Evaluation of Optimal Vibrotactile Feedback for Force-Controlled Upper Limb Myoelectric Prostheses

The main goal of this study is to evaluate how to optimally select the best vibrotactile pattern to be used in a closed loop control of upper limb myoelectric prostheses as a feedback of the exerted force. To that end, we assessed both the selection of actuation patterns and the effects of the selection of frequency and amplitude parameters to discriminate between different feedback levels. A single vibrotactile actuator has been used to deliver the vibrations to subjects participating in the experiments. The results show no difference between pattern shapes in terms of feedback perception. Similarly, changes in amplitude level do not reflect significant improvement compared to changes in frequency. However, decreasing the number of feedback levels increases the accuracy of feedback perception and subject-specific variations are high for particular participants, showing that a fine-tuning of the parameters is necessary in a real-time application to upper limb prosthetics. In future works, the effects of training, location, and number of actuators will be assessed. This optimized selection will be tested in a real-time proportional myocontrol of a prosthetic hand.

[1]  Silvestro Micera,et al.  Multisensory bionic limb to achieve prosthesis embodiment and reduce distorted phantom limb perceptions , 2018, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.

[2]  Dario Farina,et al.  Humans Can Integrate Augmented Reality Feedback in Their Sensorimotor Control of a Robotic Hand , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[3]  Victor Hugo C. de Albuquerque,et al.  Analysis of Man-Machine Interfaces in Upper-Limb Prosthesis: A Review , 2019, Robotics.

[4]  Jan Andrysek,et al.  Toward an artificial sensory feedback system for prosthetic mobility rehabilitation: examination of sensorimotor responses. , 2014, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[5]  M. Guémann,et al.  Sensory and motor parameter estimation for elbow myoelectric control with vibrotactile feedback , 2018, Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine.

[6]  Jason Friedman,et al.  Evaluation of the effects of adding vibrotactile feedback to myoelectric prosthesis users on performance and visual attention in a dual-task paradigm , 2018, Clinical rehabilitation.

[7]  Purushothaman Geethanjali,et al.  Myoelectric control of prosthetic hands: state-of-the-art review , 2016, Medical devices.

[8]  Christian Antfolk,et al.  Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics , 2013, Expert review of medical devices.

[9]  Ahmed W Shehata,et al.  Audible Feedback Improves Internal Model Strength and Performance of Myoelectric Prosthesis Control , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[10]  Dario Farina,et al.  Electrotactile EMG feedback improves the control of prosthesis grasping force , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[11]  Peter H. Veltink,et al.  Usability Evaluation of a VibroTactile Feedback System in Stroke Subjects , 2017, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol..

[12]  Ahmed W. Shehata,et al.  When Less Is More – Discrete Tactile Feedback Dominates Continuous Audio Biofeedback in the Integrated Percept While Controlling a Myoelectric Prosthetic Hand , 2019, Front. Neurosci..

[13]  Peter H Veltink,et al.  Vibrotactile grasping force and hand aperture feedback for myoelectric forearm prosthesis users , 2015, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[14]  Chang S. Nam,et al.  Navigation by vibration: Effects of vibrotactile feedback on a navigation task , 2015 .

[15]  Gursel Alici,et al.  A Review of Non-Invasive Sensory Feedback Methods for Transradial Prosthetic Hands , 2018, IEEE Access.

[16]  Peter H. Veltink,et al.  Vibrotactile stimulation of the upper leg: Effects of location, stimulation method and habituation , 2011, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[17]  Thierry Keller,et al.  Electrotactile Feedback Improves Performance and Facilitates Learning in the Routine Grasping Task , 2016, European journal of translational myology.

[18]  C. Antfolk,et al.  Artificial Redirection of Sensation From Prosthetic Fingers to the Phantom Hand Map on Transradial Amputees: Vibrotactile Versus Mechanotactile Sensory Feedback , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[19]  Loredana Zollo,et al.  Control of Prosthetic Hands via the Peripheral Nervous System , 2016, Front. Neurosci..

[20]  Dario Farina,et al.  EMG Biofeedback for online predictive control of grasping force in a myoelectric prosthesis , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[21]  Daniel Tan,et al.  Sensory feedback by peripheral nerve stimulation improves task performance in individuals with upper limb loss using a myoelectric prosthesis , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[22]  Dario Farina,et al.  The clinical relevance of advanced artificial feedback in the control of a multi-functional myoelectric prosthesis , 2018, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[23]  Oonagh M. Giggins,et al.  Biofeedback in rehabilitation , 2013, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[24]  Ranu Jung,et al.  Effects of vibrotactile feedback and grasp interface compliance on perception and control of a sensorized myoelectric hand , 2019, PloS one.

[25]  Erik D Engeberg,et al.  Enhanced visual feedback for slip prevention with a prosthetic hand , 2012, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[26]  Jeremy D. Brown,et al.  Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis , 2019 .

[27]  David I. Anderson,et al.  Grip Force Control Using Prosthetic and Anatomical Limbs , 2018, Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO.