Search

Closing the prosthesis control loop by providing artificial somatosensory feedback can improve utility and user experience. Additionally, closed- loop control should be more robust with respect to disturbance, but this might depend on the type of feedback provided. Thus, the present study investigates and compares the performance of EMG and force feedback in the presence of control disturbances. Twenty able-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed delicate and power grasps with a prosthesis in a functional task, while the control signal gain was temporarily increased (high-gain disturbance) or decreased (low-gain disturbance) without their knowledge. Three outcome measures were considered: the percentage of trials successful in the first attempt (reaction to disturbance), the average number of attempts in trials where the wrong force was initially applied (adaptation to disturbance), and the average completion time of the last attempt in every trial. EMG feedback was shown to offer significantly better performance compared to force feedback during power grasping in terms of reaction to disturbance and completion time. During power grasping with high-gain disturbance, the median first-attempt success rate was significantly higher with EMG feedback (73.3%) compared to that achieved with force feedback (60%). Moreover, the median completion time for power grasps with low-gain disturbance was significantly longer with force feedback than with EMG feedback (3.64 against 2.48 s, an increase of 32%). Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant difference between feedback types with regards to adaptation to disturbances and the two feedback types performed similarly in delicate grasps. The results indicated that EMG feedback displayed better performance than force feedback in the presence of control disturbances, further demonstrating the potential of this approach to provide a reliable prosthesis-user interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Limb loss is a dramatic event with a devastating impact on a person's quality of life. Prostheses have been used to restore lost motor abilities and cosmetic appearance. Closing the loop between the prosthesis and the amputee by providing somatosensory feedback to the user might improve the performance, confidence of the amputee, and embodiment of the prosthesis. Recently, a minimally invasive method, in which the electrodes are placed subdermally, was presented and psychometrically evaluated. The present study aimed to assess the quality of online control with subdermal stimulation and compare it to that achieved using surface stimulation (common benchmark) as well as to investigate the impact of training on the two modalities. Methods: Ten able-bodied subjects performed a PC-based compensatory tracking task. The subjects employed a joystick to track a predefined pseudorandom trajectory using feedback on the momentary tracking error, which was conveyed via surface and subdermal electrotactile stimulation. The tracking performance was evaluated using the correlation coefficient (CORR), root mean square error (RMSE), and time delay between reference and generated trajectories. Results: Both stimulation modalities resulted in good closed-loop control, and surface stimulation outperformed the subdermal approach. There was significant difference in CORR (86 vs 77%) and RMSE (0.23 vs 0.31) between surface and subdermal stimulation (all p < 0.05). The RMSE of the subdermal stimulation decreased significantly in the first few trials. Conclusion: Subdermal stimulation is a viable method to provide tactile feedback. The quality of online control is, however, somewhat worse compared to that achieved using surface stimulation. Nevertheless, due to minimal invasiveness, compactness, and power efficiency, the subdermal interface could be an attractive solution for the functional application in sensate prostheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electrocutaneous stimulation can restore the missing sensory information to prosthetic users. In electrotactile feedback, the information about the prosthesis state is transmitted in the form of pulse trains. The stimulation frequency is an important parameter since it influences the data transmission rate over the feedback channel as well as the form of the elicited tactile sensations. Methods: We evaluated the influence of the stimulation frequency on the subject's ability to utilize the feedback information during electrotactile closed-loop control. Ten healthy subjects performed a real-time compensatory tracking (standard test bench) of sinusoids and pseudorandom signals using either visual feedback (benchmark) or electrocutaneous feedback in seven conditions characterized by different combinations of the stimulation frequency (FSTIM) and tracking error sampling rate (FTE). The tracking error was transmitted using two concentric electrodes placed on the forearm. The quality of tracking was assessed using the Squared Pearson Correlation Coefficient (SPCC), the Normalized Root Mean Square Tracking Error (NRMSTE) and the time delay between the reference and generated trajectories (TDIO). Results: The results demonstrated that FSTIM was more important for the control performance than FTE. The quality of tracking deteriorated with a decrease in the stimulation frequency, SPCC and NRMSTE (mean) were 87.5% and 9.4% in the condition 100/100 (FTE/FSTIM), respectively, and deteriorated to 61.1% and 15.3% in 5/5, respectively, while the TDIO increased from 359.8 ms in 100/100 to 1009 ms in 5/5. However, the performance recovered when the tracking error sampled at a low rate was delivered using a high stimulation frequency (SPCC = 83.6%, NRMSTE = 10.3%, TDIO = 415.6 ms, in 5/100). Conclusions: The likely reason for the performance decrease and recovery was that the stimulation frequency critically influenced the tactile perception quality and thereby the effective rate of information transfer through the feedback channel. The outcome of this study can facilitate the selection of optimal system parameters for somatosensory feedback in upper limb prostheses. The results imply that the feedback variables (e.g., grasping force) should be transmitted at relatively high frequencies of stimulation (>25 Hz), but that they can be sampled at much lower rates (e.g., 5 Hz). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In closed-loop control of grasping by hand prostheses, the feedback information sent to the user is usually the actual controlled variable, i.e., the grasp force. Although this choice is intuitive and logical, the force production is only the last step in the process of grasping. Therefore, this study evaluated the performance in controlling grasp strength using a hand prosthesis operated through a complete grasping sequence while varying the feedback variables (e.g., closing velocity, grasping force), which were provided to the user visually or through vibrotactile stimulation. The experiments were conducted on 13 volunteers who controlled the Otto Bock Sensor Hand Speed prosthesis. Results showed that vibrotactile patterns were able to replace the visual feedback. Interestingly, the experiments demonstrated that direct force feedback was not essential for the control of grasping force. The subjects were indeed able to control the grip strength, predictively, by estimating the grasping force from the prosthesis velocity of closing. Therefore, grasping without explicit force feedback is not completely blind, contrary to what is usually assumed. In our study we analyzed grasping with a specific prosthetic device, but the outcomes are also applicable for other devices, with one or more degrees-of-freedom. The necessary condition is that the electromyography (EMG) signal directly and proportionally controls the velocity/grasp force of the hand, which is a common approach among EMG controlled prosthetic devices. The results provide important indications on the design of closed-loop EMG controlled prosthetic systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]