PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Machines· 2026Q2

A Preclinical Human–Machine Reliability and Operational Safety Assessment Framework for a Rehabilitation Massage Robot Prototype

Haokun Wang, Shuyi Wang, Jingyi Hu, Xinrong Miao et al.

Short summary

A novel framework integrating FMECA, task analysis, and FAHP for a rehabilitation massage robot prototype identified 28 failure modes and 66 use errors across 19 subtasks, yielding an overall "Very Good" reliability score (Q=0.848).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • A new framework for assessing rehabilitation massage robot prototypes integrates FMECA, task analysis, and FAHP.
  • The framework identified 28 failure modes across actuation, sensing, and drive-control subsystems.
  • Simulated use testing recorded 66 use errors among 15 operators and 15 simulated patients across 19 subtasks.
  • The overall reliability score (Q) was 0.848 ("Very Good"), while a direct weighting score (Scont) was 0.767 ("Good").
  • Inaccurate pressure-sensor output had the highest risk priority, and left/right pressure reading confusion was the most common use error.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

With the increasing use of massage robots as direct-contact rehabilitation devices, their evaluation must address both equipment failures and use-related risks. This study presents a prototype-stage assessment framework for a seated knee-adjustment bionic massage robot that integrates failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA), task analysis, and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) weighting based on a fuzzy complementary judgment matrix. FMECA identified 28 failure modes across the actuation, sensing, and drive-control subsystems. Simulated-use testing involving 15 operators and 15 healthy adults acting as simulated patients comprised 19 observable subtasks and recorded 66 use errors across 285 subtask opportunities. The normalized scores for the actuation, sensing, drive-control, and operational-safety indicators were 0.796, 0.691, 0.808, and 0.768, respectively. Interval-based aggregation yielded Q = 0.848 (“Very Good”), whereas direct weighting of the same normalized inputs yielded Scont = 0.767, within the “Good” interval. Across η ∈ [0, 1], Q ranged from 0.753 to 0.902. A same-panel expert assessment yielded 0.904 and the same grade, although this comparison did not constitute independent validation. Inaccurate pressure-sensor output had the highest risk priority number of 32, while confusion between left- and right-side pressure readings was the most frequent use error, with 11 occurrences. The framework supports prototype-stage risk identification and prioritization but does not establish clinical efficacy, certified safety, or long-term reliability.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Machines, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Medical Laboratory TechnologyHealth Professions