Kitisomprayoonkul W. Effectiveness of a Soft Robotic Glove to Assist Hand Function in Stroke Patients: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study. Rehabil Res Pract. 2022 Apr 25;2022:3738219. doi: 10.1155/2022/3738219. PMID: 35509444; PMCID: PMC9061070.
12. Bay?nd?r O, Akyüz G, Sekban N. The effect of adding robot-assisted hand rehabilitation to conventional rehabilitation program following stroke: A randomized-controlled study. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Jun 1;68(2):254-261. doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.8705. PMID: 35989963; PMCID: PMC9366479.
13. Karishma B, Srithulasi PR, Apparao P. Effectiveness of soft robotic hand aided therapy in hemiparetic stroke. Int J All Res Educ Sci Methods. 2024;12(3):2896–2904.
14. Patel B, Bachkaniwala A. A Review on Combined Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation and Robotic Hand Glove for Hand Rehabilitation in Post-Stroke Patients. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research. 2023;13(10):146-51. doi: 10.52403/ijhsr.20231020
15. Souhail A, Vessakosol P. Low-cost soft robotic gloves for at-home rehabilitation and daily living activities. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems. 2019;13. doi:10.14313/JAMRIS/3-2019/22
16. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
17. Nudo RJ, Plautz EJ, Frost SB. Role of adaptive plasticity in recovery of function after damage to motor cortex. Muscle Nerve. 2001 Aug;24(8):1000-19. doi: 10.1002/mus.1104. PMID: 11439375.
18. Kwakkel G, Veerbeek JM, van Wegen EE, Wolf SL. Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):224-34. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70160-7. PMID: 25772900; PMCID: PMC4361809.