Table 1: Overview of End-effector upper limb rehabilitation robots.

GroupsDevicesResearchersDOFsDriving modesControl strategiesTraining modeExperimental subjectFunctional testingClinical scale

End-effector rehabilitation robothand-object - handLum et al. [18]1The contralateral hand driveForce controlActive mode\\\
End-effector rehabilitation robotBimanual lifting rehabilitatorLum et al. [19]2Motor driveForce controlPassive modeThree hemiplegic patientsLift handlesADLS improved
End-effector rehabilitation robotMIT MANUSKrebs et al. [20]3Motor driveImpedance controlActive mode
Passive mode
Twenty hemiparetic patientsTraction movementFugl-Meyer ()
Motor power scores ()
Motor status score () improved
End-effector rehabilitation robotMIMEStanford university [21]6Motor driveEMG signal control
Force control
Active mode
Passive mode
Two subacute stroke patientsFinger and hand motionFugl-Meyer, Box and Block test, Jebsen-Taylor test
improved
End-effector rehabilitation robotARM GuideChicago institute of rehabilitation [22]3Motor driveImpedance controlActive mode
Passive mode
Nineteen hemiparetic patientsFree reachingUnivariate ANOVA statistics; ADLS
End-effector rehabilitation robotGENTLE/SUniversity of Reading [23]3Motor drivePosition controlPassive modeThirty-one patients\Multivariate analysis of the Fugl-Meyer improved
End-effector rehabilitation robotHaptic-robotic exercise platformLam et al. [24]2Motor driveImpedance control
Position control
Active mode
Passive mode
Eight healthy subjectsTraction movementQuantitative data improved
Administered questionnaire improved
End-effector rehabilitation robotEMULOsaka university [103]6Hydraulic drive
Motor drive
Impedance controlActive mode
Passive mode
Five hemiparetic patientsVirtual tasksUeda
Fugl-Meyer
Motoricity Index improved