Literature DB >> 29353091

Adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand improves performance when online visual feedback is disturbed.

Eitan Raveh1, Sigal Portnoy2, Jason Friedman3.   

Abstract

We investigated whether adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand, when visual feedback is disturbed, can improve performance during a functional test. For this purpose, able-bodied subjects, activating a myoelectric-controlled hand attached to their right hand performed the modified Box & Blocks test, grasping and manipulating wooden blocks over a partition. This was performed in 3 conditions, using a repeated-measures design: in full light, in a dark room where visual feedback was disturbed and no auditory feedback - one time with the addition of tactile feedback provided during object grasping and manipulation, and one time without any tactile feedback. The average time needed to transfer one block was measured, and an infrared camera was used to give information on the number of grasping errors during performance of the test. Our results show that when vibrotactile feedback was provided, performance time was reduced significantly, compared with when no vibrotactile feedback was available. Furthermore, the accuracy of grasping and manipulation was improved, reflected by significantly fewer errors during test performance. In conclusion, adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand has positive effects on functional performance when visual feedback is disturbed. This may have applications to current myoelectric-controlled hands, as adding tactile feedback may help prosthesis users to improve their functional ability during daily life activities in different environments, particularly when limited visual feedback is available or desirable.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Myoelectric prostheses; Sensorimotor control; Upper limb amputation; Visual feedback

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29353091     DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2018.01.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mov Sci        ISSN: 0167-9457            Impact factor:   2.161


  3 in total

1.  Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis.

Authors:  Neha Thomas; Garrett Ung; Colette McGarvey; Jeremy D Brown
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 4.262

2.  EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance.

Authors:  Jack Tchimino; Jakob Lund Dideriksen; Strahinja Dosen
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 5.152

3.  Sensory Feedback in Hand Prostheses: A Prospective Study of Everyday Use.

Authors:  Ulrika Wijk; Ingela K Carlsson; Christian Antfolk; Anders Björkman; Birgitta Rosén
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 4.677

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.