Performance and Usability of Various Robotic Arm Control Modes from Human Force Signals

Elaborating an efficient and usable mapping between input commands and output movements is still a key challenge for the design of robotic arm prostheses. In order to address this issue, we present and compare three different control modes, by assessing them in terms of performance as well as general usability. Using an isometric force transducer as the command device, these modes convert the force input signal into either a position or a velocity vector, whose magnitude is linearly or quadratically related to force input magnitude. With the robotic arm from the open source 3D-printed Poppy Humanoid platform simulating a mobile prosthesis, an experiment was carried out with eighteen able-bodied subjects performing a 3-D target-reaching task using each of the three modes. The subjects were given questionnaires to evaluate the quality of their experience with each mode, providing an assessment of their global usability in the context of the task. According to performance metrics and questionnaire results, velocity control modes were found to perform better than position control mode in terms of accuracy and quality of control as well as user satisfaction and comfort. Subjects also seemed to favor quadratic velocity control over linear (proportional) velocity control, even if these two modes did not clearly distinguish from one another when it comes to performance and usability assessment. These results highlight the need to take into account user experience as one of the key criteria for the design of control modes intended to operate limb prostheses.

[1]  Alicia J. Davis,et al.  Surveying the interest of individuals with upper limb loss in novel prosthetic control techniques , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[2]  Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals ( VDTs ) — Part 11 : Guidance on usability , 1998 .

[3]  S. Edelman,et al.  Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study. , 2007, Clinical therapeutics.

[4]  Andreas Holzinger,et al.  Usability engineering methods for software developers , 2005, CACM.

[5]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years , 2007, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[6]  J. Buurke,et al.  Usability of thenar eminence orthoses: report of a comparative study , 1999, Clinical rehabilitation.

[7]  Robert J. Teather,et al.  Position vs. velocity control for tilt-based interaction , 2014, Graphics Interface.

[8]  David G. Lloyd,et al.  A real-time EMG-driven virtual arm , 2002, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[9]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Ten Usability Heuristics , 2006 .

[10]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  Sensorimotor Control and Learning: An introduction to the behavioral neuroscience of action , 2012 .

[11]  Aymar de Rugy,et al.  Muscle Coordination Is Habitual Rather than Optimal , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[13]  Daniel Vogel,et al.  The Impact of Control-Display Gain on User Performance in Pointing Tasks , 2008, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[14]  G. Niemeyer,et al.  Springer Handbook of Robotics: Chapter 31 , 2008 .

[15]  Robert J. Logan,et al.  Design of Simplified Television Remote Controls: A Case for Behavioral and Emotional Usability , 1994, CHI 1994.

[16]  Gerald E Loeb,et al.  Virtual biomechanics: a new method for online reconstruction of force from EMG recordings. , 2012, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Dario Farina,et al.  The Extraction of Neural Information from the Surface EMG for the Control of Upper-Limb Prostheses: Emerging Avenues and Challenges , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[18]  Yuanqing Li,et al.  An EEG-Based BCI System for 2-D Cursor Control by Combining Mu/Beta Rhythm and P300 Potential , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  Huosheng Hu,et al.  Myoelectric control systems - A survey , 2007, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[20]  John P. Cunningham,et al.  A High-Performance Neural Prosthesis Enabled by Control Algorithm Design , 2012, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  The go-go interaction technique: non-linear mapping for direct manipulation in VR , 1996, UIST '96.

[22]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Springer Handbook of Robotics , 2007, Springer Handbooks.

[23]  J. Tresilian Sensorimotor Control and Learning , 2012 .

[24]  Lucas C. Parra,et al.  Concurrent Adaptation of Human and Machine Improves Simultaneous and Proportional Myoelectric Control , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[25]  Lawrence W. Stark,et al.  A comparison of position and rate control for telemanipulations with consideration of manipulator system dynamics , 1987, IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation.

[26]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Human Performance in Six Degree of Freedom Input Control , 2002 .

[27]  B. Kantowitz,et al.  Fitts' law with an isometric controller: effects of order of control and control-display gain. , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.

[28]  Jonathan Westley Peirce,et al.  Neuroinformatics Original Research Article Generating Stimuli for Neuroscience Using Psychopy , 2022 .

[29]  Lucas C Parra,et al.  Correction to "Concurrent Adaptation of Human and Machine Improves Simultaneous and Proportional Myoelectric Control". , 2015, IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[30]  Pierre-Yves Oudeyer,et al.  Poppy Project: Open-Source Fabrication of 3D Printed Humanoid Robot for Science, Education and Art , 2014 .

[31]  Linda Resnik,et al.  Development and testing of new upper-limb prosthetic devices: research designs for usability testing. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[32]  Andrea d'Avella,et al.  Differences in Adaptation Rates after Virtual Surgeries Provide Direct Evidence for Modularity , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[33]  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.

[34]  David Sussillo,et al.  A recurrent neural network for closed-loop intracortical brain–machine interface decoders , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.

[35]  Byron M. Yu,et al.  Motor cortical control of movement speed with implications for brain-machine interface control. , 2014, Journal of neurophysiology.