Top

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Electromyographic | Research

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

Authors: Neha Thomas, Garrett Ung, Colette McGarvey, Jeremy D. Brown

Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Despite the technological advancements in myoelectric prostheses, body-powered prostheses remain a popular choice for amputees, in part due to the natural sensory advantage they provide. Research on haptic feedback in myoelectric prostheses has delivered mixed results. Furthermore, there is limited research comparing various haptic feedback modalities in myoelectric prostheses. In this paper, we present a comparison of the feedback intrinsically present in body-powered prostheses (joint-torque feedback) to a commonly proposed feedback modality for myoelectric prostheses (vibrotactile feedback). In so doing, we seek to understand whether the advantages of kinesthetic feedback present in body-powered prostheses translate to myoelectric prostheses, and whether there are differences between kinesthetic and cutaneous feedback in prosthetic applications.

Methods

We developed an experimental testbed that features a cable-driven, voluntary-closing 1-DoF prosthesis, a capstan-driven elbow exoskeleton, and a vibrotactile actuation unit. The system can present grip force to users as either a flexion moment about the elbow or vibration on the wrist. To provide an equal comparison of joint-torque and vibrotactile feedback, a stimulus intensity matching scheme was utilized. Non-amputee participants (n=12) were asked to discriminate objects of varying stiffness with the prosthesis in three conditions: no haptic feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint-torque feedback.

Results

Results indicate that haptic feedback increased discrimination accuracy over no haptic feedback, but the difference between joint-torque feedback and vibrotactile feedback was not significant. In addition, our results highlight nuanced differences in performance depending on the objects’ stiffness, and suggest that participants likely pay less attention to incidental cues with the addition of haptic feedback.

Conclusion

Even when haptic feedback is not modality matched to the task, such as in the case of vibrotactile feedback, performance with a myoelectric prosthesis can improve significantly. This implies it is possible to achieve the same benefits with vibrotactile feedback, which is cheaper and easier to implement than other forms of feedback.

Cordella F, Ciancio AL, Sacchetti R, Davalli A, Cutti AG, Guglielmelli E, Zollo L. Literature Review on Needs of Upper Limb Prosthesis Users. Front Neurosci. 2016; 10:209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00209.CrossRef

Lum PS, Black I, Holley RJ, Barth J, Dromerick AW. Internal models of upper limb prosthesis users when grasping and lifting a fragile object with their prosthetic limb. Exp Brain Res. 2014; 232(12):3785–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4071-1.CrossRef

Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2007; 31(3):236–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640600994581.CrossRef

Carey SL, Lura DJ. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review. Artic J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2014.08.0192.CrossRef

Doubler J, Childress D. An Analysis of Extended Physiological Proprioception as a Prosthesis-Control Technique. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1984; 21(1):5–18.PubMed

Doubler Ja, Childress DS. Design and evaluation of a prosthesis control system based on the concept of extended physiological proprioception,. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1984; 21(1):19–31.PubMed

Brown JD, Kunz TS, Gardner D, Shelley MK, Davis AJ, Gillespie RB. An Empirical Evaluation of Force Feedback in Body-Powered Prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017; 25(3):215–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2554061.CrossRef

Witteveen HJ, Rietman HS, Veltink PH. Vibrotactile grasping force and hand aperture feedback for myoelectric forearm prosthesis users. Prosthetics Orthot Int. 2015; 39(3):204–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364614522260.CrossRef

Witteveen HJB, Luft F, Rietman JS, Veltink PH. Stiffness Feedback for Myoelectric Forearm Prostheses Using Vibrotactile Stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014; 22(1):53–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2267394.CrossRef

10.

Raveh E, Friedman J, Portnoy S. Evaluation of the effects of adding vibrotactile feedback to myoelectric prosthesis users on performance and visual attention in a dual-task paradigm Article. Clin Rehabil. 2018; 32(10):1308–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518774104.CrossRef

11.

Raveh E, Portnoy S, Friedman J. Adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand improves performance when online visual feedback is disturbed. Hum Mov Sci. 2018; 58:32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HUMOV.2018.01.008.CrossRef

12.

Clemente F, D’Alonzo M, Controzzi M, Edin BB, Cipriani C. Non-Invasive, Temporally Discrete Feedback of Object Contact and Release Improves Grasp Control of Closed-Loop Myoelectric Transradial Prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2500586.CrossRef

13.

Bark K, Wheeler JW, Premakumar S, Cutkosky MR. Comparison of Skin Stretch and Vibrotactile Stimulation for Feedback of Proprioceptive Information. In: 2008 Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Reno, NE. IEEE: 2008. p. 71–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/HAPTICS.2008.4479916.

14.

Xu H, Zhang D, Huegel JC, Xu W, Zhu X. Effects of Different Tactile Feedback on Myoelectric Closed-Loop Control for Grasping Based on Electrotactile Stimulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016; 24(8):827–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2478153.CrossRef

15.

Patterson P, Katz J. Design and evaluation of a sensory feedback system that provides grasping pressure in a myoelectric hand. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1992; 29(1):1–8.CrossRef

16.

Brown JD, Paek A, Syed M, O’Malley MK, Shewokis PA, Contreras-Vidal JL, Davis AJ, Gillespie RB. An exploration of grip force regulation with a low-impedance myoelectric prosthesis featuring referred haptic feedback. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0098-1.

17.

Treadway E, Gillespie B, Bolger D, Blank A, O’malley M, Davis A. The role of auxiliary and referred haptic feedback in myoelectric control. In: 2015 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC), Evanston, IL: 2015. p. 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHC.2015.7177684.

18.

Markovic M, Schweisfurth MA, Engels LF, Bentz T, Wüstefeld D, Farina D, Dosen S. The clinical relevance of advanced artificial feedback in the control of a multi-functional myoelectric prosthesis. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2018; 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0371-1.

19.

Rosenbaum-Chou T, Daly W, Austin R, Chaubey P, Boone DA. Development and Real World Use of a Vibratory Haptic Feedback System for Upper-Limb Prosthetic Users. J Prosthetics Orthot. 2016; 28(4):136–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000107.CrossRef

20.

Battaglia E, Clark JP, Bianchi M, Catalano MG, Bicchi A, O’Malley MK. The Rice Haptic Rocker: Skin stretch haptic feedback with the Pisa/IIT SoftHand. In: 2017 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC), Munich: 2017. p. 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHC.2017.7989848.

21.

Kim K, Colgate JE. Haptic feedback enhances grip force control of sEMG-controlled prosthetic hands in targeted reinnervation amputees,. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng: Publ IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012; 20(6):798–805. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2206080.CrossRef

22.

Pitts BJ, Sarter NB. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2014; 58(1):1751–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581365.CrossRef

23.

Feyzabadi S, Straube S, Folgheraiter M, Kirchner EA, Kim SK, Albiez JC. Human Force Discrimination during Active Arm Motion for Force Feedback Design. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2013; 6(3):309–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2013.4.CrossRef

24.

Jones LA, Sarter NB. Tactile Displays: Guidance for Their Design and Application. Hum Factors: J Hum Factors Ergon Soc. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x250638.CrossRef

25.

Field AP, Miles J, Field Z. Discovering Statistics using R. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012, p. 957.

26.

Saunders I, Vijayakumar S. The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2011; 8(60). https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-60.CrossRef

27.

Cheng S, Yi A, Tan U, Zhang D. Closed-Loop System for Myoelectric Hand Control Based on Electrotactile Stimulation. In: 2018 3rd International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics (ICARM). Singapore: IEEE: 2018. p. 486–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARM.2018.8610836.

28.

Lee J, Choi MH, Jung JH, Hammond FL. Multimodal sensory feedback for virtual proprioception in powered upper-limb prostheses. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). Lisbon: IEEE: 2017. p. 277–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172314.

29.

Brown JD, Shelley MK, Gardner D, Gansallo EA, Gillespie RB. Non-Colocated Kinesthetic Display Limits Compliance Discrimination in the Absence of Terminal Force Cues. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2016; 9(3):387–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2016.2554120.CrossRef

30.

Frisoli A, Solazzi M, Reiner M, Bergamasco M. ARTICLE IN PRESS The contribution of cutaneous and kinesthetic sensory modalities in haptic perception of orientation. Brain Res Bull. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2010.11.011.CrossRef

31.

Kamikawa Y, Okamura AM. Comparison Between Force-Controlled Skin Deformation Feedback and Hand-Grounded Kinesthetic Force Feedback for Sensory Substitution. IEEE Robot Autom Lett. 2018; 3(3):2174–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2810940.CrossRef

32.

Sobuh MMD, Kenney LPJ, Galpin AJ, Thies SB, McLaughlin J, Kulkarni J, Kyberd P. Visuomotor behaviours when using a myoelectric prosthesis. J NeuroEngineering Rehabil. 2014; 11(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-11-72.CrossRef

33.

Land M, Mennie N, Rusted J. The Roles of Vision and Eye Movements in the Control of Activities of Daily Living. Perception. 1999; 28(11):1311–28. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2935.CrossRef

34.

Chatterjee A, Aggarwal V, Ramos A, Acharya S, Thakor NV. A brain-computer interface with vibrotactile biofeedback for haptic information,. J Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2007; 4:40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-4-40.CrossRef

Title: Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
Authors: Neha Thomas
Garrett Ung
Colette McGarvey
Jeremy D. Brown
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Electromyographic
Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1743-0003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0545-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Impact of game mode in multi-user serious games for upper limb rehabilitation: a within-person randomized trial on engagement and social involvement

Technology-aided assessments of sensorimotor function: current use, barriers and future directions in the view of different stakeholders

Design, development, and evaluation of a local sensor-based gait phase recognition system using a logistic model decision tree for orthosis-control

Bimanual coordination deficits in hands following stroke and their relationship with motor and functional performance

Effect of vibration characteristics and vibror arrangement on the tactile perception of the upper arm in healthy subjects and upper limb amputees

The effects of FES cycling combined with virtual reality racing biofeedback on voluntary function after incomplete SCI: a pilot study