David M Page1, Jacob A George2, Suzanne M Wendelken3, Tyler S Davis4, David T Kluger5, Douglas T Hutchinson6, Gregory A Clark7. 1. Avanos Medical, Alpharetta, GA, 30004, USA. 2. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. jacob.george@utah.edu. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, 04102, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 5. Blackrock Microsystems, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. 6. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical stimulation of residual afferent nerve fibers can evoke sensations from a missing limb after amputation, and bionic arms endowed with artificial sensory feedback have been shown to confer functional and psychological benefits. Here we explore the extent to which artificial sensations can be discriminated based on location, quality, and intensity. METHODS: We implanted Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays (USEAs) in the arm nerves of three transradial amputees and delivered electrical stimulation via different electrodes and frequencies to produce sensations on the missing hand with various locations, qualities, and intensities. Participants performed blind discrimination trials to discriminate among these artificial sensations. RESULTS: Participants successfully discriminated cutaneous and proprioceptive sensations ranging in location, quality and intensity. Performance was significantly greater than chance for all discrimination tasks, including discrimination among up to ten different cutaneous location-intensity combinations (15/30 successes, p < 0.0001) and seven different proprioceptive location-intensity combinations (21/40 successes, p < 0.0001). Variations in the site of stimulation within the nerve, via electrode selection, enabled discrimination among up to five locations and qualities (35/35 successes, p < 0.0001). Variations in the stimulation frequency enabled discrimination among four different intensities at the same location (13/20 successes, p < 0.0005). One participant also discriminated among individual stimulation of two different USEA electrodes, simultaneous stimulation on both electrodes, and interleaved stimulation on both electrodes (20/24 successes, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Electrode location, stimulation frequency, and stimulation pattern can be modulated to evoke functionally discriminable sensations with a range of locations, qualities, and intensities. This rich source of artificial sensory feedback may enhance functional performance and embodiment of bionic arms endowed with a sense of touch.
BACKGROUND: Electrical stimulation of residual afferent nerve fibers can evoke sensations from a missing limb after amputation, and bionic arms endowed with artificial sensory feedback have been shown to confer functional and psychological benefits. Here we explore the extent to which artificial sensations can be discriminated based on location, quality, and intensity. METHODS: We implanted Utah Slanted Electrode Arrays (USEAs) in the arm nerves of three transradial amputees and delivered electrical stimulation via different electrodes and frequencies to produce sensations on the missing hand with various locations, qualities, and intensities. Participants performed blind discrimination trials to discriminate among these artificial sensations. RESULTS:Participants successfully discriminated cutaneous and proprioceptive sensations ranging in location, quality and intensity. Performance was significantly greater than chance for all discrimination tasks, including discrimination among up to ten different cutaneous location-intensity combinations (15/30 successes, p < 0.0001) and seven different proprioceptive location-intensity combinations (21/40 successes, p < 0.0001). Variations in the site of stimulation within the nerve, via electrode selection, enabled discrimination among up to five locations and qualities (35/35 successes, p < 0.0001). Variations in the stimulation frequency enabled discrimination among four different intensities at the same location (13/20 successes, p < 0.0005). One participant also discriminated among individual stimulation of two different USEA electrodes, simultaneous stimulation on both electrodes, and interleaved stimulation on both electrodes (20/24 successes, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Electrode location, stimulation frequency, and stimulation pattern can be modulated to evoke functionally discriminable sensations with a range of locations, qualities, and intensities. This rich source of artificial sensory feedback may enhance functional performance and embodiment of bionic arms endowed with a sense of touch.
Authors: Gregory A Clark; Suzanne Wendelken; David M Page; Tyler Davis; Heather A C Wark; Richard A Normann; David J Warren; Douglas T Hutchinson Journal: Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2014
Authors: J A George; D T Kluger; T S Davis; S M Wendelken; E V Okorokova; Q He; C C Duncan; D T Hutchinson; Z C Thumser; D T Beckler; P D Marasco; S J Bensmaia; G A Clark Journal: Sci Robot Date: 2019-07-24
Authors: T S Davis; H A C Wark; D T Hutchinson; D J Warren; K O'Neill; T Scheinblum; G A Clark; R A Normann; B Greger Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Ameya C Nanivadekar; Santosh Chandrasekaran; Eric R Helm; Michael L Boninger; Jennifer L Collinger; Robert A Gaunt; Lee E Fisher Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 4.996