Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
My talk today is about
the work we have been developing in my department, related to
the Center of Biomedical Engineering,
where we
deal with the idea
of simple modules
aiming improvements on assistive technology. The title is
quite big,
but as my talk goes, the concept will become clearer.
At first, I am going to talk about what is Rehabilitation
Engineering, which is one of the four areas of Biomedical Engineering.
Its name is already the whole definition: Engineering aimed at rehabilitation.
However we may go a little deeper, and talk about what Engineering contributes to,
and in which sense we talk about rehabilitation.
I usually tell students that attend my Graduate course on Rehab. Engineering that
the best definition is: Engineering application,
its fundamentals, techniques and resources,
towards
deficit rehabilitation,
including motor deficits,
or movement-related,
sensory deficits, mainly low vision,
blindness, low hearing, deafness,
and more: I used to present a slide to my students, with
a big question mark after "cognitive deficits"...
This was a close mindness of my part, I thought: "Will there be some application on cognitive deficits
someday? I cannot see a direct
application of engineering
on cognitive rehabilitation."
And I confess I was wrong, I have recently found some applications, and
what I am talking about now includes that,
and we have started
to work on some projects
for cognitive deficits, more specifically socialization.
These new research projects
are aimed at social interaction
with autistic children.
So, the expression "Rehabilitation Engineering aimed at assistive
technologies",
is usually seen through a point of view that I call "classic",
where the latest technology is used.
For example, when one wants to measure
the motor deficit degree while the subject walks,
trying to pinpoint the exact cause,
he or she has to setup a gait
analysis lab, which costs a lot, because it uses the latest technology,
to obtain the needed information.
You have to deal with "high-tech" when doing "interventions". For example,
you create a new electric wheelchair, with the coolest features, it
climbs ladders and so on.
But... look at the final cost! You have expensive components, a high development
cost, and a nearly craftmanship,
because you do not sell many units. So, the company will develop
an assistive technology product,
it has to be high-tech,
at a very high cost,
and manufacture the units in a nearly handmade process.
because custimization is a must,
specific needs are different from
one person to another.
So you have to customize your product to each subject's needs.
In short, you create a product that only the basic frame is "off-the-shelf"
you pick this frame,
and on top of it, you have to customize it. This costs a lot.
In short, you have high customization, you spend lots of time and resources
in develpoment, it leads to what I call "low cost dilution".
It means that your high development cost
will have to be diluted in a small comunity.
It highly increases
unitary cost.
I quote a famous phrase, I mean not so famous, because I wrote it
some months ago, I believe the concept is not mine,
but this is how I put it in words: There is no way to advocate about
total acessibility
if the assistive technology cost prevents access,
a game of words, accesibility and access,
to this very technology
from the people who really need it. As long as I have
some piece of technology
that can be used on rehabilitation,
but the user has no resources to acquire it, this technology
is meaningless.
This is my personal point of view,
I strongly advocate it, I do not know if I am right or wrong, but
I believe in this concept,
and I present the new paradigm idea based on this
point of view.
These paradigms are based on some recent and important changes
on technology.
The first of them is the rapid prototyping systems.
Everyone in here probably have heard about the new
3D printers, able to manufacture plastic components,
some of them can craft on ceramics or metal, but the most common system
is for plastic,
and these printers allow us to create customized mechanical
components, really customized,
at a very low cost per unit. If I want to make one single unit of a component,
I use the printer and make it
at a very low cost.
Printed circuit boards were expensive some years ago, the process was
time consuming,
but today you may design it
using CAD software, some of them freeware,
and there are tools that receive input from the design files to
manufacture these boards in a
short time, a few minutes, at a low cost.
And finally, the "off-the-shelf" modules. Today you can purchase
modules that can be used to specific and complex tasks.
The most known example I can mention
is the Arduino board, which is
a free initiative,
You purchase this board, it has a defined processign power, you get it already assembled,
and you purchase the so-called "shields", which are modular boards that can be plugged into the main board,
for any desired peripheral function. There are shields for wired internet connection,
shields for wi-fi connections,
for sensor networks, like the zigbee protocol, which is a network protocol
designed for sensors,
shields for DC motor control, for stepping motor control,
or control of other types of actuators, also for connecting varioys types of sensors.
Thus, there is a variety of modules ready for use, you get the shields
and plug them on Arduino, and then you have it already
reading information.
This is a good example of "off-the-shelf" modules.
Now let's move for systems programming.
Most of the examples I have used so far for an assistive
technology system are what
is called "physical computing". It has a microprocessor, sensors, and actuators.
These are the basic modules: processing module,
sensor modules,
actuator modules.
The developer has to create a program for the processing module.
Until recently, programming was left to specialists, with years
of experience on programming languages
and programming techniques.
Today there are very simple programming languages
Well maybe earlier than "today", if I am not mistaken:
In the 1980s, LOGO was intented to be a simple language with educational purposes.
Now back to physical computing, today there are programming languages,
such as the language created for Arduino,
which is very simple to be used,
6 or 7 year old children have learned to
program Arduino boards easily.
Also, there are code generators.
The ones who want to use more advanced languages can use
software tools that generate code blocks automatically.
Now, for me the most important paradigm are the online forums,
for example, the Arduino forum,
where many people participate,
a huge community working on a collaborative process.
This helps much the spreading of ideas.
There is one more important technology change to mention:
The evolution of electronic components. Today there are new and more
advanced processors, more
advanced sensors,
all at a low cost, one can buy
an Arduino board,
imported to Brazil, all taxes included, for a price of less than
BRL 100, I will not mention the exact valut, but it costs
less than BRL 100
you can get an Arduino board for fun or for creating something serious.
This is a big cost reduction,
and online forums help a lot. In short,
the important changes are:
The possibility of creating prototypes very quickly,
ease of programming, idea exchange,
new electronic components and devices, and lower costs.
So
this is current scenario.
With these trends in mind, we can say, and this is the idea I want to spread,
that more and more people can
work with assistive technology, and contribute with it,
because
anyone can purchase supplies and equipment at a low cost, for example
you can get a module that integrates many functions, so
instead of plugging
20 different modules together, you use 2 of 3 of them for creating something
that can already be tested as a concept.
You have complex functions integrated to single components,
and it is very easy to program the whole system, anyone can
learn on how
to program
this system,
so you do not need specialists to design a system,
to assemble it,
or to program it.
With a little training you would be able
to do all of this.
Another advantage that comes is that customization,
tuning for each user, can be added, without significative
rising on cost.
For example, we can mention prostheses,
lower limb prostheses.
There is a part od enery limb prosthesis called socket, that has to be,
custom made, this is that part where
the remaining body segment,
upper or lower limb,
has to be put in and it has to fit snuggly.
Today one can use a 3D scanner on the remaining part of the limb
and then use rapid prototyping to build the socket, making in one day
what used to take 1 or 2 weeks
if made with traditional techniques.
The final cost is
reduced, and it opens the possibility of having
a bigger variety of devices on market. If all of them will work well,
probably many will not work very well,
but all of them are practical trials.
If you try a new design a hundred times
with a success percentage of 1%,
you would have at least one device that can generate impact on market.
Thus,
I believe many more people can collaborate
on assistive technology new designs,
releasing new devices
that supply more individual and specific needs, at a
cost that becomes affordable
to the final user.
These are some headlines
on technology websites
that I found recently:
First: "African creates 3D printer using
computer scrap".
This man got computer parts that were going to the trash,
some motors, CD driver motors,
computer power supplies, and some mechanical parts,
and assembled a 3D printer
using this
computer scrap.
Second headline: "Man uses 3D printer to build a hand prosthesis for his son".
This man is not an expert on prostheses.
He just made the pieces with a 3D printer,
and tested the final assembly on his son, the boy uses this prosthesis
for playing, for studying, for everything.
The father did it at his own home.
With all of this, I started to have an identity crisis,
asking myself: where do I fit in all of this? What will be the role
of the researcher? I have studied so much to be an expert."
and finally: "What if everyone can
design his or her
own assistive devices?"
"Where do I fit in this new world?"
Fortunately, I have come to some inference about
the role of
the researcher, the expert, in the future.
Researchers will have to focus on ideas,
not on "hands on", although I love doing "hands on" design.
We researchers have to dedicate more
to ideas,
to working on ideas, even on the phylosophy of the
rehabilitation process.
A second role: experts have to keep improving these mentioned resources.
The new user can get a 3D printer, he or she can purchase
a processing module,
but who will create these tools? The experts, they
will continue designing
better and better modules, designing
better and better prototyping systems, reducing costs,
easier-to-use modules, tools,
programming languages.
Another important role for the expert:
to collaborate with online forums.
I have already shown the
importance of these forums, I
contribute a little to Arduino forum,
I contribute more to a forum from a company that manufactures
microprocessors, this company has an
University Program that includes UNICAMP as a partner,
so I collaborate to the forum, exchanging ideas,
and doing so I can see the role that we fit to, experts
go deeper on how to release
the potential of these processors,
expert opinions help people with difficulties on applying his or her ideas.
Someone asks: "How do I do that? I did not manage doing it.", you the expert answers
and doing so you become very helpful,
thus the expert will also be very important on directly
helping people that want to do something.
Also, experts can watch and follow these ideas becoming practical.
It is obvious that nobody should design any idea and just start
testing it on someone without
considering user safety. I believe that
safety concerns
will be important for the experts. They will be the guides on
how to apply adequately these new technologies,
these new assistive devices.
Now, to finish my talk I would like to show a practical example that
summarizes all that I have talked about, a little device I designed
within one week, just using my free time, and this is something
that we professors do not have much during class periods,
I have worked on this idea
during sparse free time, and I ended up with something that
I called "Spider CP". "CP" is an acronym for "Cerebral palsy",
I think it has much to do with the talk from Prof. Valente,
about education for children with CP,
but the focus here is a little different. The objective is to excercise
movements on CP children,
complementing computer sciences.
While computer experts create on-screen games,
here I present a device, a physical toy,
and I believe that this complements
therapy in a more playful way for a child with CP,
because usually these children have a deficit on controlling movements.
I called this "CP spider" because it is a spider-shaped small robot.
The result of my work was
not tested on CP children yet.
However, I have tested the concept with my niece, "keeping it
in the family", so I would not need to submit a project to the Research
Ethics Committee at this moment.
She is 2 years old.
The final message I wanted
to leave for all of you
and for the people who will watch the recorded video is:
Do not hold back your ideas.
Sometimes we have terrific ideas, some of them are quite crazy,
but some can work. The problem we face is that we end up thinking:
"I do not have the expertise to do it".
Make some research, think it more, try and see if you can
do it with this more and more
accessible technology. Design it, try it, if it
does not work, no problem. If you keep trying, once, twice, 10 times,
some time it will end up working.
This is the most important message I
wanted to transmit to everyone, and if anyone
wants to contact me and to know more about these new technologies,
I am at your disposal.
Thank you.