Visual-Feedback Distortion in a Robotic Rehabilitation Environment

We create a robotic rehabilitation environment that distorts the visual feedback of a movement representation to restore lost movements. The use of visual-feedback distortion produces a perceptual gap between the perceived (visual) and actual somatosensory experiences, in which movements can be manipulated without patients' knowledge. Previously, we reported the smallest amount of distortion that is imperceptible by measuring just noticeable difference (JND), the distortion size that is tolerable without detection, and the invariance of perceived physical effort under visual-feedback distortion. In this paper, we report the performance changes under visual-feedback distortion in a robotic rehabilitation environment. By interleaving trials with no visual feedback, we showed that the internal somatosensory representation of the movement goal changed along with visual distortion for unimpaired and motor-impaired subjects. In addition, a gradual change of visual-feedback distortion within one experiment allowed movement changes significantly larger than the JND. These changes were robust under sudden lack of visual feedback and even when subjects were informed of possible distortion ahead of time. Finally, preliminary results of a six-week rehabilitation paradigm are reported. Improvements in the patient's hand condition were found, particularly in the range of motion of the index and middle fingers

[1]  R. Sainburg,et al.  Differential contributions of vision and proprioception to movement accuracy , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  L. A. Jones.  Matching Forces: Constant Errors and Differential Thresholds , 1989, Perception.

[3]  A. Bandura,et al.  Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. , 1983 .

[4]  J. Patton,et al.  Evaluation of robotic training forces that either enhance or reduce error in chronic hemiparetic stroke survivors , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  Visual-Feedback Distortion in a Robotic Rehabilitation , 2006 .

[6]  W. Rymer,et al.  Understanding and treating arm movement impairment after chronic brain injury: progress with the ARM guide. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  Ross Zafonte,et al.  Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Ashworth Scale and the Disability Assessment Scale in patients with upper-limb poststroke spasticity. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Touch can change visual slant perception , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  M A Heller,et al.  Haptic Dominance in Form Perception with Blurred Vision , 1983, Perception.

[11]  J. H. van der Lee,et al.  The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. , 2001, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[12]  H. Flor,et al.  The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. , 1997, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  M. Heller.  Haptic Dominance in Form Perception: Vision versus Proprioception , 1992, Perception.

[14]  Anne C. Sittig,et al.  The precision of proprioceptive position sense , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  M. Heller,et al.  Intersensory conflict between vision and touch: The response modality dominates when precise, attention-riveting judgments are required , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  C. Prablanc,et al.  Vectorial coding of movement: vision, proprioception, or both? , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  John W. Atkinson,et al.  Introduction: Motivation , 1964 .

[18]  C. Burgar,et al.  Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[19]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[20]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[21]  O. Bock.  Load compensation in human goal-directed arm movements , 1990, Behavioural Brain Research.

[22]  R. H. Day,et al.  Visual capture of haptically judged depth , 1969 .

[23]  I ROCK,et al.  Vision and Touch: An Experimentally Created Conflict between the Two Senses , 1964, Science.

[24]  Y. Matsuoka,et al.  The tolerance for visual feedback distortions in a virtual environment , 2002, Physiology & Behavior.

[25]  Robert J. van Beers,et al.  How humans combine simultaneous proprioceptive and visual position information , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  N. Hogan,et al.  A novel approach to stroke rehabilitation , 2000, Neurology.

[27]  J. H. van der Lee,et al.  The intra- and interrater reliability of the action research arm test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[28]  Philip N. Sabes,et al.  Multisensory Integration during Motor Planning , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  Feedback Distortion to Increase Strength and Mobility , 2003 .

[30]  Paul R. Schrater,et al.  How Optimal Depth Cue Integration Depends on the Task , 2000, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[31]  M. A. Srinivassan.  The impact of visual information on the haptic perception of stiffness in virtual environments , 1996 .

[32]  A. Bandura,et al.  Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation , 1986, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[33]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  Feedback distortion for rehabilitation: gauging perceived physical effort , 2003, 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 2003. HAPTICS 2003. Proceedings..

[34]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  Effects of visual feedback distortion for the elderly and the motor-impaired in a robotic rehabilitation environment , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[35]  Y. Matsuoka,et al.  Perceptual limits for a robotic rehabilitation environment using visual feedback distortion , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.