Motor unit drive: a neural interface for real-time upper limb prosthetic control

OBJECTIVE Modern prosthetic limbs have made strident gains in recent years, incorporating terminal electromechanical devices that are capable of mimicking the human hand. However, access to these advanced control capabilities has been prevented by fundamental limitations of amplitude-based myoelectric neural interfaces, which have remained virtually unchanged for over four decades. Consequently, nearly 23% of adults and 32% of children with major traumatic or congenital upper-limb loss abandon regular use of their myoelectric prosthesis. To address this healthcare need, we have developed a noninvasive neural interface technology that maps natural motor unit increments of neural control and force into biomechanically informed signals for improved prosthetic control. APPROACH Our technology, referred to as motor unit drive (MU Drive), utilizes real-time machine learning algorithms for directly measuring motor unit firings from surface electromyographic signals recorded from residual muscles of an amputated or congenitally missing limb. The extracted firings are transformed into biomechanically informed signals based on the force generating properties of individual motor units to provide a control source that represents the intended movement. MAIN RESULTS We evaluated the characteristics of the MU Drive control signals and compared them to conventional amplitude-based myoelectric signals in healthy subjects as well as subjects with congenital or traumatic trans-radial limb-loss. Our analysis established a vital proof-of-concept: MU Drive provides a more responsive real-time signal with improved smoothness and more faithful replication of intended limb movement that overcomes the trade-off between performance and latency inherent to amplitude-based myoelectric methods. SIGNIFICANCE MU Drive is the first neural interface for prosthetic control that provides noninvasive real-time access to the natural motor control mechanisms of the human nervous system. This new neural interface holds promise for improving prosthetic function by achieving advanced control that better reflects the user intent. Beyond the immediate advantages in the field of prosthetics, MU Drive provides an innovative alternative for advancing the control of exoskeletons, assistive devices, and other robotic rehabilitation applications.

[1]  Ronald S. Lefever,et al.  A Procedure for Decomposing the Myoelectric Signal Into Its Constituent Action Potentials - Part I: Technique, Theory, and Implementation , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Carlo J De Luca,et al.  Neural control of muscle force: indications from a simulation model. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  O. Stavdahl,et al.  Control of Upper Limb Prostheses: Terminology and Proportional Myoelectric Control—A Review , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[4]  Etienne Burdet,et al.  On the analysis of movement smoothness , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[5]  D T Hutchinson,et al.  Continuous Detection and Decoding of Dexterous Finger Flexions With Implantable MyoElectric Sensors , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[6]  Roberto Merletti,et al.  Design of a Portable, Intrinsically Safe Multichannel Acquisition System for High-Resolution, Real-Time Processing HD-sEMG , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  R.F.f. Weir,et al.  Reliability of Implantable MyoElectric Sensors (IMES) , 2008, 2008 Virtual Rehabilitation.

[8]  T. Kuiken,et al.  Neural Interfaces for Control of Upper Limb Prostheses: The State of the Art and Future Possibilities , 2011, PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation.

[9]  David Hankin,et al.  First-in-man demonstration of a fully implanted myoelectric sensors system to control an advanced electromechanical prosthetic hand , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[10]  Pornchai Phukpattaranont,et al.  Feature reduction and selection for EMG signal classification , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[11]  R.F. Weir,et al.  The Optimal Controller Delay for Myoelectric Prostheses , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[12]  R. D'ambrosia,et al.  EMG-force relations of a single skeletal muscle acting across a joint: Dependence on joint angle. , 1991, Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology.

[13]  Dario Farina,et al.  Man/machine interface based on the discharge timings of spinal motor neurons after targeted muscle reinnervation , 2017, Nature Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  E. Clancy,et al.  Influence of advanced electromyogram (EMG) amplitude processors on EMG-to-torque estimation during constant-posture, force-varying contractions. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  C. D. De Luca,et al.  Myoelectric signal versus force relationship in different human muscles. , 1983, Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology.

[16]  Rositsa T Raikova,et al.  Hierarchical genetic algorithm versus static optimization-investigation of elbow flexion and extension movements. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  E. Kaplan Muscles Alive. Their Functions Revealed by Electromyography. J. V. Basmajian. Baltimore, The Williams and Wilkins Co., 1962. $8.50 , 1962 .

[18]  K. Englehart,et al.  Electromyogram Whitening for Improved Classification Accuracy in Upper Limb Prosthesis Control , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[19]  P. Rossini,et al.  Double nerve intraneural interface implant on a human amputee for robotic hand control , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[20]  E. Clancy,et al.  Comparison of Constant-Posture Force-Varying EMG-Force Dynamic Models About the Elbow , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[21]  T. Kuiken,et al.  Quantifying Pattern Recognition—Based Myoelectric Control of Multifunctional Transradial Prostheses , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[22]  C. D. De Luca,et al.  High-yield decomposition of surface EMG signals , 2010, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[23]  He Huang,et al.  Integration of surface electromyographic sensors with the transfemoral amputee socket: A comparison of four differing configurations , 2015, Prosthetics and orthotics international.

[24]  Carlo J. De Luca,et al.  The Use of Surface Electromyography in Biomechanics , 1997 .

[25]  Joshua C Kline,et al.  Decomposition of surface EMG signals from cyclic dynamic contractions. , 2015, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  Hans Dietl,et al.  Fully Implantable Multi-Channel Measurement System for Acquisition of Muscle Activity , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[27]  Alexander Adam,et al.  Decomposition and Analysis of Intramuscular Electromyographic Signals , 1999 .

[28]  Sebastian Madgwick,et al.  Estimation of IMU and MARG orientation using a gradient descent algorithm , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[29]  Damjan Zazula,et al.  Real-Time Motor Unit Identification From High-Density Surface EMG , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[30]  Joshua C. Kline,et al.  Decomposition of surface EMG signals. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[31]  Zeynep Erim,et al.  Common drive of motor units in regulation of muscle force , 1994, Trends in Neurosciences.

[32]  Ronald S. Lefever,et al.  A Procedure for Decomposing the Myoelectric Signal Into Its Constituent Action Potentials-Part II: Execution and Test for Accuracy , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[33]  D. Farina,et al.  Estimating motor unit discharge patterns from high-density surface electromyogram , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[35]  R. Stein,et al.  The relation between the surface electromyogram and muscular force. , 1975, The Journal of physiology.