Evaluation device, evaluation method, and evaluation program

Abstract

This invention provides an evaluation device that quantitatively assesses the state of a subject's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation. [Solution] An evaluation device is provided, comprising: a calculation unit that calculates a subject's tactile function value from the accuracy rate of the subject's responses to multiple test samples and the difference between two of the test samples' roughness or hardness indicators; and an evaluation unit that, if the subject is undergoing a tactile test for the first time, evaluates the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit, and, if the subject is undergoing the tactile test for the second time or later, evaluates the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present disclosure relates to an evaluation apparatus, an evaluation method, and an evaluation program.

Background Art

[0002] There is a technique for evaluating the presence or absence and degree of sensory impairment such as hemiplegia of one half of the body due to stroke or the like. For example, Patent Document 1 discloses a technique for automatically identifying the presence or absence of neuropathy, the progress of neuropathy, and the like.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] In determining a rehabilitation policy for sensory impairment caused by hemiplegia of one half of the body due to stroke or the like, it is important to quantitatively evaluate the sensory state (tactile state) of a human. However, although there are several items in the sensory examination, the examinations for the purpose of rough-smooth discrimination of the subject (patient) and the examinations for the purpose of material identification often use self-made examination members or commercially available products based on subjectivity and the rules of thumb of medical staff, and there is no determined quantitative evaluation method.

[0005] The present disclosure has been made in view of the above points, and an object thereof is to provide an evaluation apparatus, an evaluation method, and an evaluation program for quantitatively evaluating the state of the tactile function of a subject and the effect of rehabilitation.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0006] In a view of this disclosure, an evaluation device is provided, comprising: a calculation unit that calculates a subject's tactile function value from the accuracy rate of the subject's responses to a tactile test on multiple test samples and the difference between two of the test samples' roughness or hardness indices; and an evaluation unit that, if the subject is undergoing a tactile test for the first time, evaluates the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit, and, if the subject is undergoing the tactile test for the second time or later, evaluates the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test.

[0007] If the subject has undergone the tactile test for the second time or later, the evaluation unit may evaluate the effectiveness of the rehabilitation by comparing the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment, obtained from the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit, with the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment, obtained from the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test.

[0008] The evaluation device described above may further include a display unit that presents information regarding the method of tactile examination to the subject, and presents the tactile function value and the degree of effectiveness to the person in charge of the subject's rehabilitation.

[0009] The evaluation device described above may further include an inspection unit that performs a tactile examination by having the subject touch the inspection sample while the subject cannot see the sample.

[0010] In the case of a tactile test aimed at identifying the material of the subject, the inspection unit may randomly select a combination of two types of inspection samples with different hardness and present them to the subject. In the case of a tactile test aimed at discriminating between rough and smooth surfaces, the inspection unit may randomly select a combination of two types of inspection samples with different roughness and present them to the subject.

[0011] The aforementioned multiple test samples may have varying degrees of roughness or hardness.

[0012] The aforementioned test sample may consist of at least one of resin, rubber, gel, or foam.

[0013] The numerical range of the tactile function value used to evaluate the progression of the condition may be wider as the sensory impairment progresses.

[0014] In another aspect of this disclosure, an evaluation method comprising: a processor calculating a subject's tactile function value from the subject's accuracy rate in responding to multiple test samples and the difference between two of the test samples' roughness or hardness indicators; evaluating the progression of the subject's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value if it is the subject's first time undergoing a tactile test; and evaluating the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test if it is the subject's second or subsequent time undergoing a tactile test.

[0015] In another aspect of this disclosure, an evaluation program causes a computer to perform a process that calculates a subject's tactile function value from the subject's accuracy rate in responding to multiple test samples and the difference between two of the test samples' roughness or hardness indicators; evaluates the progression of the subject's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value if it is the subject's first time undergoing a tactile test; and evaluates the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test if it is the subject's second or subsequent time undergoing a tactile test. [Effects of the Invention]

[0016] This disclosure provides an evaluation device, an evaluation method, and an evaluation program for quantitatively evaluating the state of a subject's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0017] [Figure 1] This is a diagram for explaining an evaluation using an evaluation device according to an embodiment of the disclosed technology. [Figure 2] This is a block diagram showing the hardware configuration of the evaluation device. [Figure 3] This is a block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the evaluation device. [Figure 4] This is a diagram for explaining the calculation of the tactile function value of the subject. [Figure 5] This is a diagram showing an example of a table for evaluating the progress of sensory impairment. [Figure 6] This is a diagram showing an example of a table for evaluating the effectiveness of the rehabilitation of the subject. [Figure 7] This is a flowchart showing the flow of the evaluation process by the evaluation device.

Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention

[0018] Hereinafter, an example of an embodiment of the present disclosure will be described while referring to the drawings. In each of the drawings, the same or equivalent components and parts are given the same reference numerals. Also, the dimensional ratios in the drawings are exaggerated for the convenience of explanation and may be different from the actual ratios.

[0019] FIG. 1 is a diagram for explaining an evaluation using an evaluation device according to the present embodiment. The evaluation device 10 is a device for quantitatively evaluating the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 and the effect of rehabilitation. The evaluation device 10 performs a tactile test on the subject 1 and quantitatively evaluates the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 and the effect of rehabilitation based on the results of the tactile test.

[0020] The evaluation device 10 evaluates based on the results of a tactile examination for the purpose of identifying the material of the subject 1 or a tactile examination for the purpose of discriminating between rough and smooth for the subject 1. The tactile examination for the purpose of discriminating between rough and smooth presents two types of test samples to the subject 1 in a state where they cannot be visually recognized, and asks the subject 1 whether one of the test samples is rough or whether both test samples have the same roughness. Specifically, the subject 1 is made to put their hand into a box, and the evaluation device 10 presents two types of test samples inside the box. The tactile examination for the purpose of material identification presents two types of test samples to the subject 1 in a state where they cannot be visually recognized, and asks the subject 1 whether one of the test samples is hard or whether both test samples have the same hardness.

[0021] The evaluation device 10 evaluates the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 and the effect of rehabilitation based on the correct answer rate of the subject 1's answer and the difference in the index of the roughness or hardness of the presented test samples. When the subject 1 is undergoing the tactile examination by the evaluation device 10 for the first time, the evaluation device 10 evaluates the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 based on the correct answer rate of the subject 1's answer and the difference in the index of the roughness or hardness of the presented test samples. When the subject 1 is undergoing the tactile examination by the evaluation device 10 for the second time or later, the evaluation device 10 evaluates the effect of rehabilitation by comparing the evaluation result of the state of the tactile function in the previous examination with the evaluation result of the state of the tactile function in the current examination.

[0022] The evaluation device 10 can quantitatively evaluate the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 and the effect of rehabilitation by evaluating the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 and the effect of rehabilitation based on the correct answer rate of the subject 1's answer and the difference in the index of the roughness or hardness of the presented test samples.

[0023] In the example of FIG. 1, it is shown that the evaluation device 10 also conducts an examination of the subject 1, but the present disclosure is not limited to such an example. The examination device for examining the tactile function of the subject 1 and the evaluation device for evaluating the state of the tactile function of the subject 1 and the effect of rehabilitation may be configured as independent devices.

[0024] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the hardware configuration of the evaluation device 10.

[0025] As shown in Figure 2, the evaluation device 10 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11, ROM (Read Only Memory) 12, RAM (Random Access Memory) 13, storage 14, input unit 15, display unit 16, and communication interface (I / F) 17. Each component is connected to the others via a bus 19 so that they can communicate with each other.

[0026] The CPU 11 is a central processing unit that executes various programs and controls various parts. Specifically, the CPU 11 reads a program from the ROM 12 or storage 14 and executes the program using the RAM 13 as a working area. The CPU 11 controls each of the above components and performs various calculations according to the program recorded in the ROM 12 or storage 14. In this embodiment, the ROM 12 or storage 14 stores an evaluation program that evaluates the state of the subject's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation.

[0027] ROM12 stores various programs and data. RAM13 temporarily stores programs or data as a working area. Storage14 consists of a storage device such as an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), SSD (Solid State Drive), or flash memory, and stores various programs, including the operating system, and various data.

[0028] The input unit 15 includes a pointing device such as a mouse and a keyboard, and is used for various types of input.

[0029] The display unit 16 is, for example, a liquid crystal display and displays various information. The display unit 16 may also function as an input unit 15 by employing a touch panel system.

[0030] The communication interface 17 is an interface for communicating with other devices, and standards such as Ethernet®, FDDI, and Wi-Fi® can be used.

[0031] When executing the above evaluation program, the evaluation device 10 uses the above hardware resources to implement various functions. The functional configuration implemented by the evaluation device 10 will now be described.

[0032] Figure 3 is a block diagram showing an example of the functional configuration of the evaluation device 10.

[0033] As shown in Figure 3, the evaluation device 10 has a functional configuration consisting of an inspection unit 101, a calculation unit 102, an evaluation unit 103, and a presentation unit 104. Each functional configuration is realized by the CPU 11 reading and executing an evaluation program stored in the ROM 12 or storage 14.

[0034] The inspection unit 101 performs processing related to the examination of the subject's tactile function. Specifically, when examining the subject's tactile function, the inspection unit 101 presents two types of test samples. In the case of a tactile test aimed at distinguishing between rough and smooth surfaces, the inspection unit 101 presents the two types of test samples to the subject 1 in a way that prevents them from seeing them, and asks the subject 1 to answer which test sample is rougher, or whether both test samples are of the same roughness. In the case of a tactile test aimed at material identification, the inspection unit 101 presents the two types of test samples to the subject 1 in a way that prevents them from seeing them, and asks the subject 1 to answer which test sample is harder, or whether both test samples are of the same hardness. The inspection unit 101 asks the subject 1 to answer which test sample is rougher, which is harder, or whether both test samples are of the same roughness or hardness, using any method of the inspection unit 101. For example, the examination unit 101 may have the subject 1 respond by voice, or it may have the subject respond by touching a user interface for answering displayed on a touch panel display by the presentation unit 104 described later.

[0035] The test samples presented to subject 1 consist of, for example, resin, rubber, gel, and foam. Sometimes the materials are used as they are, but sometimes a fine uneven surface structure is added to each material. The shape of the test sample is tailored to the size of the area being tested (subject 1's hand), for example, a plate shape. Tests aimed at material identification include at least six test samples with different hardness levels, while tests aimed at roughness / smoothness discrimination include at least six test samples with different roughness levels. In this embodiment, test samples are prepared and presented to subject 1 with six different roughness and hardness indices: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. A higher numerical value indicates coarser roughness or harder hardness.

[0036] In inspections aimed at distinguishing between roughness and smoothness, the inspection unit 101 randomly selects and presents a combination of two inspection samples with different or identical roughness. In inspections aimed at identifying materials, it randomly selects and presents a combination of two inspection samples with different or identical hardness. The inspection unit 101 presents the combination of two inspection samples presented at one time multiple times within a single inspection, for example, up to four times. In a single inspection, the inspection unit 101 presents at least 20 random combinations of two inspection samples. Here, it is desirable that the combinations of two inspection samples are determined so that the difference in the roughness index or the hardness index is different.

[0037] Furthermore, the inspection unit 101 may have the person performing the inspection (e.g., a medical professional) input information about the subject 1 during the tactile examination of the subject 1. The information about the subject 1 may include the patient's diagnosis, age, name of any sequelae, physical condition as determined through interviews, body parts to be examined, and examination items.

[0038] The calculation unit 102 calculates the tactile function value of subject 1 using the results of the tactile examination of subject 1, as performed by the inspection unit 101. Specifically, the calculation unit 102 calculates the tactile function value of subject 1 from the accuracy rate of subject 1's responses to multiple test samples and the difference in the roughness or hardness index of two test samples. The calculation unit 102 records the calculated tactile function value of subject 1 in the storage unit 14, linked to information that identifies subject 1. The information that identifies subject 1 may include the subject's name, ID, etc.

[0039] Figure 4 illustrates the calculation of the tactile function value of subject 1 by the calculation unit 102. In the tactile examination conducted by the inspection unit 101, the table in Figure 4 shows examples of subject 1's responses when the test samples are presented to subject 1 in five different combinations. The calculation unit 102 calculates a value for each combination by multiplying the difference in the roughness index of the test samples by the correct response rate for each combination, and then calculates the current tactile function value of subject 1 by adding up all the calculated values.

[0040] The evaluation unit 103 evaluates the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment or the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation based on the calculation results of the tactile function value by the calculation unit 102. If subject 1 is undergoing a tactile test for the first time, the evaluation unit 103 evaluates the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit 102. If subject 1 is undergoing a tactile test for the second time or later, the evaluation unit 103 evaluates the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit 102 and the magnitude of subject 1's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test. Specifically, the evaluation unit 103 evaluates the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation by comparing the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment obtained from the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit 102 with the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment obtained from the magnitude of subject 1's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test. The evaluation unit 103 determines whether subject 1 is undergoing the tactile test for the first time, for example, by checking whether a record of subject 1's test exists in the storage 14.

[0041] Figure 5 shows an example of a table for evaluating the progression of sensory impairment. Figure 5 shows a table for evaluating the progression of sensory impairment in five stages, but the number of evaluation stages is not limited to this example. Also, the numerical range for each stage is not limited to the example shown in Figure 5, but it is desirable that the numerical range be set so that the more severe the progression of sensory impairment, the wider the range. This is because the calculation unit 102 calculates the tactile function value by multiplying the difference in the roughness index or hardness index of the test sample by the correct answer rate for each combination, and then adding up all the calculated values. As perception becomes easier, even samples with small differences in the roughness or hardness index become easier to perceive. The evaluation unit 103 evaluates the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment by comparing the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit 102 with the table shown in Figure 5. For example, if the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit 102 is 16, the evaluation unit 103 evaluates subject 1's sensory impairment progression as D.

[0042] The roughness or hardness of the two evaluation samples presented to subject 1 may be the same. In this case, there is no difference in the index of roughness or hardness, but the evaluation unit 103 may evaluate the progression of sensory impairment by assuming that there is no difference in the index, especially if the original material is rough or hard. This is because it is thought that the rougher the original material is, and the harder it is, the easier it is for subject 1 to distinguish that the materials are the same in terms of roughness or hardness.

[0043] Figure 6 shows an example of a table for evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation for subject 1. While Figure 6 shows a table for evaluating the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation on a five-point scale, the number of evaluation stages is not limited to this example. Furthermore, the content of the rehabilitation effects at each stage is not limited to the example shown in Figure 6. Suppose that the calculation unit 102 calculates subject 1's tactile function value as 16, while subject 1's tactile function value in the previous test was 10. Using Figure 5, the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment, derived from the tactile function value in the previous test, is E, and the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment, derived from the tactile function value in the current test, is D. Therefore, the evaluation unit 103 determines that the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation is B (one rank up) by referring to the table shown in Figure 6, since the progression of sensory impairment has increased by one rank from E to D.

[0044] The evaluation unit 103 may also evaluate the progression of the sensory impairment of subject 1 by comparing the magnitude of the tactile function value in the previous test with the magnitude of the tactile function value in the current test. In this case, the evaluation unit 103 may evaluate that the greater the difference between the magnitude of the tactile function value in the current test and the magnitude of the tactile function value in the previous test, the more effective the rehabilitation will be.

[0045] The display unit 104 presents information regarding the tactile examination of subject 1 to the display unit 16. Specifically, the display unit 104 presents subject 1 with information on the method of the tactile examination, and presents the tactile function values ​​obtained from subject 1's tactile examination and the effectiveness of the rehabilitation to the person in charge of subject 1's rehabilitation.

[0046] With this configuration, the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment can calculate a tactile function value obtained from the tactile examination of the subject 1 based on the correct response rate of the subject 1's answers and the difference between the roughness or hardness index of the presented test sample. The evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment can then use the calculated tactile function value to evaluate the state of the subject 1's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation. By using the tactile function value to evaluate the state of the subject 1's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation, the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment can quantitatively evaluate the state of the subject 1's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation.

[0047] Next, the operation of the evaluation device 10 will be explained.

[0048] Figure 7 is a flowchart showing the flow of the evaluation process by the evaluation device 10. The evaluation process is performed when the CPU 11 reads the evaluation program from the ROM 12 or storage 14, loads it into the RAM 13, and executes it.

[0049] In step S101, CPU11 obtains information about the subject undergoing the tactile examination. This information is entered by the examiner who is conducting the tactile examination on the subject.

[0050] Following step S101, in step S102, the CPU 11 presents the subject with a method and task for tactile testing. The method for tactile testing is, for example, presenting the subject with two types of test samples, and the task for tactile testing is, for example, determining which of the two test samples is rougher or harder, or whether both are of the same roughness or hardness.

[0051] Following step S102, in step S103, the CPU 11 obtains the responses to the tactile test performed on the subject.

[0052] Following step S103, in step S104, the CPU 11 calculates the tactile function value obtained from the tactile test of subject 1, based on the difference between the response obtained in step S103 and the roughness or hardness index of the test sample presented to the subject.

[0053] Following step S104, in step S105, the CPU 11 determines whether the subject 1 who underwent the tactile test was taking the test for the first time. The CPU 11 determines whether the subject 1 was taking the test for the first time by, for example, whether a record of the subject 1's test exists in storage 14.

[0054] If subject 1, who underwent the tactile test, is taking the test for the first time (step S105; Yes), then in step S106, CPU 11 evaluates the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated in step S104.

[0055] If subject 1, who underwent the tactile test, is undergoing the test for the second time or later (step S105; Yes), then in step S107, CPU 11 evaluates the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated in step S104 and the magnitude of subject 1's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test. Specifically, CPU 11 evaluates the effectiveness of subject 1's rehabilitation by comparing the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment obtained from the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated in step S104 with the progression of subject 1's sensory impairment obtained from the magnitude of subject 1's tactile function value in the most recent tactile test.

[0056] By performing this process, the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment can calculate a tactile function value obtained from the tactile examination of the subject 1, based on the correctness rate of the subject 1's answers and the difference between the roughness or hardness index of the presented test sample. The evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment can then use the calculated tactile function value to evaluate the state of the subject 1's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation. By using the tactile function value to evaluate the state of the subject 1's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation, the evaluation device 10 according to this embodiment can quantitatively evaluate the state of the subject 1's tactile function and the effectiveness of rehabilitation.

[0057] While embodiments of the present disclosure have been described in detail above with reference to the attached drawings, the technical scope of the present disclosure is not limited to these examples. It is clear that a person with ordinary skill in the art of the present disclosure may conceive of various modifications or alterations within the scope of the technical idea set forth in the claims, and these modifications or alterations are also understood to fall within the technical scope of the present disclosure.

[0058] Furthermore, the effects described in the above embodiments are descriptive or illustrative, and are not limited to those described in the above embodiments. In other words, the technology relating to this disclosure may produce other effects that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of this disclosure from the descriptions in the above embodiments, in addition to or in lieu of the effects described in the above embodiments.

[0059] In addition, the evaluation process that the CPU reads and executes in each of the above embodiments may be executed by various processors other than the CPU. Examples of such processors include PLDs (Programmable Logic Devices) such as FPGAs (Field-Programmable Gate Arrays) whose circuit configuration can be changed after manufacturing, and dedicated electrical circuits that are processors with circuit configurations specifically designed to execute specific processes, such as ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). Furthermore, the evaluation process may be executed by one of these various processors, or by a combination of two or more processors of the same or different types (for example, multiple FPGAs, and a combination of a CPU and an FPGA). More specifically, the hardware structure of these various processors is an electrical circuit that combines circuit elements such as semiconductor elements.

[0060] Furthermore, while the above embodiments describe a configuration in which the evaluation process program is pre-stored (installed) in ROM or storage, the invention is not limited thereto. The program may be provided in a form recorded on a non-transitory recording medium such as a CD-ROM (Compact Disk Read Only Memory), DVD-ROM (Digital Versatile Disk Read Only Memory), or USB (Universal Serial Bus) memory. The program may also be provided in a form that can be downloaded from an external device via a network. This disclosure may also be applied to program products. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0061] 10 Evaluation device 101 Inspection Department 102 Calculation Unit 103 Evaluation Department 104 Presentation section

Claims

1. A calculation unit calculates the subject's tactile function value from the accuracy rate of the subject's responses to tactile tests on multiple test samples and the difference between the roughness or hardness index of two of the test samples. If the subject is undergoing a tactile examination for the first time, the evaluation unit evaluates the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit, and if the subject is undergoing the tactile examination for the second time or later, the evaluation unit evaluates the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation based on the magnitude of the tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile examination. An evaluation device equipped with the following features.

2. The evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein, if the subject has undergone the tactile examination for the second time or later, the evaluation unit evaluates the effectiveness of the rehabilitation by comparing the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment obtained from the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value calculated by the calculation unit with the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment obtained from the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile examination.

3. The evaluation device according to claim 1, further comprising a display unit that presents information regarding the method of tactile examination to the subject and presents the tactile function value and the degree of effectiveness to the person in charge of the subject's rehabilitation.

4. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an inspection unit that performs a tactile examination by having the subject touch the inspection sample in a state in which the subject cannot see the sample.

5. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the inspection unit randomly selects a combination of two types of inspection samples with different hardnesses and presents them to the subject in the case of a tactile test for the purpose of identifying the material of the subject, and randomly selects a combination of two types of inspection samples with different roughnesses and presents them to the subject in the case of a tactile test for the purpose of distinguishing between rough and smooth surfaces of the subject.

6. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of test samples have progressively different roughness or hardness.

7. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the test sample consists of at least one of resin, rubber, gel, and foam.

8. The evaluation device according to claim 1, wherein the numerical range of the tactile function value for evaluating the progression of the aforementioned impairment widens as the sensory impairment progresses.

9. The processor, The subject's tactile function value is calculated from the accuracy rate of their responses to tactile tests on multiple test samples and the difference between the roughness or hardness index of two of the aforementioned test samples. If the subject is undergoing a tactile examination for the first time, the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment is evaluated based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value. If the subject is undergoing a tactile examination for the second time or later, the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation is evaluated based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile examination. A method for executing and evaluating a process.

10. On the computer, The subject's tactile function value is calculated from the accuracy rate of their responses to tactile tests on multiple test samples and the difference between the roughness or hardness index of two of the aforementioned test samples. If the subject is undergoing a tactile examination for the first time, the degree of progression of the subject's sensory impairment is evaluated based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value. If the subject is undergoing a tactile examination for the second time or later, the effectiveness of the subject's rehabilitation is evaluated based on the magnitude of the calculated tactile function value and the magnitude of the subject's tactile function value in the most recent tactile examination. An evaluation program that executes a process.

Images