The effect of powered prosthesis control signals on trial-by-trial adaptation to visual perturbations

Powered prostheses have the potential to restore abilities lost to amputation; however, many users report dissatisfaction with the control of their devices. The high variability of the EMG signals used to control powered devices likely burdens amputees with high movement uncertainty. In able-bodied subjects uncertainty affects adaptation, control, and feedback processing, which are often modeled using Bayesian statistics. Understanding the role of uncertainty for amputees might thus be important for the design and control of prosthetic devices. Here we quantified the role of uncertainty using a visual trial-by-trial adaptation approach. We compared adaptation behavior with two control interfaces meant to mimic able-bodied and prosthesis control: torque control and EMG control. In both control interfaces, adaptation rate decreased with high feedback uncertainty and increased with high mean error. However, we did observe different patterns of learning as the experiment progressed. For torque control, subjects improved and consequently adapted slower as the experiment progressed, while no such improvements were made for EMG control. Thus, EMG control resulted in overall adaptation behavior that supports Bayesian models, but with altered learning patterns and higher errors. These findings encourage further studies of adaptation with powered prostheses. A better understanding of the factors that alter learning patterns and errors will help design prosthesis control systems that optimize learning and performance for the prosthesis user.

[1]  R C Miall,et al.  System Identification Applied to a Visuomotor Task: Near-Optimal Human Performance in a Noisy Changing Task , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  Philip N. Sabes,et al.  Calibration of visually guided reaching is driven by error-corrective learning and internal dynamics. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  Elaine Biddiss,et al.  Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[4]  E L Morin,et al.  Sampling, noise-reduction and amplitude estimation issues in surface electromyography. , 2002, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[5]  Alexander W Dromerick,et al.  Feedforward control strategies of subjects with transradial amputation in planar reaching. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

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

[7]  Michael S Landy,et al.  Combining Priors and Noisy Visual Cues in a Rapid Pointing Task , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning , 2004, Nature.

[9]  Konrad P. Körding,et al.  Uncertainty of Feedback and State Estimation Determines the Speed of Motor Adaptation , 2009, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[10]  Paul R. Schrater,et al.  Effects of visual uncertainty on grasping movements , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  Jonathon W. Sensinger,et al.  User-Modulated Impedance Control of a Prosthetic Elbow in Unconstrained, Perturbed Motion , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

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

[13]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Relevance of error: what drives motor adaptation? , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  N. Birbaumer,et al.  Does use of a myoelectric prosthesis prevent cortical reorganization and phantom limb pain? , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  Andrew Jackson,et al.  Learning a Novel Myoelectric-Controlled Interface Task , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.