Closed-Loop Vibratory Haptic Feedback in Upper-Limb Prosthetic Users

ABSTRACT Sensory feedback, a vital element needed for interaction with the outside world, is largely unavailable for upper-limb amputees with conventional prostheses. The current study investigated four fundamental issues relating to an external vibrotactile stimulation modality for prosthetic hand force feedback: optimal tactor locations on the upper arm, feedback signal type, skin desensitization from mechanical stimulae, and effect on control of grasping force. A total of seven unilateral upper-limb amputees participated in this study. The results demonstrated optimum feedback resolution in the biceps region based on comfort and effectiveness. The average time for the skin to become desensitized to continuous stimulation was 66 seconds. Among different waveforms tested, the sinusoidal waveform was the most effective (p = 0.047). The cognitive loading test results demonstrated an improvement in grasping force due to haptic feedback at 60% of maximum grasping force (p < 0.05). Haptic feedback enhanced grasping force accuracy at specific forces rather than across all forces.

[1]  Christian Cipriani,et al.  A Miniature Vibrotactile Sensory Substitution Device for Multifingered Hand Prosthetics , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Y. Matsuoka,et al.  Object Manipulation Improvements Due to Single Session Training Outweigh the Differences Among Stimulation Sites During Vibrotactile Feedback , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[3]  A. Kargov,et al.  Progress in the development of a multifunctional hand prosthesis , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  R T Verrillo,et al.  Vibrotactile thresholds for hairy skin. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  S C Jacobsen,et al.  Extended physiologic taction: design and evaluation of a proportional force feedback system. , 1989, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[6]  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.

[7]  S. Vijayakumar,et al.  The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[8]  Y. Matsuoka,et al.  Vibrotactile Sensory Substitution for Object Manipulation: Amplitude Versus Pulse Train Frequency Modulation , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[9]  Robert W. Lindeman,et al.  A closed-loop tactor frequency control system for vibrotactile feedback , 2005, CHI EA '05.

[10]  S Gilman,et al.  Joint position sense and vibration sense: anatomical organisation and assessment , 2002, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[11]  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.

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