Morten B Kristoffersen1, Andreas W Franzke2, Raoul M Bongers3, Michael Wand4, Alessio Murgia3, Corry K van der Sluis2. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. more-ten@protonmail.com. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 3. Department of Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. 4. IDSIA, USI & SUPSI, Manno-Lugano, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper limb prosthetics with multiple degrees of freedom (DoFs) are still mostly operated through the clinical standard Direct Control scheme. Machine learning control, on the other hand, allows controlling multiple DoFs although it requires separable and consistent electromyogram (EMG) patterns. Whereas user training can improve EMG pattern quality, conventional training methods might limit user potential. Training with serious games might lead to higher quality EMG patterns and better functional outcomes. In this explorative study we compare outcomes of serious game training with conventional training, and machine learning control with the users' own one DoF prosthesis. METHODS:Participants with upper limb absence participated in 7training sessions where they learned to control a 3 DoF prosthesis with two grips which was fitted. Participants received either game training or conventional training. Conventional training was based on coaching, as described in the literature. Game-based training was conducted using two games that trained EMG pattern separability and functional use. Both groups also trained functional use with the prosthesis donned. The prosthesis system was controlled using a neural network regressor. Outcome measures were EMG metrics, number of DoFs used, the spherical subset of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure and the Clothespin Relocation Test. RESULTS:Eight participants were recruited and four completed the study. Training did not lead to consistent improvements in EMG pattern quality or functional use, but some participants improved in some metrics. No differences were observed between the groups. Participants achieved consistently better results using their own prosthesis than the machine-learning controlled prosthesis used in this study. CONCLUSION: Our explorative study showed in a small group of participants that serious game training seems to achieve similar results as conventional training. No consistent improvements were found in either group in terms of EMG metrics or functional use, which might be due to insufficient training. This study highlights the need for more research in user training for machine learning controlled prosthetics. In addition, this study contributes with more data comparing machine learning controlled prosthetics with Direct Controlled prosthetics.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Upper limb prosthetics with multiple degrees of freedom (DoFs) are still mostly operated through the clinical standard Direct Control scheme. Machine learning control, on the other hand, allows controlling multiple DoFs although it requires separable and consistent electromyogram (EMG) patterns. Whereas user training can improve EMG pattern quality, conventional training methods might limit user potential. Training with serious games might lead to higher quality EMG patterns and better functional outcomes. In this explorative study we compare outcomes of serious game training with conventional training, and machine learning control with the users' own one DoF prosthesis. METHODS:Participants with upper limb absence participated in 7 training sessions where they learned to control a 3 DoF prosthesis with two grips which was fitted. Participants received either game training or conventional training. Conventional training was based on coaching, as described in the literature. Game-based training was conducted using two games that trained EMG pattern separability and functional use. Both groups also trained functional use with the prosthesis donned. The prosthesis system was controlled using a neural network regressor. Outcome measures were EMG metrics, number of DoFs used, the spherical subset of the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure and the Clothespin Relocation Test. RESULTS: Eight participants were recruited and four completed the study. Training did not lead to consistent improvements in EMG pattern quality or functional use, but some participants improved in some metrics. No differences were observed between the groups. Participants achieved consistently better results using their own prosthesis than the machine-learning controlled prosthesis used in this study. CONCLUSION: Our explorative study showed in a small group of participants that serious game training seems to achieve similar results as conventional training. No consistent improvements were found in either group in terms of EMG metrics or functional use, which might be due to insufficient training. This study highlights the need for more research in user training for machine learning controlled prosthetics. In addition, this study contributes with more data comparing machine learning controlled prosthetics with Direct Controlled prosthetics.
Entities:
Keywords:
EMG; Machine learning; Motor learning; Prosthesis; Serious games; Structured training
Authors: Ludger van Dijk; Corry K van der Sluis; Hylke W van Dijk; Raoul M Bongers Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Sietke G Postema; Raoul M Bongers; Michael A Brouwers; Helena Burger; Liselotte M Norling-Hermansson; Michiel F Reneman; Pieter U Dijkstra; Corry K van der Sluis Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Morten B Kristoffersen; Andreas W Franzke; Corry K van der Sluis; Alessio Murgia; Raoul M Bongers Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Kristin Ostlie; Rosemary J Franklin; Ola H Skjeldal; Anders Skrondal; Per Magnus Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Morten B Kristoffersen; Andreas W Franzke; Corry K van der Sluis; Raoul M Bongers; Alessio Murgia Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Linda Resnik; He Helen Huang; Anna Winslow; Dustin L Crouch; Fan Zhang; Nancy Wolk Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Eric J Earley; Jan Zbinden; Maria Munoz-Novoa; Enzo Mastinu; Andrew Smiles; Max Ortiz-Catalan Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 5.208
Authors: Christian Alexander Garske; Matthew Dyson; Sigrid Dupan; Graham Morgan; Kianoush Nazarpour Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.143
Authors: Szu-Ping Lee; Alexander Bonczyk; Maria Katrina Dimapilis; Sarah Partridge; Samantha Ruiz; Lung-Chang Chien; Andrew Sawers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.752