EMG-based Robot Control Interfaces: Beyond Decoding

Electromyogram (EMG)-based control interfaces are increasingly used in robot teleoperation, prosthetic devices control and also in controlling robotic exoskeletons. Over the last two decades researchers have come up with a plethora of decoding functions to map myoelectric signals to robot motions. However, this requires a lot of training and validation data sets, while the parameters of the decoding function are specific for each subject. In this thesis we propose a new methodology that doesn’t require training and is not user-specific. The main idea is to supplement the decoding functional error with the human ability to learn inverse model of an arbitrary mapping function. We have shown that the subjects gradually learned the control strategy and their learning rates improved. We also worked on identifying an optimized control scheme that would be even more effective and easy to learn for the subjects. Optimization was done by taking into account that muscles act in synergies while performing a motion task. The low-dimensional representation of the neural activity was used to control a two-dimensional task. Results showed that in the case of reduced dimensionality mapping, the subjects were able to learn to control the device in a slower pace, however they were able to reach and retain the same level of controllability. To summarize, we were able to build an EMG-based controller for robot devices that would work for any subject, without any training or decoding function, suggesting human-embedded controllers for robotic devices.

[1]  J. Carmena,et al.  Emergence of a Stable Cortical Map for Neuroprosthetic Control , 2009, PLoS biology.

[2]  Andrew Jackson,et al.  Learning a Novel Myoelectric-Controlled Interface Task , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  R.N. Scott,et al.  A new strategy for multifunction myoelectric control , 1993, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  Patrick van der Smagt,et al.  Learning EMG control of a robotic hand: towards active prostheses , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[5]  Kip A Ludwig,et al.  Naïve coadaptive cortical control , 2005, Journal of neural engineering.

[6]  Editedby Eleanor Criswell,et al.  Cram's Introduction to Surface Electromyography , 2010 .

[7]  Dawn M. Taylor,et al.  Direct Cortical Control of 3D Neuroprosthetic Devices , 2002, Science.

[8]  Toshio Tsuji,et al.  EMG-based human-robot interface for rehabilitation aid , 1998, Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.98CH36146).

[9]  Philip Chrapka EMG Controlled Hand Prosthesis: EMG Classification System , 2010 .

[10]  Panagiotis K. Artemiadis,et al.  EMG-based teleoperation of a robot arm using low-dimensional representation , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[11]  D J McFarland,et al.  An EEG-based brain-computer interface for cursor control. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  J. Edward Jackson,et al.  A User's Guide to Principal Components. , 1991 .

[13]  Vikash Gilja,et al.  A closed-loop human simulator for investigating the role of feedback control in brain-machine interfaces. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  Adrian D. C. Chan,et al.  A Gaussian mixture model based classification scheme for myoelectric control of powered upper limb prostheses , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  Daniel Graupe,et al.  Functional Separation of EMG Signals via ARMA Identification Methods for Prosthesis Control Purposes , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[16]  Michael J. Black,et al.  Neural control of computer cursor velocity by decoding motor cortical spiking activity in humans with tetraplegia , 2008, Journal of neural engineering.

[17]  Robert E. Kass,et al.  Comparison of brain–computer interface decoding algorithms in open-loop and closed-loop control , 2010, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[18]  Carlo J. De Luca,et al.  The Use of Surface Electromyography in Biomechanics , 1997 .

[19]  Panagiotis K. Artemiadis,et al.  EMG-based teleoperation of a robot arm in planar catching movements using ARMAX model and trajectory monitoring techniques , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[20]  Jose M. Carmena,et al.  Learning in Closed-Loop Brain–Machine Interfaces: Modeling and Experimental Validation , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[21]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  A high-performance brain–computer interface , 2006, Nature.

[22]  F. Zajac Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. , 1989, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[23]  David M. Santucci,et al.  Learning to Control a Brain–Machine Interface for Reaching and Grasping by Primates , 2003, PLoS biology.

[24]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Brain-Computer Interfaces for Communication and Control. , 2011, Communications of the ACM.

[25]  Emilio Bizzi,et al.  Combinations of muscle synergies in the construction of a natural motor behavior , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[27]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1998 .

[28]  Robert E. Kass,et al.  2009 Special Issue: Bias, optimal linear estimation, and the differences between open-loop simulation and closed-loop performance of spiking-based brain-computer interface algorithms , 2009 .

[29]  Toshio Tsuji,et al.  A human-assisting manipulator teleoperated by EMG signals and arm motions , 2003, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..