Search

Recent research has advanced two degree-of-freedom (DoF), simultaneous, independent and proportional control of hand-wrist prostheses using surface electromyogram signals from remnant muscles as the control input. We evaluated two such regression-based controllers, along with conventional, sequential two-site control with co-contraction mode switching (SeqCon), in box-block, refined-clothespin and door-knob tasks, on 10 able-bodied and 4 limb-absent subjects. Subjects operated a commercial hand and wrist using a socket bypass harness. One 2-DoF controller (DirCon) related the intuitive hand actions of open-close and pronation-supination to the associated prosthesis hand-wrist actions, respectively. The other (MapCon) mapped myoelectrically more distinct, but less intuitive, actions of wrist flexion-extension and ulnar-radial deviation. Each 2-DoF controller was calibrated from separate 90 s calibration contractions. SeqCon performed better statistically than MapCon in the predominantly 1-DoF box-block task (>20 blocks/minute vs. 8–18 blocks/minute, on average). In this task, SeqCon likely benefited from an ability to easily focus on 1-DoF and not inadvertently trigger co-contraction for mode switching. The remaining two tasks require 2-DoFs, and both 2-DoF controllers each performed better (factor of 2–4) than SeqCon. We also compared the use of 12 vs. 6 optimally-selected EMG electrodes as inputs, finding no statistical difference. Overall, we provide further evidence of the benefits of regression-based EMG prosthesis control of 2-DoFs in the hand-wrist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

System identification models relating forearm electromyogram (EMG) signals to phantom wrist radial-ulnar deviation force, pronation-supination moment and/or hand open-close force (EMG-force) are hampered by lack of supervised force/moment output signals in limb-absent subjects. In 12 able-bodied and 7 unilateral transradial limb-absent subjects, we studied three alternative supervised output sources in one degree of freedom (DoF) and 2-DoF target tracking tasks: (1) bilateral tracking with force feedback from the contralateral side (non-dominant for able-bodied/ sound for limb-absent subjects) with the contralateral force as the output, (2) bilateral tracking with force feedback from the contralateral side with the target as the output, and (3) dominant/limb-absent side unilateral target tracking without feedback and the target used as the output. “Best-case” EMG-force errors averaged ~ 10% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) when able-bodied subjects’ dominant limb produced unilateral force/moment with feedback. When either bilateral tracking source was used as the model output, statistically larger errors of 12–16 %MVC resulted. The no-feedback alternative produced errors of 25–30 %MVC, which was nearly half the tested force range of ± 30 %MVC. Therefore, the no-feedback model output was not acceptable. We found little performance variation between DoFs. Many subjects struggled to perform 2-DoF target tracking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Typical electromyogram (EMG) processors estimate EMG signal standard deviation (EMG σ ) via moving average root mean square (RMS) or mean absolute value (MAV) filters, whose outputs are used in force estimation, prosthesis/orthosis control, etc. In the inevitable presence of additive measurement noise, some processors subtract the noise standard deviation from EMG RMS (or MAV). Others compute a root difference of squares (RDS)-subtract the noise variance from the square of EMG RMS (or MAV), all followed by taking the square root. Herein, we model EMG as an amplitude-modulated random process in additive measurement noise. Assuming a Gaussian (or, separately, Laplacian) distribution, we derive analytically that the maximum likelihood estimate of EMG σ requires RDS processing. Whenever that subtraction would provide a negative-valued result, we show that EMG σ should be set to zero. Our theoretical models further show that during rest, approximately 50% of EMG σ estimates are non-zero. This result is problematic when EMG σ is used for real-time control, explaining the common use of additional thresholding. We tested our model results experimentally using biceps and triceps EMG from 64 subjects. Experimental results closely followed the Gaussian model. We conclude that EMG processors should use RDS processing and not noise standard deviation subtraction.