Vibrotactile Sensory Substitution for Object Manipulation: Amplitude Versus Pulse Train Frequency Modulation

Incorporating sensory feedback with prosthetic devices is now possible, but the optimal methods of providing such feedback are still unknown. The relative utility of amplitude and pulse train frequency modulated stimulation paradigms for providing vibrotactile feedback for object manipulation was assessed in 10 participants. The two approaches were studied during virtual object manipulation using a robotic interface as a function of presentation order and a simultaneous cognitive load. Despite the potential pragmatic benefits associated with pulse train frequency modulated vibrotactile stimulation, comparison of the approach with amplitude modulation indicates that amplitude modulation vibrotactile stimulation provides superior feedback for object manipulation.

[1]  G H MOWBRAY,et al.  Sensitivity of the skin to changes in rate of intermittent mechanical stimuli. , 1957, Science.

[2]  W. Kirchner.  Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  F A GELDARD,et al.  Some neglected possibilities of communication. , 1960, Science.

[4]  R. T. Verrillo.  Subjective Magnitude Functions for Vibrotaction , 1970 .

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

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

[7]  Napier Rm,et al.  Temporal specificity in cross-modal transfer of the rabbit nictitating membrane response. , 1991 .

[8]  R. T. Verrillo,et al.  Vibration Sensation in Humans , 1992 .

[9]  P E Patterson,et al.  Design and evaluation of a sensory feedback system that provides grasping pressure in a myoelectric hand. , 1992, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  Robert D. Howe,et al.  Task performance with a dexterous teleoperated hand system , 1993, Other Conferences.

[11]  T. Tran,et al.  Comparison of compound and cross-modal training on postoperative visual relearning of visual decorticate rats , 1996, Behavioural Brain Research.

[12]  A Cliquet,et al.  A low-cost instrumented glove for monitoring forces during object manipulation. , 1997, IEEE transactions on rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[13]  P. Chappell,et al.  Thick-film force, slip and temperature sensors for a prosthetic hand , 2005 .

[14]  K. O. Johnson,et al.  Time-course of vibratory adaptation and recovery in cutaneous mechanoreceptive afferents. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[16]  G. F. Shannon,et al.  A comparison of alternative means of providing sensory feedback on upper limb prostheses , 2006, Medical and biological engineering.

[17]  Silvestro Micera,et al.  Design of a cybernetic hand for perception and action , 2006, Biological Cybernetics.

[18]  Felix C Huang,et al.  Visual and Haptic Feedback Contribute to Tuning and Online Control During Object Manipulation , 2007, Journal of motor behavior.

[19]  Elaine Biddiss,et al.  Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[20]  Maria Chiara Carrozza,et al.  Biomechatronic Design and Control of an Anthropomorphic Artificial Hand for Prosthetic and Robotic Applications , 2007 .

[21]  C. Pylatiuk,et al.  Results of an Internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[22]  Nitish V. Thakor,et al.  Testing a Prosthetic Haptic Feedback Simulator With an Interactive Force Matching Task , 2008 .

[23]  T. Kuiken,et al.  Control of a six degree of freedom prosthetic arm after targeted muscle reinnervation surgery. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[24]  M. Hallbeck,et al.  Supracutaneous vibrotactile perception threshold at various non-glabrous body loci , 2008, Ergonomics.

[25]  Cara E. Stepp,et al.  Contextual effects on robotic experiments of sensory feedback for object manipulation , 2010, 2010 3rd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics.

[26]  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.

[27]  Cara E. Stepp,et al.  Multi-day training with vibrotactile feedback for virtual object manipulation , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.