User experience of controlling the DEKA Arm with EMG pattern recognition

Introduction A commercially available EMG Pattern Recognition (EMG-PR) control system was adapted to interface with the multi-degree of freedom (DOF) DEKA Arm. Purpose To describe users’ experience of controlling the DEKA Arm using EMG-PR. Methods Sample: Twelve persons with upper limb amputation participated, 10 with transradial (TR), 2 with transhumeral (TH) level amputation. Ten were male, and 11 were users of a prosthesis at baselines. Design: This was a two-part study consisting of in-laboratory prosthetic training (Part A) and up to 12 weeks of home use of the prosthesis (Part B). Data collection: Qualitative data were collected through open-ended survey questions and semi-structured interviews. Data Analysis: The study used a qualitative case series design with a constant comparative approach to identify common categories of experience. Coding categories were iteratively refined until saturation of categories was achieved. The data were organized in a primary category, major categories of experience, factors impacting experience, and broader contextual factors. Results Users had mixed perspectives on the desirability of the EMG-PR control system in combination with the DEKA Arm. Major aspects of user experience related to the system complexity, process of calibrating, and functional benefits. Factors influencing user experience included training and acclimation, fatigue, prosthesis design, technical issues and control changes. Broader contextual factors, both personal and environmental, also impacted users’ experience. Discussion/Conclusion This study provided an in-depth description of user experience operating the DEKA Arm using EMG-PR control. The majority of participants expressed a preference for the controls of their personal prosthesis and controls rather than the iteration of EMG-PR controlled DEKA Arm used in this study. Most were positive about the future potential of EMG-PR as a control method. An understanding of patient experience will assist clinicians and patients choosing prosthetic options.

[1]  Nitish V. Thakor,et al.  User Training for Pattern Recognition-Based Myoelectric Prostheses: Improving Phantom Limb Movement Consistency and Distinguishability , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[2]  Linda Resnik,et al.  The DEKA Arm: Its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm , 2014, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[3]  Levi J. Hargrove,et al.  Real-Time and Offline Performance of Pattern Recognition Myoelectric Control Using a Generic Electrode Grid With Targeted Muscle Reinnervation Patients , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[4]  Guanglin Li,et al.  Principal Components Analysis Preprocessing for Improved Classification Accuracies in Pattern-Recognition-Based Myoelectric Control , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  Erik J. Scheme,et al.  Improving myoelectric pattern recognition positional robustness using advanced training protocols , 2011, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[6]  Jason Wilken,et al.  Movement quality of conventional prostheses and the DEKA Arm during everyday tasks , 2017, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[7]  Lauren H Smith,et al.  A comparison of the real-time controllability of pattern recognition to conventional myoelectric control for discrete and simultaneous movements , 2012, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[8]  B. Hudgins,et al.  A Real-Time Pattern Recognition Based Myoelectric Control Usability Study Implemented in a Virtual Environment , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[9]  T. Kuiken.  Targeted reinnervation for improved prosthetic function. , 2006, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America.

[10]  N. Thakor,et al.  A Training Strategy for Learning Pattern Recognition Control for Myoelectric Prostheses , 2013, Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO.

[11]  Ann M. Simon,et al.  Prosthesis-guided training of pattern recognition-controlled myoelectric prosthesis , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[12]  Kevin B. Englehart,et al.  A robust, real-time control scheme for multifunction myoelectric control , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[13]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[14]  Linda Resnik,et al.  Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience , 2014, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[15]  Sam L. Phillips,et al.  Endpoint Control for a Powered Shoulder Prosthesis , 2013 .

[16]  Ann M. Simon,et al.  Pattern recognition control outperforms conventional myoelectric control in upper limb patients with targeted muscle reinnervation , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[17]  Levi J Hargrove,et al.  A real-time comparison between direct control, sequential pattern recognition control and simultaneous pattern recognition control using a Fitts’ law style assessment procedure , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[18]  T. Kuiken,et al.  Myoelectric Pattern Recognition Outperforms Direct Control for Transhumeral Amputees with Targeted Muscle Reinnervation: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Todd A. Kuiken,et al.  ADAPTIVE PATTERN RECOGNITION TO ENSURE CLINICAL VIABILITY OVER TIME , 2008 .

[20]  A. M. Simon,et al.  Patient Training for Functional Use of Pattern Recognition–Controlled Prostheses , 2012, Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO.

[21]  Todd A. Kuiken,et al.  A strategy for minimizing the effect of misclassifications during real time pattern recognition myoelectric control , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[22]  Panagiotis K. Artemiadis,et al.  Proceedings of the first workshop on Peripheral Machine Interfaces: going beyond traditional surface electromyography , 2014, Front. Neurorobot..

[23]  Levi J. Hargrove,et al.  Real-time comparison of conventional direct control and pattern recognition myoelectric control in a two-dimensional Fitts' law style test , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).