Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Effects of kinematic vibrotactile feedback on learning to control a virtual prosthetic arm

Authors: Christopher J Hasson, Julia Manczurowsky

Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

After a limb is lost a prosthesis can restore function. For maximum utility, prosthetic limbs should accept movement commands and provide force and motion feedback, which can be conveyed with vibrotactile feedback (VIBF). While prior studies have shown that force-based VIBF benefits control, the merits of motion-based VIBF are unclear. Our goal was to clarify the effectiveness of position- and velocity-based VIBF for prosthetic arm control.

Methods

Healthy adults with normal limb function practiced a goal-directed task with a virtual myoelectric prosthetic arm. A linear resonant actuator on the wrist provided VIBF. Two groups with nine subjects each received amplitude modulated VIBF in addition to visual feedback while practicing the task. In one group, the VIBF was proportional to the virtual arm’s position, and in the other group, velocity. A control group of nine subjects received only visual feedback. Subjects practiced for 240 trials, followed by 180 trials with feedback manipulations for the VIBF groups. Performance was characterized by end-point error, movement time, and a composite skill measure that combined these quantities. A second experiment with a new group of five subjects assessed discrimination capabilities between different position- and velocity-based VIBF profiles.

Results

With practice all groups improved their skill in controlling the virtual prosthetic arm. Subjects who received additional position- and velocity-based VIBF learned at the same rate as the control group, who received only visual feedback (learning rate time constant: about 40 trials). When visual feedback was subsequently removed leaving only VIBF, performance was no better than with no feedback at all. When VIBF was removed leaving only visual feedback, about half of the participants performed better, instead of worse. The VIBF discrimination tests showed that subjects could detect virtual arm angular position and velocity differences of about 5 deg and 20 deg/s, respectively.

Conclusions

Kinematic VIBF did not increase the rate of skill acquisition or improve performance when controlling a virtual myoelectric prosthetic arm, whether provided in isolation or coupled with visual feedback. VIBF had a deleterious effect on performance for some individuals, who may have had difficulty integrating kinematic VIBF information into their control strategies.
Literature
1.
McCloskey D. Kinesthetic sensibility. Physiol Rev. 1978;58(4):763–820.PubMed
2.
Collins DF, Refshauge KM, Todd G, Gandevia SC. Cutaneous receptors contribute to kinesthesia at the index finger, elbow, and knee. J Neurophysiol. 2005;94(3):1699–706.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Edin BB. Quantitative analysis of static strain sensitivity in human mechanoreceptors from hairy skin. J Neurophysiol. 1992;67(5):1105–13.PubMed
4.
Schultz AE, Kuiken TA. Neural interfaces for control of upper limb prostheses: the state of the art and future possibilities. PM R. 2011;3(1):55–67.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Dhillon GS, Horch KW. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13(4):468–72.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Gasson M, Hutt B, Goodhew I, Kyberd P, Warwick K. Invasive neural prosthesis for neural signal detection and nerve stimulation. Int J Adapt Control. 2005;19(5):365–75.
7.
Tan DW, Schiefer MA, Keith MW, Anderson JR, Tyler J, Tyler DJ. A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(257):257ra138.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Antfolk C, D’Alonzo M, Rosén B, Lundborg G, Sebelius F, Cipriani C. Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10(1):45–54.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Stepp CE, An Q, Matsuoka Y. Repeated training with augmentative vibrotactile feedback increases object manipulation performance. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e32743.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
10.
Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z. Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3:1212–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
An Q, Matsuoka Y, Stepp CE. Multi-day training with vibrotactile feedback for virtual object manipulation. Zurich: IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR); 2011. p. 1–5. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975337.
12.
Rombokas E, Stepp CE, Chang C, Malhotra M, Matsuoka Y. Vibrotactile sensory substitution for electromyographic control of object manipulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013;60(8):2226–32.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Pylatiuk C, Kargov A, Schulz S. Design and evaluation of a low-cost force feedback system for myoelectric prosthetic hands. J Prosthet Orthot. 2006;18(2):57–61.CrossRef
14.
Chatterjee A, Chaubey P, Martin J, Thakor N. Testing a prosthetic haptic feedback simulator with an interactive force matching task. J Prosthet Orthot. 2008;20(2):27–34.CrossRef
15.
Saunders I, Vijayakumar S. The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8(60):1–12.
16.
Stepp CE, Matsuoka Y. Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation. Buenos Aires: Annual International Conference of the IEEE, Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); 2010. p. 2089–92. DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5626120.
17.
Cipriani C, Zaccone F, Micera S, Carrozza MC. On the shared control of an EMG-controlled prosthetic hand: analysis of user–prosthesis interaction. IEEE Trans Robot. 2008;24(1):170–84.CrossRef
18.
Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen H, Hermens H, Stramigioli S, Rietman J, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):719–38.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Mann RW, Reimers SD. Kinesthetic sensing for the EMG controlled “Boston Arm”. IEEE Trans Man-Mach Syst. 1970;11(1):110–5.CrossRef
20.
Bark K, Wheeler JW, Premakumar S, Cutkosky MR. Comparison of skin stretch and vibrotactile stimulation for feedback of proprioceptive information. Reno, NE: IEEE International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS); 2008. p. 71–8. DOI: 10.1109/HAPTICS.2008.4479916.
21.
Schlag J, Schlag-Rey M. Through the eye, slowly; delays and localization errors in the visual system. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3(3):191.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Regan D, Gray R, Hamstra S. Evidence for a neural mechanism that encodes angles. Vision Res. 1996;36(2):323.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lieberman J, Breazeal C. TIKL: development of a wearable vibrotactile feedback suit for improved human motor learning. IEEE Trans Robot. 2007;23(5):919–26.CrossRef
24.
Shmuelof L, Krakauer JW, Mazzoni P. How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J Neurophysiol. 2012;108(2):578–94.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
25.
Fitts PM. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47(6):381.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. Fourthth ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2009.CrossRef
27.
Hill AV. The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio. 1938;126B:136–95.CrossRef
28.
Zajac FE. Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 1988;17(4):359–411.
29.
Gordon AM, Huxley AF, Julian FJ. The variation in isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres. J Physiol. 1966;184(1):170–92.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
30.
Bahler AS. Series elastic component of mammalian skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol. 1967;213(6):1560–4.PubMed
31.
Hasson CJ, Caldwell GE. Effects of age on mechanical properties of dorsiflexor and plantarflexor muscles. Ann Biomed Eng. 2012;40(5):1088–101.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Hasson CJ. Neural representation of muscle dynamics in voluntary movement control. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(7):2105–19.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Delp SL, Loan JP, Hoy MG, Zajac FE, Topp EL, Rosen JM. An interactive graphics-based model of the lower extremity to study orthopaedic surgical procedures. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1990;37(8):757–67.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Manal K, Gonzalez RV, Lloyd DG, Buchanan TS. A real-time EMG-driven virtual arm. Comput Biol Med. 2002;32(1):25–36.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Winters JM, Stark L. Estimated mechanical properties of synergistic muscles involved in movements of a variety of human joints. J Biomech. 1988;21(12):1027–41.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT. Numerical recipes. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
37.
Roll J, Vedel J. Kinaesthetic role of muscle afferents in man, studied by tendon vibration and microneurography. Exp Brain Res. 1982;47(2):177–90.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Stepp CE, Matsuoka Y. Vibrotactile sensory substitution for object manipulation: amplitude versus pulse train frequency modulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20(1):31–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
39.
Murray AM, Klatzky RL, Khosla PK. Psychophysical characterization and testbed validation of a wearable vibrotactile glove for telemanipulation. Presence Teleop Virt. 2003;12(2):156–82.CrossRef
40.
Reis J, Schambra HM, Cohen LG, Buch ER, Fritsch B, Zarahn E, et al. Noninvasive cortical stimulation enhances motor skill acquisition over multiple days through an effect on consolidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(5):1590–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
41.
Zwislocki J, Maire F, Feldman A, Rubin H. On the effect of practice and motivation on the threshold of audibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1958;30(4):254–62.CrossRef
42.
Sober SJ, Sabes PN. Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(4):490–7.PubMedCentralPubMed
43.
Cheng L-T, Kazman R, Robinson J. Vibrotactile feedback in delicate virtual reality operations. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on multimedia. 1997. p. 243–51.
44.
Zheng Y, Morrell JB. A vibrotactile feedback approach to posture guidance. In: 2010 IEEE haptics symposium. 2010. p. 351–8.CrossRef
45.
Blank A, Okamura AM, Kuchenbecker KJ. Identifying the role of proprioception in upper-limb prosthesis control: studies on targeted motion. ACM Trans Appl Percept. 2010;7(3):15.CrossRef
46.
Wolpert DM, Kawato M. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw. 1998;11(7):1317–29.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Wilska A. On the vibrational sensitivity in different regions of the body surface. Acta Physiol Scand. 1954;31(2–3):285–9.CrossRef
48.
Todorov E, Jordan M. A minimal intervention principle for coordinated movement. In: Advances in neural information processing systems: proceedings from the 2002 conference, vol. 15. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2003. p. 27–34.
49.
Stepp CE, Matsuoka Y. Object manipulation improvements due to single session training outweigh the differences among stimulation sites during vibrotactile feedback. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011;19(6):677–85.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
50.
Sainburg RL, Poizner H, Ghez C. Loss of proprioception produces deficits in interjoint coordination. J Neurophysiol. 1993;70:2136.PubMed
51.
Cipriani C, Segil JL, Clemente F, Edin B. Humans can integrate feedback of discrete events in their sensorimotor control of a robotic hand. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(11):3421–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Fougner A, Stavdahl O, Kyberd PJ, Losier YG, Parker PA. Control of upper limb prostheses: terminology and proportional myoelectric control—a review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20(5):663–77.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Eilenberg MF, Geyer H, Herr H. Control of a powered ankle–foot prosthesis based on a neuromuscular model. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18(2):164–73.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Effects of kinematic vibrotactile feedback on learning to control a virtual prosthetic arm
Authors
Christopher J Hasson
Julia Manczurowsky
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1743-0003
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0025-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Specific effects of EEG based neurofeedback training on memory functions in post-stroke victims

Research

Robot-supported upper limb training in a virtual learning environment : a pilot randomized controlled trial in persons with MS

Research

Natural interfaces and virtual environments for the acquisition of street crossing and path following skills in adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders: a feasibility study

Research

Comprehensive neuromechanical assessment in stroke patients: reliability and responsiveness of a protocol to measure neural and non-neural wrist properties

Review

Neuron matters: electric activation of neuronal tissue is dependent on the interaction between the neuron and the electric field

Methodology

On the analysis of movement smoothness