Static Versus Dynamic Decoding Algorithms in a Non-Invasive Body–Machine Interface

In this study, we consider a non-invasive body-machine interface that captures body motions still available to people with spinal cord injury (SCI) and maps them into a set of signals for controlling a computer user interface while engaging in a sustained level of mobility and exercise. We compare the effectiveness of two decoding algorithms that transform a high-dimensional body-signal vector into a lower dimensional control vector on six subjects with high-level SCI and eight controls. One algorithm is based on a static map from current body signals to the current value of the control vector set through principal component analysis (PCA), the other on dynamic mapping a segment of body signals to the value and the temporal derivatives of the control vector set through a Kalman filter. SCI and control participants performed straighter and smoother cursor movements with the Kalman algorithm during center-out reaching, but their movements were faster and more precise when using PCA. All participants were able to use the BMI’s continuous, two-dimensional control to type on a virtual keyboard and play pong, and performance with both algorithms was comparable. However, seven of eight control participants preferred PCA as their method of virtual wheelchair control. The unsupervised PCA algorithm was easier to train and seemed sufficient to achieve a higher degree of learnability and perceived ease of use.

[1]  M. Casadio,et al.  Body machine interface: Remapping motor skills after spinal cord injury , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[2]  Shirley G Fitzgerald,et al.  Demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with disparity in wheelchair customizability among people with traumatic spinal cord injury. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  P. Kennedy,et al.  Anxiety and depression after spinal cord injury: a longitudinal analysis. , 2000, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  C. Prablanc,et al.  Postural invariance in three-dimensional reaching and grasping movements , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[5]  M Hallett,et al.  Mechanisms of Cortical Reorganization in Lower-Limb Amputees , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  J. Krakauer Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. , 2006, Current opinion in neurology.

[7]  L Fehr,et al.  Adequacy of power wheelchair control interfaces for persons with severe disabilities: a clinical survey. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[8]  T. Milner,et al.  The effect of accuracy constraints on three-dimensional movement kinematics , 1990, Neuroscience.

[9]  Iñaki Iturrate,et al.  A Noninvasive Brain-Actuated Wheelchair Based on a P300 Neurophysiological Protocol and Automated Navigation , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[10]  N. Hogan,et al.  Movement Smoothness Changes during Stroke Recovery , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  J D Simeral,et al.  Continuous neuronal ensemble control of simulated arm reaching by a human with tetraplegia , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[12]  J. M. Carmena,et al.  Closed-Loop Decoder Adaptation on Intermediate Time-Scales Facilitates Rapid BMI Performance Improvements Independent of Decoder Initialization Conditions , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[13]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Body machine interfaces for neuromotor rehabilitation: A case study , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[14]  F. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Functional reorganization of upper-body movement after spinal cord injury , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  S. Hesse,et al.  Upper and lower extremity robotic devices for rehabilitation and for studying motor control , 2003, Current opinion in neurology.

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Disability, atrophy and cortical reorganization following spinal cord injury , 2011, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[17]  L. Paninski,et al.  Spatiotemporal tuning of motor cortical neurons for hand position and velocity. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  L. G. Cohen,et al.  Nervous system reorganization following injury , 2002, Neuroscience.

[19]  A. Mihailidis,et al.  The development of an adaptive upper-limb stroke rehabilitation robotic system , 2011, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[20]  M Hallett,et al.  Reorganization of corticospinal pathways following spinal cord injury , 1991, Neurology.

[21]  E N Brown,et al.  A Statistical Paradigm for Neural Spike Train Decoding Applied to Position Prediction from Ensemble Firing Patterns of Rat Hippocampal Place Cells , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  A body-machine interface for training selective pelvis movements in stroke survivors: A pilot study , 2015, 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[23]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

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

[25]  Michael J. Black,et al.  Inferring Hand Motion from Multi-Cell Recordings in Motor Cortex using a Kalman Filter , 2002 .

[26]  Ismael Seáñez-González,et al.  Cursor control by Kalman filter with a non-invasive body–machine interface , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

[27]  Dagmar Sternad,et al.  Sensitivity of Smoothness Measures to Movement Duration, Amplitude, and Arrests , 2009, Journal of motor behavior.

[28]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Are arm trajectories planned in kinematic or dynamic coordinates? An adaptation study , 1995, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  Nikolaos G. Tsagarakis,et al.  Tele-impedance: Teleoperation with impedance regulation using a body–machine interface , 2012, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[30]  John Cadwell,et al.  Focal magnetic coil stimulation reveals motor cortical system reorganized in humans after traumatic quadriplegia , 1990, Brain Research.

[31]  Camilla Pierella,et al.  Upper Body-Based Power Wheelchair Control Interface for Individuals With Tetraplegia , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[32]  Andreas Daffertshofer,et al.  PCA in studying coordination and variability: a tutorial. , 2004, Clinical biomechanics.

[33]  Elias B. Thorp,et al.  Remapping residual coordination for controlling assistive devices and recovering motor functions , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[34]  Zachary Danziger,et al.  Learning Algorithms for Human–Machine Interfaces , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[35]  Greg Welch,et al.  Welch & Bishop , An Introduction to the Kalman Filter 2 1 The Discrete Kalman Filter In 1960 , 1994 .

[36]  José del R. Millán,et al.  Brain-Controlled Wheelchairs: A Robotic Architecture , 2013, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[37]  Nicolas Y. Masse,et al.  Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm , 2012, Nature.

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

[39]  Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  A body-machine interface for the control of a 2D cursor , 2013, 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).