Vibro- and Electrotactile User Feedback on Hand Opening for Myoelectric Forearm Prostheses

Many of the currently available myoelectric forearm prostheses stay unused because of the lack of sensory feedback. Vibrotactile and electrotactile stimulation have high potential to provide this feedback. In this study, performance of a grasping task is investigated for different hand opening feedback conditions on 15 healthy subjects and validated on three patients. The opening of a virtual hand was controlled by a scroll wheel. Feedback about hand opening was given via an array of eight vibrotactile or electrotactile stimulators placed on the forearm, relating to eight hand opening positions. A longitudinal and transversal orientation of the array and four feedback conditions were investigated: no feedback, visual feedback, feedback through vibrotactile or electrotactile stimulation, and addition of an extra stimulator for touch feedback. No influence of array orientation was shown for all outcome parameters (duration of the task, the percentage of correct hand openings, the mean position error, and the percentage deviations up to one position). Vibrotactile stimulation enhances the performance compared to the nonfeedback conditions. The addition of touch feedback further increases the performance, but at the cost of an increased duration. The same effects were found for the patient group, but the task duration was around 25% larger.

[1]  J. Wheeler,et al.  Investigation of Rotational Skin Stretch for Proprioceptive Feedback With Application to Myoelectric Systems , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[2]  I. Dudkiewicz,et al.  Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[3]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Identifying the role of proprioception in upper-limb prosthesis control: Studies on targeted motion , 2010, TAP.

[4]  D. Atkins,et al.  Epidemiologic Overview of Individuals with Upper-Limb Loss and Their Reported Research Priorities , 1996 .

[5]  Objectives and technological approach to the development of the multifunctional MANUS upper limb prosthesis , 2005, Robotica.

[6]  W.J. Tompkins,et al.  Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems , 1991, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  G.S. Dhillon,et al.  Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[8]  R. Cholewiak,et al.  Vibrotactile localization on the abdomen: Effects of place and space , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Lynette A. Jones,et al.  Tactile Displays: Guidance for Their Design and Application , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[10]  R E Prior,et al.  Electrocutaneous feedback for artificial limbs. Summary progress report. February 1, 1974, through July 31, 1975. , 1975, Bulletin of prosthetics research.

[11]  A. Higashiyama,et al.  Localization of electrocutaneous stimuli on the fingers and forearm: Effects of electrode configuration and body axis , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  A. Kargov,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Low-Cost Force Feedback System for Myoelectric Prosthetic Hands , 2006 .

[13]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Comparison of Skin Stretch and Vibrotactile Stimulation for Feedback of Proprioceptive Information , 2008, 2008 Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems.

[14]  A. A. Collins,et al.  Vibrotactile localization on the arm: Effects of place, space, and age , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  B. Green.  The perception of distance and location for dual tactile pressures , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Christian Balkenius,et al.  A Tactile Display System for Hand Prostheses to Discriminate Pressure and Individual Finger Localization , 2010 .

[17]  Stefano Stramigioli,et al.  Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[18]  A.M. Okamura,et al.  Effects of Visual and Proprioceptive Motion Feedback on Human Control of Targeted Movement , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[19]  Cara E. Stepp,et al.  Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation , 2010, 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology.

[20]  R. Cholewiak,et al.  Anatomical, neurophysiological and perceptual issues of tactile perception , 2008 .

[21]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Critical Factors in Device Abandonment , 2007, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[22]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Effects of Proprioceptive Motion Feedback on Sighted and Non-Sighted Control of a Virtual Hand Prosthesis , 2008, 2008 Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems.

[23]  Ellen Poliakoff,et al.  Tactile spatial acuity varies with site and axis in the human upper limb , 2008, Neuroscience Letters.

[24]  S. D. Reimers,et al.  Kinesthetic Sensing for the EMG Controlled "Boston Arm" , 1970 .