Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.00879

LiDAR for Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Survey of Applications, AI Techniques, and Future Directions

Soumia Siyoucef·Najmeddine Dhieb·Hakim Ghazzai·Eleonora Guanziroli·Franco Molteni·Gianluca Setti
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Rehabilitation aims to help patients with limited mobility regain their physical abilities through targeted movements, exercises, stimulation, and other therapeutic methods. Recent advances in technology have introduced sensor-based systems into rehabilitation and clinical practices, enabling real-time monitoring and providing accurate feedback on movement accuracy. Among these sensors, LiDAR has demonstrated strong potential, offering key advantages over conventional techniques such as camera-based systems, which raise privacy concerns, and wearable sensors, which can be uncomfortable and prone to errors. In this work, we review the applications of LiDAR in rehabilitation, post-injury care, and hospital environments, focusing on studies published between 2019 and 2025. Studies across several areas have been explored: 3D body scanning and gait analysis with standalone LiDAR, LiDAR mounted on robotic systems for rehabilitation, real-time monitoring and environment scanning for safe navigation, and activity and position recognition. We also analyze processing techniques, particularly learning-based approaches, and support the discussion with statistical analysis, highlighting trends, gaps, and future research opportunities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive survey dedicated to LiDAR for rehabilitation applications, providing an overview of current methods, AI-based processing techniques, and open challenges.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Soumia Siyoucef, Najmeddine Dhieb, Hakim Ghazzai, Eleonora Guanziroli, Franco Molteni, Gianluca Setti. 2026-04-26. LiDAR for Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Survey of Applications, AI Techniques, and Future Directions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00879

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗