OBJECTIVE: A drawback of active prostheses is that they detach the subject from the produced forces, thereby preventing direct mechanical feedback. This can be compensated by providing somatosensory feedback to the user through mechanical or electrical stimulation, which in turn may improve the utility, sense of embodiment, and thereby increase the acceptance rate. APPROACH: In this study, we compared a novel approach to closing the loop, namely EMG feedback (emgFB), to classic force feedback (forceFB), using electrotactile interface in a realistic task setup. Eleven intact-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed a routine grasping task while receiving emgFB or forceFB. The two feedback types were delivered through the same electrotactile interface, using a mixed spatial/frequency coding to transmit 8 discrete levels of the feedback variable. In emgFB, the stimulation transmitted the amplitude of the processed myoelectric signal generated by the subject (prosthesis input), and in forceFB the generated grasping force (prosthesis output). The task comprised 150 trials of routine grasping at six forces, randomly presented in blocks of five trials (same force). Interquartile range and changes in the absolute error (AE) distribution (magnitude and dispersion) with respect to the target level were used to assess precision and overall performance, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Relative to forceFB, emgFB significantly improved the precision of myoelectric commands (min/max of the significant levels) for 23%/36% as well as the precision of force control for 12%/32%, in intact-bodied subjects. Also, the magnitude and dispersion of the AE distribution were reduced. The results were similar in the amputee, showing considerable improvements. SIGNIFICANCE: Using emgFB, the subjects therefore decreased the uncertainty of the forward pathway. Since there is a correspondence between the EMG and force, where the former anticipates the latter, the emgFB allowed for predictive control, as the subjects used the feedback to adjust the desired force even before the prosthesis contacted the object. In conclusion, the online emgFB was superior to the classic forceFB in realistic conditions that included electrotactile stimulation, limited feedback resolution (8 levels), cognitive processing delay, and time constraints (fast grasping).
OBJECTIVE: A drawback of active prostheses is that they detach the subject from the produced forces, thereby preventing direct mechanical feedback. This can be compensated by providing somatosensory feedback to the user through mechanical or electrical stimulation, which in turn may improve the utility, sense of embodiment, and thereby increase the acceptance rate. APPROACH: In this study, we compared a novel approach to closing the loop, namely EMG feedback (emgFB), to classic force feedback (forceFB), using electrotactile interface in a realistic task setup. Eleven intact-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed a routine grasping task while receiving emgFB or forceFB. The two feedback types were delivered through the same electrotactile interface, using a mixed spatial/frequency coding to transmit 8 discrete levels of the feedback variable. In emgFB, the stimulation transmitted the amplitude of the processed myoelectric signal generated by the subject (prosthesis input), and in forceFB the generated grasping force (prosthesis output). The task comprised 150 trials of routine grasping at six forces, randomly presented in blocks of five trials (same force). Interquartile range and changes in the absolute error (AE) distribution (magnitude and dispersion) with respect to the target level were used to assess precision and overall performance, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Relative to forceFB, emgFB significantly improved the precision of myoelectric commands (min/max of the significant levels) for 23%/36% as well as the precision of force control for 12%/32%, in intact-bodied subjects. Also, the magnitude and dispersion of the AE distribution were reduced. The results were similar in the amputee, showing considerable improvements. SIGNIFICANCE: Using emgFB, the subjects therefore decreased the uncertainty of the forward pathway. Since there is a correspondence between the EMG and force, where the former anticipates the latter, the emgFB allowed for predictive control, as the subjects used the feedback to adjust the desired force even before the prosthesis contacted the object. In conclusion, the online emgFB was superior to the classic forceFB in realistic conditions that included electrotactile stimulation, limited feedback resolution (8 levels), cognitive processing delay, and time constraints (fast grasping).
Authors: Dario Farina; Ivan Vujaklija; Rickard Brånemark; Anthony M J Bull; Hans Dietl; Bernhard Graimann; Levi J Hargrove; Klaus-Peter Hoffmann; He Helen Huang; Thorvaldur Ingvarsson; Hilmar Bragi Janusson; Kristleifur Kristjánsson; Todd Kuiken; Silvestro Micera; Thomas Stieglitz; Agnes Sturma; Dustin Tyler; Richard F Ff Weir; Oskar C Aszmann Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Ahmed W Shehata; Leonard F Engels; Marco Controzzi; Christian Cipriani; Erik J Scheme; Jonathon W Sensinger Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Andrés Úbeda; Brayan S Zapata-Impata; Santiago T Puente; Pablo Gil; Francisco Candelas; Fernando Torres Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 3.576