Our Research
Four questions drive our research
Rather than organising our research around technologies, we organise it around four questions about recovery. Each is answered through projects that combine rehabilitation engineering, artificial intelligence, biomechanics, neuroscience and clinical research, and each maps onto a step of our Measure, Model, Decide, Deliver, Learn cycle.
Understanding and measuring recovery
How can we objectively characterise recovery beyond conventional clinical assessments?
Our work includes movement analysis, biomechanics, sensing, digital measures and neurophysiology. We are particularly interested in objective measurement of real-world upper-limb use: what people actually do with their arm between therapy sessions, not only what they can do when asked.
Related projects
IMU Arm
Elbow movement classification
Facial EMG game
Learning individual treatment response
Why do some people respond differently to rehabilitation?
We study recovery trajectories and treatment-response patterns to understand who responds, how quickly they respond and when rehabilitation should change. Learning individual treatment response is the step that turns measurement into better decisions.
Related projects
Adaptive and personalised rehabilitation
Can rehabilitation respond to the individual rather than following a fixed programme?
We develop methods that use patient state and treatment response to personalise rehabilitation tasks, intensity, feedback and support. This is adaptive rehabilitation with the clinician in the loop: technology measures and proposes, people decide.
Related projects
ALAN
Hand exoskeleton
Wrist-Bot
Rehabilitation beyond the clinic
How can effective rehabilitation continue across hospitals, community services and people's homes?
We develop connected rehabilitation technologies and new models of delivery that aim to increase access to meaningful rehabilitation while supporting clinicians rather than replacing them. From clinic to community to home, the aim is more opportunities for the right rehabilitation.
Related projects
Home rehabilitation robot
Translation: From Evidence to Impact
We focus on technologies that have demonstrated promise in controlled settings but face barriers to real-world adoption. Our role is to close that gap, developing the methods, evidence, and practical solutions needed to move interventions from laboratory to clinic to home.
Two decades of experience with what works, what fails, and why shapes every aspect of this work. We pursue innovations that are scientifically exciting but also implementable, sustainable, and scalable.
We view research as complete when a technology is in routine clinical use, not when it demonstrates efficacy in controlled trials. This translational commitment means we address questions that extend beyond traditional research: cost-effectiveness within NHS funding models, integration with clinical workflows, staff training requirements, and strategies for scaling across healthcare systems.
MyPAM, our home-based rehabilitation robot, designed for use in people's homes.
Rehabilitation 4.0 and 5.0
Our name reflects our philosophy. Rehabilitation 4.0 is what technology can do: intelligent systems, connected care and data-driven personalisation. Rehabilitation 5.0 is what technology should do, and for whom: developed with people, strengthening healthcare systems, keeping clinicians and patients in the loop, and reaching those who need it most.
We treat the two as integrated, not sequential. 4.0 is how we build learning rehabilitation systems that measure, model, decide, deliver and learn. 5.0 is why we build them with humans in the loop, and it will matter more, not less, as technology becomes more capable.
A history of Rehabilitation Revolutions
1
(1)
Rehabilitation 1.0: Mechanisation
Mechanical aids, passive devices, pulley systems, and basic orthoses. The formalisation of physical rehabilitation as a discipline, driven largely by the needs of injured soldiers during and after the World Wars.
2
(2)
Rehabilitation 2.0: Electrification
Electrical stimulation, powered prosthetics and orthoses, electromechanical devices. Standardised clinical protocols and the growth of physiotherapy and occupational therapy as professions.
3
(3)
Rehabilitation 3.0: Computerisation
Computer-controlled devices, early rehabilitation robotics, computer-based assessment, digital outcome measurement, and the first use of virtual reality in therapeutic settings.
4
(4)
Rehabilitation 4.0: Intelligent, Connected Systems
AI and machine learning, IoT-enabled wearable sensors, adaptive robotics, brain-computer interfaces, serious games, telerehabilitation, and data-driven personalisation of therapy.
5
Rehabilitation 5.0: Human-Centred, Sustainable, Equitable
Co-design with patients and clinicians, environmentally sustainable technology, equitable access across populations, resilient systems that strengthen rather than strain the healthcare workforce, and meaningful human-technology collaboration.
Image credits
- Wellcome Trust Library. Physical Therapy at Bath War Hospital. Watercolour by E. Horton (no. 44761i). Available at: https://search.wellcomelibrary.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb1202573. Accessed 27 February 2026.
- MIT Museum - Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. supported the development of the Boston Arm as a way of getting amputees off disability and back on the job. Available at: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ingestible-electronics. Accessed 27 February 2026.
- Sivan, M., Gallagher, J., Makower, S. et al. Home-based Computer Assisted Arm Rehabilitation (hCAAR) robotic device for upper limb exercise after stroke: results of a feasibility study in home setting. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil 11, 163 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-11-163
- Afridi A, Obaid S, Raheel N, Rathore FA. Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Rehabilitation: Current Trends and Future Directions; A mini review. Available at: https://yesilscience.com/integrating-artificial-intelligence-in-stroke-rehabilitation-current-trends-and-future-directions-a-mini-review/. Accessed 27 February 2026.
Rehabilitation 5.0 in practice
Four principles shape how we set priorities, design systems and evaluate outcomes.
Human-Centredness
We co-design rehabilitation technologies with patients, carers, and clinicians, embedding lived experience from the outset.
Sustainability
We design rehabilitation technologies for longevity, efficiency, and minimal waste across their full lifecycle.
Resilience
Technologies that support rather than burden clinicians, keeping the clinician in the loop and working reliably across varied settings and changing circumstances.
Equity and Inclusion
We design with underserved populations in mind, so rehabilitation technology narrows rather than widens health inequalities.