Assessment of User Experience, Acceptability, Usability, Human‐Device Interaction, and Ergonomics in Two Mobile FES ‐Cycling Systems for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Functional Electrical Stimulation Assisted Cycling (FES-cycling) is a rehabilitation intervention for individuals with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), offering benefits like increased muscle trophism, improved cardiopulmonary function, and reduced bone demineralization. Despite numerous studies on its physical advantages, few have focused on user experience. This study evaluates the user experience, usability, acceptability, and human-device interaction of two FES-cycling systems: a recumbent FES-bike prototype from Politecnico di Milano and the commercial BerkelBike Pro. METHODS: We recruited 15 participants with SCI, aged 18-65, with varying injury levels. The user experience (primary outcome), acceptability, usability, human-device interaction, and ergonomics of both systems were investigated by means of 4 questionnaires: the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), the Technological Acceptance Measure 3 (TAM-3), the System Usability Scale (SUS), and a customized questionnaire to evaluate human-device interaction both in terms of ergonomic aspects and psychological factors. RESULTS: The user experience received positive evaluations across all dimensions (scores ≥ 1.5 on a scale from -3 to 3), with slightly higher, though not statistically significant, scores for the FB. Secondary outcomes indicated strong acceptability (global TAM-3 scores > 5.5/7 for both devices), high usability ratings (SUS scores ≥ 75/100 for both devices), and favorable interaction and ergonomics, emphasizing ease of use, comfort, and alignment with user expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores the positive user experience as the primary outcome, along with strong acceptance and usability of both devices, emphasizing their potential to enhance Sport-Therapy and the value of integrating user perspectives in future development.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.