A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled

In the framework of rehabilitation robotics, a major role is played by the human–machine interface (HMI) used to gather the patient’s intent from biological signals, and convert them into control signals for the robotic artifact. Surprisingly, decades of research have not yet declared what the optimal HMI is in this context; in particular, the traditional approach based upon surface electromyography (sEMG) still yields unreliable results due to the inherent variability of the signal. To overcome this problem, the scientific community has recently been advocating the discovery, analysis, and usage of novel HMIs to supersede or augment sEMG; a comparative analysis of such HMIs is therefore a very desirable investigation. In this paper, we compare three such HMIs employed in the detection of finger forces, namely sEMG, ultrasound imaging, and pressure sensing. The comparison is performed along four main lines: the accuracy in the prediction, the stability over time, the wearability, and the cost. A psychophysical experiment involving ten intact subjects engaged in a simple finger-flexion task was set up. Our results show that, at least in this experiment, pressure sensing and sEMG yield comparably good prediction accuracies as opposed to ultrasound imaging; and that pressure sensing enjoys a much better stability than sEMG. Given that pressure sensors are as wearable as sEMG electrodes but way cheaper, we claim that this HMI could represent a valid alternative/augmentation to sEMG to control a multi-fingered hand prosthesis.

[1]  Claudio Castellini,et al.  FFLS: An accurate linear device for measuring synergistic finger contractions , 2012, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[2]  Manuel G. Catalano,et al.  Adaptive synergies for a humanoid robot hand , 2012, 2012 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2012).

[3]  Don A. Yungher,et al.  Surface muscle pressure as a measure of active and passive behavior of muscles during gait. , 2011, Medical engineering & physics.

[4]  Roberto Merletti,et al.  Advances in surface EMG: recent progress in detection and processing techniques. , 2010, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

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

[6]  Roberto Merletti,et al.  Advances in surface EMG: recent progress in clinical research applications. , 2010, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[7]  Bernhard E. Boser,et al.  A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers , 1992, COLT '92.

[8]  Panagiotis K. Artemiadis,et al.  A Switching Regime Model for the EMG-Based Control of a Robot Arm , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[9]  Sam L. Phillips,et al.  Residual kinetic imaging: a versatile interface for prosthetic control , 2005, Robotica.

[10]  William Craelius,et al.  The bionic man: restoring mobility. , 2002, Science.

[11]  Jing-Yi Guo,et al.  Sonomyography (SMG) control for powered prosthetic hand: a study with normal subjects. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[12]  Barbara Caputo,et al.  Stable myoelectric control of a hand prosthesis using non-linear incremental learning , 2014, Front. Neurorobot..

[13]  Giulio Sandini,et al.  Fine detection of grasp force and posture by amputees via surface electromyography , 2009, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[14]  C. Castellini,et al.  Using Ultrasound Images of the Forearm to Predict Finger Positions , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[15]  Claudio Castellini,et al.  State of the Art and Perspectives of Ultrasound Imaging as a Human-Machine Interface , 2014 .

[16]  Howard Poizner,et al.  Impaired Endogenously Evoked Automated Reaching in Parkinson's Disease , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[17]  Finley Fr,et al.  Myocoder studies of multiple myopotential response. , 1967 .

[18]  O. Stavdahl,et al.  Control of Upper Limb Prostheses: Terminology and Proportional Myoelectric Control—A Review , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[19]  Claudio Castellini,et al.  A realistic implementation of ultrasound imaging as a human-machine interface for upper-limb amputees , 2013, Front. Neurorobot..

[20]  N. Dimitrova,et al.  Interpretation of EMG changes with fatigue: facts, pitfalls, and fallacies. , 2003, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[21]  A. Rahimi,et al.  Uniform approximation of functions with random bases , 2008, 2008 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing.

[22]  Roberto Merletti,et al.  Technology and instrumentation for detection and conditioning of the surface electromyographic signal: state of the art. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[23]  Hong-Bo Xie,et al.  Towards the application of one-dimensional sonomyography for powered upper-limb prosthetic control using machine learning models , 2013, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[24]  Claudio Castellini,et al.  A wearable low-cost device based upon Force-Sensing Resistors to detect single-finger forces , 2014, 5th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics.

[25]  Dario Farina,et al.  Myoelectric Control of Artificial Limbs¿Is There a Need to Change Focus? [In the Spotlight] , 2012, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

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

[27]  Patrick van der Smagt,et al.  Evidence of muscle synergies during human grasping , 2013, Biological Cybernetics.

[28]  W. Craelius,et al.  Pressure signature of forearm as predictor of grip force. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[29]  Nitish V. Thakor,et al.  Decoding of Individuated Finger Movements Using Surface Electromyography , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[30]  F. Finley,et al.  Myocoder studies of multiple myopotential response. , 1967, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[31]  Dario Farina,et al.  Extending mode switching to multiple degrees of freedom in hand prosthesis control is not efficient , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[32]  J. F. Soechting,et al.  Postural Hand Synergies for Tool Use , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  Arthur E. Hoerl,et al.  Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems , 2000, Technometrics.

[34]  Y. Zheng,et al.  Sonomyography: monitoring morphological changes of forearm muscles in actions with the feasibility for the control of powered prosthesis. , 2006, Medical engineering & physics.

[35]  Christian Cipriani,et al.  The SmartHand transradial prosthesis , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[36]  Mark Gonzalez,et al.  Neuromas of the hand and upper extremity. , 2010, The Journal of hand surgery.

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

[38]  Jun Shi,et al.  Feasibility of controlling prosthetic hand using sonomyography signal in real time: preliminary study. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[39]  David Howard,et al.  A comparative evaluation of sonomyography, electromyography, force, and wrist angle in a discrete tracking task. , 2011, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[40]  Siping Chen,et al.  Control of Powered Prosthetic Hand Using Multidimensional Ultrasound Signals: A Pilot Study , 2011, HCI.

[41]  S Micera,et al.  Control of Hand Prostheses Using Peripheral Information , 2010, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.