User-Modulated Impedance Control of a Prosthetic Elbow in Unconstrained, Perturbed Motion

Humans use the agonist-antagonist structure of their muscles to simultaneously determine both the motion and the stiffness of their joints. Designing this feature into an artificial limb may prove advantageous. To evaluate the performance of an artificial limb capable of modulating its impedance, we have created a compact series elastic actuator that has the same size and similar weight as commercially available electric prosthetic elbows. The inherent compliance in series elastic actuators ensure their safety to the user, even at high speeds, while creating a high-fidelity force actuator ideally suited for impedance control. This paper describes three serial studies that build on each other. The first study presents modeling of the actuator to ensure stability in the range of impedance modulation and empirically tests the actuator to validate its ability to modulate impedance. The actuator is found to be stable and accurate over a wide range of impedances. In the second study, four subjects are tested in a preliminary experiment to answer basic questions necessary to implement user-modulated impedance control. Findings include the superiority of velocity control over position control as the underlying motion paradigm and the preference for high stiffness and non-negative inertia. Based on the findings of the second study, the third study evaluates the performance of 15 able-bodied subjects for two tasks, using five different impedance paradigms. Impedance modulation, speed, and error were compared across paradigms. The results indicate that subjects do not actively modulate impedance if it is near a preferred baseline. Fixed impedance and viscosity modulation provide the most accurate control.

[1]  Matthew M. Williamson,et al.  Series elastic actuators , 1995, Proceedings 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots.

[2]  D. Childress,et al.  Relationships of the surface electromyogram to the force, length, velocity, and contraction rate of the cineplastic human biceps. , 1981, American journal of physical medicine.

[3]  Daniel E. Whitney,et al.  Force Feedback Control of Manipulator Fine Motions , 1977 .

[4]  Stephen C. Jacobsen,et al.  ADAPTIVE MYOELECTRIC FILTER. , 1984 .

[5]  David W. Robinson,et al.  Design and analysis of series elasticity in closed-loop actuator force control , 2000 .

[6]  P. Crago,et al.  Multijoint dynamics and postural stability of the human arm , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  J. Rothwell Principles of Neural Science , 1982 .

[8]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation , 1984, 1984 American Control Conference.

[9]  J.W. Sensinger,et al.  Improvements to Series Elastic Actuators , 2006, 2006 2nd IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronics and Embedded Systems and Applications.

[10]  D E Krebs,et al.  Quantitative assessment of four men using above-elbow prosthetic control. , 1993, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[11]  G.A. Pratt,et al.  Late motor processing in low-impedance robots: impedance control of series-elastic actuators , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference.

[12]  Dudley S. Childress,et al.  On information transmission in human-machine systems: channel capacity and optimal filtering , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[13]  W. Zev Rymer,et al.  Elbow impedance during goal-directed movements , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  Robert S. Olyha,et al.  Negative inertia: a dynamic pointing function , 1995, CHI '95.

[15]  N. Hogan Adaptive control of mechanical impedance by coactivation of antagonist muscles , 1984 .

[16]  Neville Hogan PROSTHESES SHOULD HAVE ADAPTIVELY CONTROLLABLE IMPEDANCE , 1983 .

[17]  R. Rosenberg,et al.  System Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation of Mechatronic Systems , 2006 .

[18]  John Kenneth Salisbury,et al.  A New Actuation Approach for Human Friendly Robot Design , 2004, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[19]  F. Popescu,et al.  Implications of low mechanical impedance in upper limb reaching motion. , 2003, Motor control.

[20]  J. Stroop Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[21]  P. Herberts The Control of upper-extremity prostheses and orthoses , 1974 .

[22]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part I—Theory , 1985 .

[23]  Richard F. ff. Weir,et al.  CHAPTER 32 DESIGN OF ARTIFICIAL ARMS AND HANDS FOR PROSTHETIC APPLICATIONS , 2005 .

[24]  Childress Ds,et al.  Relationships of the surface electromyogram to the force, length, velocity, and contraction rate of the cineplastic human biceps. , 1981 .

[25]  Doubler Ja,et al.  An analysis of extended physiological proprioception as a prosthesis-control technique. , 1984 .

[26]  E. Bizzi,et al.  Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[27]  J.W. Sensinger,et al.  Unconstrained Impedance Control Using a Compact Series Elastic Actuator , 2006, 2006 2nd IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronics and Embedded Systems and Applications.

[28]  D. Childress,et al.  An analysis of extended physiological proprioception as a prosthesis-control technique. , 1984, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.