Outcomes and Perception of a Conventional and Alternative Myoelectric Control Strategy: A Study of Experienced and New Multiarticulating Hand Users

ABSTRACT Introduction: The development of multiarticulating hands holds the potential to restore lost function for upper-limb amputees. However, access to the full potential of commercialized devices is limited due to conventional control strategies for switching prosthesis modes, such as hand grips. For example, to switch grips in one conventional strategy, the prosthesis user must generate electromyogram (EMG) triggers (such as a cocontraction), which are cumbersome and nonintuitive. For this reason, alternative control strategies have emerged, which seek to facilitate grip switching. One specific application uses radio frequency identification (RFID) tags programmed with grip information. These tags can be placed on objects in the environment or carried on person. Upon approaching an RFID tag, the user’s prosthesis reads the grip programmed on the tag and commands the hand into that grip. The purpose of this study was to compare the conventional strategy (using EMG triggers) with the alternative strategy (using RFID tags). Methods: The study evaluated three subjects: two users who actively use multiarticulating hands (“experienced” users) and one user who had never worn a multiarticulating hand (“new” user). Subjects were evaluated on two performance metrics: trigger completion time and the percentage of triggers that were successful on first attempt (first attempt success rate). Subjects also rated the difficulty, effort, and frustration with each strategy. Results: Results suggested faster trigger completion times with the EMG strategy for the experienced users and mixed results for the new user. Overall, the three subjects rated the RFID strategy as less difficult, tiring, and frustrating than the EMG strategy. Discussion and Conclusions: Continued studies with a larger subject pool are necessary to determine factors influencing performance and patient preference. This would allow identification of best strategies to access the full potential of new commercial devices. Still, the authors suggest that the synergistic use of both strategies can yield great benefits for both experienced and new multiarticulating hand users.

[1]  R. H. Jebsen,et al.  An objective and standardized test of hand function. , 1969, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  Alberto Esquenazi,et al.  Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[3]  Guanglin Li,et al.  Performance of electromyography recorded using textile electrodes in classifying arm movements , 2011, 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  Robert D. Lipschutz,et al.  Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. , 2009, JAMA.

[5]  Dick H. Plettenburg,et al.  Bernstein’s Levels of Construction of Movements Applied to Upper Limb Prosthetics , 2012 .

[6]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG) , 1996, American journal of industrial medicine.

[7]  A. Heinemann,et al.  Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[8]  John M. Miguelez,et al.  Evolution of microprocessor based control systems in upper extremity prosthetics , 2003 .

[9]  Mario Baum Search Engines For The World Wide Web , 2016 .

[10]  F Franchignoni,et al.  Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales: A Psychometric Assessment Using Classical Test Theory and Rasch Analysis , 2010, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[11]  S. Jamieson Likert scales: how to (ab)use them , 2004, Medical education.

[12]  Alcimar Soares,et al.  The Development of a Virtual Myoelectric Prosthesis Controlled by an EMG Pattern Recognition System Based on Neural Networks , 2004, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[13]  C. Light,et al.  Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[14]  Erik Scheme,et al.  Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: state of the art and challenges for clinical use. , 2011, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  E. Biddiss,et al.  Upper-Limb Prosthetics: Critical Factors in Device Abandonment , 2007, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[16]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and head) , 1996 .

[17]  L. Resnik,et al.  Development and evaluation of the activities measure for upper limb amputees. , 2013, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.