An Objective Functional Evaluation of Myoelectrically-Controlled Hand Prostheses: A Pilot Study Using the Virtual Peg Insertion Test

Assessing upper limb prostheses and their influence when performing goal-directed activities is essential to compare the quality of different devices and optimize their control settings. Currently available assessments are often subjective, insensitive, and cannot provide a detailed evaluation of prostheses and their usage. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the feasibility of using the Virtual Peg Insertion Test (VPIT) to provide an in-depth assessment of a prosthesis and its functional performance. One transradial amputee performed the goal-directed manipulation task of the VPIT with the sound body side and four different myoelectrically-controlled prostheses. The subject was able to complete the VPIT protocol successfully with technically advanced prosthesis (two out of four devices). The kinematic- and kinetic-based objective evaluation measures extracted from the VPIT were able to capture clear differences between the sound and amputated body side and were able to identify varying movement patterns for different prostheses. Additionally, the outcome measures were sensitive to changes in prosthesis control settings and showed clear trends across measures of subjectively perceived prosthesis quality assessed through a questionnaire. This work demonstrates the general feasibility of objectively evaluating functional prosthesis usage with the VPIT.

[1]  Silvestro Micera,et al.  Biomimetic Intraneural Sensory Feedback Enhances Sensation Naturalness, Tactile Sensitivity, and Manual Dexterity in a Bidirectional Prosthesis , 2018, Neuron.

[2]  Björn Eskofier,et al.  Inertial sensor based and shoe size independent gait analysis including heel and toe clearance estimation , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[3]  Matteo Bianchi,et al.  The SoftHand Pro: Functional evaluation of a novel, flexible, and robust myoelectric prosthesis , 2018, PloS one.

[4]  Leonardo Meli,et al.  The hBracelet: A Wearable Haptic Device for the Distributed Mechanotactile Stimulation of the Upper Limb , 2018, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters.

[5]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[6]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  An Objective Technology-based Assessment of Arm and Hand Sensorimotor Disability in Neurological Disorders , 2019, bioRxiv.

[7]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Systematic Review on Kinematic Assessments of Upper Limb Movements After Stroke , 2019, Stroke.

[8]  Mark A. Minor,et al.  Hybrid Force–Velocity Sliding Mode Control of a Prosthetic Hand , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  C. Light,et al.  Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  R. Gassert,et al.  Upper limb assessment using a Virtual Peg Insertion Test , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[12]  Peter S. Lum,et al.  Trans-radial upper extremity amputees are capable of adapting to a novel dynamic environment , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  Hanneke Bouwsema,et al.  Movement characteristics of upper extremity prostheses during basic goal-directed tasks. , 2010, Clinical biomechanics.

[14]  Virginia Wright,et al.  Prosthetic Outcome Measures for Use With Upper Limb Amputees: A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature, 1970 to 2009 , 2009 .

[15]  V. Mathiowetz,et al.  Adult norms for the Box and Block Test of manual dexterity. , 1985, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[16]  S. Scott Optimal feedback control and the neural basis of volitional motor control , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[18]  Erik Scheme,et al.  Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: state of the art and challenges for clinical use. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[19]  A. Heinemann,et al.  Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[20]  Francis Guillemin,et al.  Health related quality of life and related factors in 539 persons with amputation of upper and lower limb , 2003, Disability and rehabilitation.

[21]  Christian Cipriani,et al.  Non-Invasive, Temporally Discrete Feedback of Object Contact and Release Improves Grasp Control of Closed-Loop Myoelectric Transradial Prostheses , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[22]  M Jason Highsmith,et al.  Kinematic Comparison of Myoelectric and Body Powered Prostheses While Performing Common Activities , 2009, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[23]  Kathryn Ziegler-Graham,et al.  Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. , 2008, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[24]  Manuel G. Catalano,et al.  HapPro: A Wearable Haptic Device for Proprioceptive Feedback , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[25]  Stephanie L Carey,et al.  Compensatory movements of transradial prosthesis users during common tasks. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.