Preserving Agency During Electrical Muscle Stimulation Training Speeds up Reaction Time Directly After Removing EMS

Abstract: Force feedback devices, such as motor-based exoskeletons or wearables based on electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), have the unique potential to accelerate users’ own reaction time (RT). However, this speedup has only been explored while the device is attached to the user. In fact, very little is known regarding whether this faster reaction time still occurs after the user removes the device from their bodies–this is precisely what we investigated by means of a simple reaction time (RT) experiment, in which participants were asked to tap as soon as they saw an LED flashing. Participants experienced this in three EMS conditions: (1) fast-EMS, the electrical impulses were synced with the LED; (2) agency-EMS, the electrical impulse was delivered 40ms faster than the participant’s own RT, which prior work has shown to preserve one’s sense of agency over this movement; and, (3) late-EMS: the impulse was delivered after the participant’s own RT. Our results revealed that the participants’ RT was significantly reduced by approximately 8ms (up to 20ms) only after training with the agency-EMS condition. This finding suggests that the prioritizing agency during EMS training is key to motor-adaptation, i.e., it enables a faster motor response even after the user has removed the EMS device from their body.

[1]  Hideki Koike,et al.  Soft Exoskeleton Glove Enabling Force Feedback for Human-Like Finger Posture Control with 20 Degrees of Freedom , 2019, 2019 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC).

[2]  Pedro Lopes,et al.  Preemptive Action: Accelerating Human Reaction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation Without Compromising Agency , 2019, CHI.

[3]  Masahiko Inami,et al.  Fusion: full body surrogacy for collaborative communication , 2018, SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies.

[4]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  Wired muscle: generating faster kinesthetic reaction by inter-personally connecting muscles , 2017, SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies.

[5]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  bioSync: A Paired Wearable Device for Blending Kinesthetic Experience , 2017, CHI.

[6]  Akira Ishii,et al.  Stimulated percussions: techniques for controlling human as percussive musical instrument by using electrical muscle stimulation , 2016, SIGGRAPH Asia Posters.

[7]  Pedro Lopes,et al.  Impacto: Simulating Physical Impact by Combining Tactile Stimulation with Electrical Muscle Stimulation , 2015, UIST.

[8]  Michael Rohs,et al.  Cruise Control for Pedestrians: Controlling Walking Direction using Electrical Muscle Stimulation , 2015, CHI.

[9]  Pedro Lopes,et al.  Muscle-propelled force feedback: bringing force feedback to mobile devices , 2013, CHI.

[10]  Jung Kim,et al.  Current hand exoskeleton technologies for rehabilitation and assistive engineering , 2012 .

[11]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Human sensorimotor learning: adaptation, skill, and beyond , 2011, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  Jun Rekimoto,et al.  PossessedHand: techniques for controlling human hands using electrical muscles stimuli , 2011, CHI.

[13]  Olivier White,et al.  Use-Dependent and Error-Based Learning of Motor Behaviors , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Farzam Farbiz,et al.  An electrical muscle stimulation haptic feedback for mixed reality tennis game , 2007, SIGGRAPH '07.

[15]  L. Mcnaughton,et al.  Effects of sleep deprivation and exercise on cognitive, motor performance and mood , 2006, Physiology & Behavior.

[16]  Ian M Franks,et al.  Prepared Movements Are Elicited Early by Startle , 2004, Journal of motor behavior.

[17]  S. Ando,et al.  Retention of Practice Effects on Simple Reaction Time for Peripheral and Central Visual Fields , 2004, Perceptual and motor skills.

[18]  S. Draper,et al.  Incremental Exercise, Plasma Concentrations of Catecholamines, Reaction Time, and Motor Time during Performance of a Noncompatible Choice Response Time Task , 2003, Perceptual and motor skills.

[19]  R. Ratcliff.  A diffusion model account of response time and accuracy in a brightness discrimination task: Fitting real data and failing to fit fake but plausible data , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  R. Carpenter,et al.  The influence of urgency on decision time , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Patterned ballistic movements triggered by a startle in healthy humans , 1999, The Journal of physiology.

[22]  S. J. Lachman,et al.  Learning is a Process: Toward an Improved Definition of Learning , 1997 .

[23]  M G Fischman,et al.  Programming time as a function of number of movement parts and changes in movement direction. , 1984, Journal of motor behavior.

[24]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  M G Fischman,et al.  Simple reaction time as a function of response complexity: memory drum theory revisited. , 1982, Journal of motor behavior.

[26]  A. Kralj,et al.  Programmed Six-Channel Electrical Stimulator for Complex Stimulation of Leg Muscles During Walking , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[27]  V. L. Bender,et al.  The effect of various levels of strenuous to exhaustive exercise on reaction time , 1976, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

[28]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. , 1967, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  P. Fitts.  Cognitive aspects of information processing. 3. Set for speed versus accuracy. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[30]  J KASWAN,et al.  EFFECT OF STIMULUS VARIABLES ON CHOICE REACTION TIMES AND THRESHOLDS. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[31]  F. M. Henry,et al.  Increased Response Latency for Complicated Movements and A “Memory Drum” Theory of Neuromotor Reaction , 1960 .

[32]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[34]  R. Hyman.  Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  W. E. Hick.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[36]  D. C. Shapiro,et al.  Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  The Principles of Learning and Behavior. , 1982 .

[38]  J. R. Simon,et al.  CHOICE REACTION TIME AS A FUNCTION OF ANGULAR STIMULUS-RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND AGE , 1963 .