Abstract
Objective: The instrument THERapy-related InterACTion (THER-I-ACT) was developed to document therapeutic interactions comprehensively in the human therapist-patient setting. Here, we investigate whether the instrument can also reliably be used to characterise therapeutic interactions when a digital system with a humanoid robot as a therapeutic assistant is used. Methods: Participants and therapy: Seventeen stroke survivors receiving arm rehabilitation (i.e., arm basis training (ABT) for moderate-to-severe arm paresis [n = 9] or arm ability training (AAT) for mild arm paresis [n = 8]) using the digital therapy system E-BRAiN over a course of nine sessions. Analysis of the therapeutic interaction: A total of 34 therapy sessions were videotaped. All therapeutic interactions provided by the humanoid robot during the first and the last (9th) session of daily training were documented both in terms of their frequency and time used for that type of interaction using THER-I-ACT. Any additional therapeutic interaction spontaneously given by the supervising staff or a human helper providing physical assistance (ABT only) was also documented. All ratings were performed by two trained independent raters. Statistical analyses: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for the frequency of occurrence and time used for each category of interaction observed. Results: Therapeutic interactions could comprehensively be documented and were observed across the dimensions provision of information, feedback, and bond-related interactions. ICCs for therapeutic interaction category assessments from 34 therapy sessions by two independent raters were high (ICC ≥0.90) for almost all categories of the therapeutic interaction observed, both for the occurrence frequency and time used for categories of therapeutic interactions, and both for the therapeutic interaction performed by the robot and, even though much less frequently observed, additional spontaneous therapeutic interactions by the supervisory staff and a helper being present. The ICC was similarly high for an overall subjective rating of the concentration and engagement of patients (0.87). Conclusion: Therapeutic interactions can comprehensively and reliably be documented by trained raters using the instrument THER-I-ACT not only in the traditional patient-therapist setting, as previously shown, but also in a digital therapy setting with a humanoid robot as the therapeutic agent and for more complex therapeutic settings with more than one therapeutic agent being present.